I have many times shared my personal opinion that King Brown appears to be one of our closet Anti-Second Amendment guys who post here on an obviously gun related website. Although King poses as a hunter and shooter, and gets a pass from many because of his age, he has been spending a great deal of time as of late trying to refute the 2nd Amendment, the RKBA, and the methods of our NRA in countering the constant assault on our gun rights.

Here is a direct quote from King Brown, this morning, where he is preaching anti-Second Amendment dogma once again, and using anti-gun propaganda from "The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence":



This is from the "Contraception Mandate..." thread, post #371726, and is in support of his earlier anti- 2nd Amendment statement in the same thread in post #371710. Here is my reply to him, and I do hope all will take a moment to read the link from 2nd Amendment scholar David Kopel, which shows the truth about what King is saying, and where it all comes from.

yawn...

Another anti-gunner heard from!

Keith:
I have just gotten to the point where it's better to just ignore them. They bring NOTHING of value to this forum and attempt at every turn to disrupt those that do.
I'd boot ther collective asses off here in a instant if I had the power to do so as is done on most other gun related forums.
I have better things to do then engage in useless debates with Libtard foolsI wil continue to post informative items that I think the majority here appreciate.

Keith:
I have just gotten to the point where it's better to just ignore them. They bring NOTHING of value to this forum and attempt at every turn to disrupt those that do.
I'd boot their collective asses off here in a instant if I had the power to do so as is done with anti-gun disruptors on most other gun related forums.
I have better things to do then engage in useless debates with Libtard fools. I will continue to post informative items that I think the majority here appreciate.

No. He is what is often referred to as sensible gun owner. I used to fit into that category until I bought.......Oh, never mind.

Are you telling us that you used to repeat anti-gun propaganda from anti-gun organizations until you bought the AKM and large cap magazines?

How does submitting anti-gun propaganda on a DoubleGun website make you a sensible gun owner? I think it makes you an anti-gunner. Of course, you are a "Hope and Change" kind of guy Jagermeister, aren't you?

Jim, I couldn't debate King if I wanted to, because he is still pretending to ignore me. I will still counter his many Liberal Socialist lies and his anti-Second Amendment bullshit. And I felt it was important to put his Anti-gun statement in its' own thread rather than in a Contraception thread that might be overlooked by many who would otherwise still think King is pro gun.

well he hates the NRA and stand up for the worst president-and most antigun ever !

keith: you an sxs are what gun control advocates call "gun nuts" and "nra fanatics"...otherwise known as self focused, irrational individuals who refuse to even discuss the issue of firearms possession in this country and the possible restriction of some types of firearms, in order to promote the general welfare of all...

you appear to ignore the views of millions and millions of our fellow citizens and their worries about the enormous number of semi automatic high capacity firearms, now in the hands of the general public...and your rigid, facist like dogma regarding the second amemdment does far more harm to the cause of maintaining our gun possession rights than you may know...or is it that you do know and therefore, continue to fan the fires of distrust and discord...aka isis...insidiously slick internet subversives. the two of you seemed to be determined to drive wedges between the American people? what is this? some kind of terrorist divide and conquer scheme, where no one listens to anyone anymore and no one respects the opinion of others unless they are in complete accord with your own?

please, give us all a break from your anti gunner nonsense...it aint interesting anymore...just redundantly boring.

an dave, I like your new charts an graphs.

this misfires place is weird.

I mean, some register here with no information about themselves beyond a user name...then they spew hate and venom here most every day...they artfully discourage civil discourse about many current issues...so, what are we to think? who are they anyway? isis?

The farmer decided he wanted bacon and three eggs for breakfast. After long negotiations the chicken agreed to compromise and let him have two of her eggs. But the hard headed, extreme, radical, uncompromising, nutty, narrow minded hog refused to even budge an inch in his conversations with the farmer.

The Second Amendment was intended to protect the private ownership of military weapons by honest citizens. Those weapons were to be used for both personal defense and participation in a militia.

Ed,

I usually don't respond to your posts. I consider you somewhat innocuous, despite your proclivity for "creative" alterations of double guns. You own'em and although I might disagree with your concepts of repair and restoration, they're your property.

In this thread, things are a little different.

Here's a question:

Just who in H%ll do you think you are to pass judgement on other's who are your free and equal citizens about how they exercise their Constitutional rights? These people here are not criminals, although you obviously desire that they become ones. Obviously, you think the the concepts of freedom and equality only apply to YOU. That's typical of people of your ilk, you have no problem supporting sociopathic politicians/policies who are more than happy to take other's freedoms away. Then you demonize them and call them names. Why would you possibly consider it any of your business?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Yes Mike:
That's what the founding fathers clearly intended when they wrote the Constitution. However here's the opinion of one of the Supreme Court Justices who took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Her utter contempt of this document is well documented.
Jim



As an Aside: We've had trouble with Libtard appointees to the Supreme Court at least since Eisenhauer appointed Earl Warren. Ike claimed this was the biggest mistake he made as President.

mike: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

it don't say nothin here about military weapons ...it just says we have the right to keep and bear arms, in the context of a well regulated militia. you may think it means something else. but that aint what hit says.

and if you think it pertains to military weapons only, many, myself included will disagree with you...

ken: well, I don't know who these other citizens are that you refer to...for that matter, I don't even know who you are? are you an American citizen? i am one and i can prove it.

and as for supporting sociopathic politicians, I am currently promoting rick perry for pres. i was not aware that he was a sociopath and looking to take away any of our rights. i read his book. did you? appears like he would like to restore some of our rights, if you can believe what he says in his book.

ed the militias used the same firearms as the military when the amendment was written.

Do you think "keep and bear arms" meant bows and arrows? Or slingshots? Or rocks?

And I never said it "pertains to military weapons only".

[quote=italiansxs]Yes Mike:
That's what the founding fathers clearly intended when they wrote the Constitution. However here's the opinion of one of the Supreme Court Justices who took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Her utter contempt of this document is well documented.
Jim

jim: how do you know what the founding fathers clearly intended when they wrote the Constitution? were you there? course not. so, all you really know is what they wrote. everything else after that is interpretation by others, like you, me, mike, and yes, even justice Ginsburg, etc.

there is one thing that is clearly documented in this misfires forum...you and a few others here have utter contempt for those here who do not march in lock step to your views...so much for a republican democracy...

When Ben Franklin was carried from the constitutional convention in September of 1787, he was stopped in the street by a woman who said, “Mr. Franklin, what have you wrought?” Franklin said, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

mike: it is true that the militias used the same firearms as the regular army. specifically 69 and 75 caliber smoothbore muskets...but the second amendment don't say nuttin about firearms. is just says arms, which could very well include all types of weapons, including, knives, swords, spears and bows, etc. the wording of the second amendment is precise, so we all know we have the right to keep and bear arms. but what those arms are is left to interpretation, in the context of a well regulated milita...course now we get into what is a well regulated militia? that is not defined anywhere in the constitution that I am aware of.

Published by the NRA:


Thomas Jefferson on The Right to Bear Arms


"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that . . . it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

-- Letter to John Cartwright, 1824. (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (ME), Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04, 16:45.


"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."

-- Letter to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341


"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm house."

-- Letter to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432


"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."

-- Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353


"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important."

-- Letter to -----, 1803. ME 10:365


"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks."

-- Letter to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407


The above were gathered en masse from the website Thomas Jefferson On Politics & Government: Quotations from the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, compiled and edited by Eyler Robert Coates, Sr. of Metairie, Jefferson Parish, La.

The site contains more than 2,700 excerpts from Jefferson`s writings, chosen, Coates says, "not for their historical significance, but as an expression of Jefferson`s PRINCIPLES of government that have relevance for us today."

"The principles of Jefferson are the axioms of a free society."

--Abraham Lincoln

sxs: very interesting... what is your point in posting the above here?

" the wording of the second amendment is precise, so we all know we have the right to keep and bear arms. but what those arms are is left to interpretation"

So obviously "firearms", as used by the military and the militias of the time was covered and is covered. And the Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, militia or not.

PS ed, tell me what guns you would like to ban. Be specific. No more "drive-by" posts.

And who are you, ED?

You say you support Rick Perry, yet you profess views that are contrary to his. At least I'm philosophically consistent, and willing to back up my views.

mike: I agree, the right to keep and bear arms as defined by the supreme court is an individual right.

and I do not wish to ban any firearms that I can think of...

however, I do think we should discuss the possible benefits of restriction of possession of semiautomatic high capacity firearms, in order to promote the general welfare.

OK ed, first define the semi-automatic high capacity firearms you are talking about restricting. Removable magazine and/or non-removable magazine? And define at what number of rounds those magazines become "high capacity"? Rifle and/or pistol? And then tell me what the benefits are of restricting the ones you want to restrict.

Edit: And tell me what your restrictions are.

Again, be specific, no drive-by posts.

I think we should restrict hacks and thieves who torch guns then sell them to unsuspecting buyers-with deceptive pictures and then attack other who sell guns he does not deal in.

Ed right down there with your hypocrisy is the "I got mine and screw every one else" attitude you have-what a despicable low life you are and from the " Live Free Or Die" state you should know better but your too much of a inbred coward to realize it.

ed you can torch all the guns you want I don't give a shit but Jim, DaveK, keith, PA24, Ken61, myself and a host of others will be damned if we're going to let you torch our 2nd Ammendment. Go back to your drug/alcohol induced coma or better yet go sit in the neighbor kid's sandbox and dig for cat turds. Just get the hell out of our faces.

Mike I'm not going to donate to the ban ed good fund. Instead I cut another donation check to the NRA. God Bless them.

ken: please splan what views I profess that are contrary to those philosophically held by rick perry? I don't know of any. do you? have you read rick perry's book. I have.

and if you really want to know who I am, log on to gunsamerica.com and search for items for sale by ed good.

and who and what are you?

mike: you are sounding like you wish to have a serious, respectful discussion here?

however, based upon our other communications on this web site, I quite frankly question your sincerity and your mental stability.

I mean, are you the same mike that started a thread here advocating my permanent banning from posting here?

and are you the same mike, when you get agitated, goes into a repetitive posting pattern that reminds one of a stuck phonographic needle?

cuse me if I appear a little "gun shy" here (pun intended)

If you want to have serious and respectful discussion with me about this topic answer the questions in my previous post.

Otherwise, you are just baiting and trolling.

The issue is, and always has been, that of criminality. Criminals use guns to commit crimes, such is their morality. There are plenty of laws on the books to deal with this, it's just that they are not enforced. What is happening in Chicago is a prime example. In effect, the system is CAUSING the crisis, so the statists can attempt to disarm our population of free and equal citizens. "Fast and Furious" was another example, the Obama administration creating the crisis as a way to rationalize weapons confiscation from law-abiding, free and equal citizens. This is the way totalitarians have always done it, disarm the public so it cannot defend itself from Tyranny. Law-abiding citizens should be able to own military weapons, including fully automatic ones. It is the morality of the person who pulls the trigger and commits the crime that is the real issue, not the weapon.

ok mike. lets give it a try...

first, if you are not familiar with it already, then google the nfa act of 1934, where the federal government restricted the possession of certain classes of firearms.

then research the back ground for why that law was enacted. what was going on the the country in the early thirties that caused the congress and the president to approve such restrictive firearms legislation?

then, just for the fun of it, research the official position of the nra regarding that law at that time.

ken: now your last post had a lot worth while to say...

you get no argument or disagreement here from me with what you posted above.

however, millions of our fellow citizens are fearful of what happens when very destructive firearms get into the hands of criminals. we need to respect their fears, instead of ingnoring them and calling others who do not agree with us, names like libertard, etc.

hell, I don't even know what a libertard is. no one here will tell me.

That is all interesting information and history ed. But you wanted to have a discussion about the benefits of restricting the possession of certain firearms now available:



So lets have that discussion. You can start by defining what guns you would restrict and what those restrictions are. Then we can discuss the "possible benefits".

This is the third time I have asked these questions. If you don't answer them then you are just baiting and trolling.

The Chicago Police are no more capable of controlling criminal access to guns as they are to drugs or even alcohol during Prohibition.
Prohibition was one of the 1st general applications of the law of unintended consequences. The well meaning and generally Christian females(WCTU) who made up the core of this movement thought that if they could eliminate the source of drunkeness that all the social problems associated with it would go away.
When there is a high demand for a product such as alcohol and unfortunately drugs some entrapeneur will step in and meet this demand with a supply. The Primarily Italian Mafia, which was a minor criminal player, until prohibition took off like a rocket and met the demand. The vast majority of society still wanted alcohol and were willing to break the law to get it and did in numbers that can only be imagined.
This was probably the 1st instance of the bulk of the citizenry flaunting a law and I think this led to a disrespect for the law in general that exists today. It also was the springboard for large organized crime which still plagues us.
The gun grabbers some of which we are unfortunaely plagued with here won't be satisfied until every firearm in private hands is confiscated and destroyed.
We currently have 20,000 gun laws at the Federal and State level today NONE of which will in any way deter the gang bangers and dopers on the South Side of Chicago from possessing and illegally using guns.

As an additional point: I'm essentially through with responding to the Libtard gun grabbers here. It's a complete waste of time. I will continue to post information that I believe the majority of the membership here wants to see based upon thd PMs and emails I've received.
I've always had a hard time coping with stupidity and ignorance.

well mike, I will try to answer your questions in the context of the spirit of the nfa of 1934. too bad, you will not take the time to research it...anyway, lets agree for now that restricting is not the same as banning?

as to which specific firearms to restrict? there is no single answer, except that those details should be determined by the governing authority enacting the legislation. the needs of each state and each city are too variable for a blanket recommendation. semiauto handguns with a removeable magazine would be high on many lists, I would suspect; as this particular class of firearms are used in a high percentage of criminal shootings, I would suspect?

what are the benefits? certainly peace of mind for many...plus, many states here in the east restrict hand gun possession. most notably New York and Massachusetts. it has been claimed for years that those hand gun restrictions have resulted in a decrease in the criminal use of hand guns. course there are those that will argue to the contrary...however, logic does dictate that the less of an item there is, then the less it will be utilized, be it for legal or criminal purposes...point is, you can still possess handguns in ny and mass, but it aint easy to do so... so, per capita, those states with hand gun restrictions, have a relatively lower percentage of hand gun possession, than say where you are in texas and hence a lower percentage per capita of criminal shootings with handguns?

sxs: "The gun grabbers some of which we are unfortunately plagued with here won't be satisfied until every firearm in private hands is confiscated and destroyed."

who are these gun grabbers you speak of here? have never seen any member posting here that advocates confiscation and destruction of firearms. certainly not I. and certainly not king...

are you sure you know what forum you are posting on? or are you just playing the old keith game, where, if you tell somebody something enough times they will begin to believe it?

Where do I begin?

If you want to bring the NFA into the discussion please feel free to do so. Please quote it, reference it, quote the 1934 NRA. Knock yourself out.

There has been no argument from me that restrictions are the same as banning. Please stop straw-manning me. Serious and respectful - remember.

We can't discuss the benefits here unless we know what your proposed restrictions are and what firearms they will be applied to. We can't possibly have a debate over any "possible benefits" from "restriction of possession" without defining the restrictions.



If you don't answer these questions now I will know you are just baiting and trolling and not interested in a serious and respectful discussion.

No Ed,

I don't need to "respect their fears" when it comes to my individual freedom and liberty. By that logic, if someone "fears" a person or that person's behavior they could be declared a criminal. That's what statist religious demonization is all about. You morally demonize first, that leads to dehumanization, and then you can willfully oppress them. You'd better believe that the average German had some level of "fear" about the Jews. Soon they were "Rattenvolk" and fit for extermination. The same thing happened in the Soviet Union, and the democrats are attempting the same thing here. Now, those believing in individual freedom and equality are Racists, Bigots, Sexists, and Homophobes. Merely the first step in the process.

Ken, we've demonized Muslims in North America, unfairly in my opinion, mostly as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attack. Muslims have been part of America since transported from Africa as slaves and, according to some members, one now resides in the White House. Is this another example of statist religious demonization?

Nope..since Muslims are responsible for most of the worlds terrorism.

Not to mention their campaign of terror anywhere they grow commanding everyone to convert or die.

If all the Muslims every dropped dead tomorrow...the world would be a significantly more peaceful place for everyone else.

It's amazing how long this topic has lasted. Correctly identifying the philosophical basis for a faith-based belief is not demonization. Not all Muslims believe in Islamic Fundamentalism, which, is sociopathic in nature as it forcibly inflicts it's dogma on non-believers at the expense of their individual freedom and liberty. That is the distinction. Any Muslim is free to believe in it, it is crossing the line to unconstitutional infliction that is the point. Identifying that aspect of the ideology, the most extreme form being the commission of violence against those who do not hold your beliefs is rightly identified and is not demonization.

This topic has been debated on this board since the 1990's, especially after the time of the first World Trade Center truck bombing. Back then I was an active poster and the board was called "Gunshop.com". In fact, the topic was so hot it was taking over the board, and I take humble credit to be the first one to suggest to Dave that a separate forum be established to discuss political issues. I had done quite a bit of research on Islamic Fundamentalism back in the 1980's, I had written one fairly extensive paper detailing the belief as clearly one of the most volatile forces active in the world, and that it would only continue to grow stronger.

Individual religious belief in America is protected under the "Free Expression" clause of the Constitution. When it crosses the line and becomes sociopathically inflictive as a determining philosophy of the government, it violates the "Establishment" clause. And yes, Islamic Fundamentalism is another form of Religious Statism.

I contacted Dave to see if I could retrieve my username from the 1990's, but evidently all the data of the old board is on a different format and is not easily retrievable. I believe I was called "RngrKen", or "RangerKen" or some similar name. That was back in the days (as I remember) when folks like Oscar Gaddy and others were still posting, and I was able to start accumulating knowledge that I am fully using today.

Many Americans do not feel comfortable with groups they're unfamiliar with. At another forum where I spend most of my net time there are many alarms by people claiming he came to my door, but "he was not from this neighborhood", "he did not belong here". The same holds for Muslims. Most that do not like them probably never met one.

That's a common cultural characteristic. I've lived in a close-knit farming community for over ten years. Yet, whenever I walk into a bar, everyone still looks at me like I'm a "stranger in town", because I'm not a member of one of the six or seven dominant families in the area.

Here is a decent deal:
nice member from another forum stated 8/...ne used to say.
I have few ribless Chinese with blued finish, but while they look nice those also oxidize more easily than dull finish Russian ones.

I started this thread based on my opinion that King Brown has, at least for the last year-and-a-half, been an anti-gun troll operating as a gun guy on a Double Gun forum. I posted direct quotes from King that I feel support this notion.

However, the discussion has been dominated for the last several pages by ed, who is simply dense and stupid beyond belief.

ed, you keep asking who I am. You ask if I am ISIS? What the hell is that supposed to mean? If I post my full name, address, e-mail, phone number, and GPS coordinates... what difference will it make?

You keep bringing up the NFA of 1934. We have discussed that at length in other threads. It strictly regulates certain weapons, but it also permits law abiding citizens to pay a tax, pass a backround check, and own and shoot full-automatic weapons. So what? I know a guy who had a fully functional Japanese anti-aircraft gun and ammunition in his garage. He lived close to an International Airport, but he never shot down a 747. He was not a criminal, so he was not a problem. Some people may fear that just as some people fear semi-automatics or even revolvers and single shot .22s. I fear what Libtards are doing to this country. Can we ban them, deport them, or imprison them because I fear their actions? They really are a problem. They kill unborn babies and parole violent criminals. They take my hard earned money in ever higher taxes, and redistribute it to lazy people. They spend money we don't have. And they permit illegal aliens to violate federal law without repercussions. They break a lot more laws than 99.9% of gun owners. Can we take away their liberties ed?


Just last week, you were endorsing going back to a time when the borders of the U.S. were wide open with no immigration policy. I asked you if you were suggesting that we go back to a time of no nation and no laws, which of course would include your precious NFA of 1934. You gave no answer. You see a problem with law abiding gun owners who own and shoot certain guns that you don't like and that some people fear, yet you see no problem with millions of people breaking the law, crossing illegally into our country, stealing work, evading taxes, stealing goods and services from taxpayers, etc. How stupid can you get?

You constantly remind us that you read books. You ask us if we read. Yet you cannot read with comprehension. You are wasting your time reading. You are functionally illiterate. You do not understand what you read. You are a total dumb-ass.

Jim, Mike, myself, and others have taken the time to provide references to the writings of the Founders. There are The Federalist Papers, contemporary editorials, letters, personal correspondance, and books written by the Founders that explain what their intent was when they wrote the Constitution and the Amendments...including the Second Amendment. This is what Constitutional scholars use to interpret original intent. This is what Supreme Court Justices are SUPPOSED to use to interpret original intent. You and King and Leftist Liberal Judges who legislate from the bench totally ignore and/or subvert the original intent and look for twisted meanings and loopholes to support your own personal biases and agendas. This is a violation of a sworn oath taken by judges, and both ignorant and dishonest on the part of you and King.

I almost always agree with Mike. He thinks you are baiting and trolling us. I respectfully disagree. I think you are too dumb to do that. You act like an autistic child.

You lecture us about keeping your threads on topic. Either get back on topic or start your own idiotic thread about the NFA of 1934 and your own anti-gun behavior. This thread is about the anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment/ anti-NRA activities of another anti-gun troll.

I support NRA and NRA-PVF. I do not think Kingsley Brown is antigun. Doesn't he own one of those automatic Stren guns? Most anti-gun folks are deathly afraid of those contraptions. Ed seems to support notion of reaching out to moderates who are fearful of guns. That is not a bad idea. The virulent anti-gun people like "Mas' Demanding Action" aren't worth engaging.

Jagermeister, did you read the anti-gun words from King Brown yesterday? Did you see him quoting the anti-Second Amendment words of ex-SCOTUS Justice Warren Burger? Have you seen him suggesting that gun owners make concessions to the anti-gunners? Have you read his words where he frequently criticizes the very successful tactics of the NRA? Did you ever see the bloviating braggart tell us of even one thing he has done to prevent or reverse anti-gun laws in his own country?

King says he once owned a Sten... not Stren gun, but got rid of it when the gun laws in Canada became too strict. King says a lot of things that are pure bullshit. Obama says he shoots skeet, and Kerry says he deer hunts by crawling on his belly with his trusty 12 ga. double barrel shotgun. King has lied to us way too often for me to believe much of anything he says. And there are plenty of vehement anti-gunners who want to outlaw our guns while they either have their own, or utilize armed bodyguards, like Mayor Bloomberg and George Soros.

Did you happen to see how King dishonestly starined logic and truth to find a loophole in the Oath of Office which allows him to not uphold the law... his own words from post # 371140:



ed is just a simpleton. He could read the whole Library of Congress and not understand a thing. He appears to be mentally ill as well. If you think we should cave to "moderates" who fear guns, we might as well just give them all up now. There is no middle ground with them, and you should start by torch cutting the receiver of your new AKM and smashing your 30 round magazines. You say it's not a bad idea to reach out to them, so do it. Give up what your so-called "moderates" fear and don't like. Show us you mean what you say. Or are you just talking through your a$$ again?

You don't make a lot of sense either most of the time.

Jager, some members are bribing Dave to ban Ed from the board--- an insult to the visionary who gave us this wonderful place---and now are trailing a red herring of me as an anti-gunner hostile to gun rights and the Second to promote a similar fate for me. They won't accept Dave's injunction If you don't like it, don't read it. Clearly, it's please Dave it's getting hot, rid us of members who have a different opinion from ours. Imagine!

Clearly, it's more hypocrisy from the whining old crybaby who constantly complains about misbehavior and bad manners and incivility in Misfires... and also lies about racism, intolerance, and misogyny.

Why don't you just follow your own advice and take "Dave's injunction, if you don't like it, don't read it."??? What's good for the Goose is good for the anti Second Amendment Liar King.

And just look at the official Misfires prevaricator, now crying foul about the alleged red herring of him as an anti-gun troll. I've enumerated many of your anti-Second Amendment/anti-NRA behaviors King. Are you running away from your own words King? Are you going to deny what any fool can go back to page one and read? Want a pile of post numbers with your anti-Second Amendment/anti-NRA words? I've been saving them King. Who quoted ex-Justice Warren Burger's anti-Second Amendment sentiments which I reproduced in your own words on the first page of this thread King? You even went as far as to allude that the Court agreed with Burger in the Heller decision. Well, no... not unless you were talking about the four Leftist Liberal dissenting Justices who wish to legislate from the bench and ignore original intent, as you do. The link I provided from Dave Kopel explains that quite well.



You think our notions are wacky King... notions which incidentally agree with the majority decision in Heller and McDonald, and run counter to yours, ed's, nca225, homer, and a few other Libtard Constitutional scholars. How the hell are we supposed to construe your words and deeds? You are not our friend King. You provide absolutely nothing that would help us preserve our Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. You dishonestly maintain that there is no credible threat to our gun rights when you know Heller and McDonald were decided by 5-4 decisions, and that Obama's anti-gun iniatives after Newtown were brought to the floor of the Senate by a majority vote. You have done absolute zero to help the cause of gun rights in your own country. And now, after all this... you call it a red herring to have the opinion that you are an anti-gun/ anti-Second Amendment/anti-NRA troll?

Are you going to lie yet again and say I put words in your mouth? Does this mean you are done dishonestly pretending to ignore me? I guess it really is getting hot. Now you're running scared that we'll be starting a pledge drive to get rid of you. Well, it won't come from me. I have too much fun exposing your many lies and watching you pervert the truth and make a total as$ of yourself in the process.

But maybe one day soon, Dave W., visionary that he is, will have had enough of the vermin here who subvert exactly what he has done so much to promote. Maybe he will recall how much you pissed him off by polluting the Second Amendment thread with your bullshit. Maybe he'll boot your slimy asses without any monetary consideration... just because it's long overdue.

Don't like it... don't read it. And remember, dishonesty is not civility.

keith: your last few posts are amazing examples of bloviation...so many words. so little said.

sum rize it for me, if you would...

I did like the part about the torch being used for purposes other than coloring shotgun receivers...

jaeger: be careful expressing views here that keith may not like...otherwise, you too may be branded an anti gunner and demonized...

keith may claim to be a supporter of the 2nd amendment, but he shore don't like the first all that much? you know, the one about freedom of speech...

If you are suddenly such an ardent suppporter of the First Amendment ed, why are you trying to shut me up?

And why didn't you answer even one of my questions?? Afraid, or just too dumb? No one has branded you as being an anti-gunner. Both you and King have done a very good job of branding yourselves. I merely point out the obvious.

So if you'd like me to summarize for you... You and King are both anti-Second amendment/anti-gun/anti-NRA trolls. King is more agenda driven than you, and a whole lot more dishonest. You, on the other hand, are a brainless idiot who can't possibly understand the meaning behind the Second Amendment even if you made the effort. You don't really care if everyone sees how stupid you are. You wear your stupidity like a peacock wears feathers. King is horrified that everyone finally understands how dishonest he is. He still thinks most of us don't know. You don't care if you get bounced from this board because that's probably your goal anyway. King is terrified that he'll get the boot because he desperatly needs an outlet for his Leftist Liberal lies, including his anti-Second Amendment crap. King lies so much that he might actually explode without a place to vent off the pressure of so much dishonesty.

why keith, I support all of the original 10 amendments to the constitution. my favorite though is the 10th. anyway, please explain how I am trying to shut you up? did I launch an insane fund raising campaign to have you banned from here? I think not.

sorry, I did not answer your other questions, but frankly, I don't know what they are. gotta realize I only skim most of your writings as the are just to tedious. and neither king nor myself have branded ourselves anything, as far as I know. you of course can certainly come to as many erroneous conclusions as you wish.

keith, you appear to suffer from an extreme case of narrow mindedness...especially when it pertains to your view of the second amendment. to me the second amendment says what is says, nothing more and nothing less:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

what else does it say to you?

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution not only deal with the collective rights of the people but the individual as well.

ed, if I had to rate your IQ by your knowledge of the United States Constitution, I would put it maybe one or two clicks above plant life.

ed, this, in case you hadn't noticed, is a firearms related forum. Virtually all of us are here due to a passion for shooting, hunting, and/or collecting guns. So why does it surprise you that I, a Benefactor Member of the NRA, dedicate myself more toward the protection of the Second Amendment than the others? I see the Second as the safety net, or insurance, that the People have to protect them from a Government that could trample all of the other Amendments.

You say you don't even know what my questions from this morning even are. So you admit to being stupid, and only having the ability to skim over writing without comprehension?

Now, where does it say in the Second Amendment, that I may not own either a full auto machine gun, or a shotgun with a 16" barrel? Where does it say you can enact a NFA of 1934 to collect a tax on the People for wishing to own or shoot certain weapons that fools like you don't like or fear?

What does "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed." mean to you?... either with or without the first part.

Oh, I'm sorry ed. Didn't mean to put you on the spot. For a minute, I forgot that you are, at best only semi-literate, and mentally retarded. Never mind ed.

You really know absolutely nothing about me or anyone else here. You are only capable of skimming what you read, and you don't have the brains to understand. You are an immature fool and a total waste of time.

This thread is about the anti-Second Amendment activities of King Brown anyway. Only a dumbass like you would think I should be talking about the quartering of soldiers, the right to a jury trial, illegal search and siezure, or State rights... like Arizona's right to secure its' borders from illegal immigrants, drug smugglers, and terrorists when the Federal Gov't. refuses to uphold the law and the will of Congress or the People.

Don't bother asking any more questions.

SHHH:

Be very very careful. Obama doesn't know we have amendments past the 5th And was unaware of that one until His IRS resident Bimbo Lerner had to use it in order to avoid spilling the beans and some serious jail time.
If he should find out there's more amendments he'll have a whole additional set of freeedoms to try and trample on.
Jim

You have a point Jim. I guess math wasn't our current leader's forte..............like when he visited 57 states.

keith: I just cant be bothered trying to communicate with you. you are just too irrational for me.

Thanks for bringing my thread about King Brown's anti-Second Amendment statements and actions back to the top. Dumbass.

I do like this line of logic from Constitutional Scholar ed good. We can apply it to other Amendments as well!

Since English was the language of common usage at the time of the Bill of Rights, we can ban or limit other languages under the First Amendment. Only English speech would be covered under the free speech clause. We could legally pass the equivalent of a NFA of 1934 and enact a $200.00 tax on every Spanish language sign in Home Depot or Lowes, and totally ban Spanish language TV broadcasts, since there were none in 1789.

We could also put a $200.00 transfer tax on aborted fetuses since abortion was not legal or practiced at the time of the Constitution. Hey, why not make it $20,000 and use the money to pare down the defecit?

We could logically have warrantless searches and siezures of computers since there was no such technology in 1789. This would especially apply to computers with Spanish or Muslim content on their hard drives. What kind of sick stuff is on your hard drive ed?

Hell, we could ban or strictly regulate all electronic communications, for as ed would agree, the First amendment don't say nuttin' about TV's, radios, or computers.

And of course, it is true that the Constitution does not anywhere define what a well regulated Militia consists of. All we have is the original intent of the Framers... and this... the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

How utterly inconvenient for dumbasses who only skim instead of reading and comprehending.

As an aside, I wonder where the anti-Second Amendment fraud King Brown went. He's probably hanging out with his new buddies, the Koch brothers.

Furthermore:
In regard to the 1st Amendment it really only applied to the facilities available at it's inception. These were primarily issuing broadsides and orating from stumps. Therefore ALL other forms of communication that have evolved since should be exempt from 1st Amendment protection.
The is the same dumb argument the Libtards use when the claim that modern personal weaponery couldn't have been envisioned back them so it should be exempt from 2nd Amendment protection as well.
This is why I have quit responding to anything these idiots bring up because their arguments when they even have then are lamebrained.

"In regard to the 1st Amendment it really only applied to the facilities available at it's inception. These were primarily issuing broadsides and orating from stumps. Therefore ALL other forms of communication that have evolved since should be exempt from 1st Amendment protection."

sxs: careful, if that same interpretation was applied to the second amendment as well...and I could have only one gun, it would be a brown bess...what about you?

Look at the brilliance of Constitutionl Scholar and anti-gun-- gun dealer, ed good! He has reaffirmed the point I made about the dangers of attempting to modify any of the Bill of Rights Amendments to suit his own personal whims and biases.

If he thinks the government should be able to restrict the kind of weapons we use because they did not exist during the Revolutionary war period, then using the same logic, we could search ed's computer hard drive without a warrant, or even banish Teleprompters.

And without a Teleprompter, Obama would never have gotten through his first Primary vote, let alone become the first mulatto president. ed and King's hero Obama would have come off as the stuttering stumblebum cocaine burn-out he is... although only someone who is dillusional or dishonest could possibly characterize him as either cerebral or eloquent... which reminds me... where is our dillusional and dishonest Nova Scotian anyway???

Thanks again for moving this thread back to the top ed. Folks need to know who the Anti-Gunners among us are!

Not to worry, I'm sure some one with a pen would only trim out the semi autos. So, yes, you can have a bess, race neutral. There should be ever more fees, taxes and haz mat hoops to jump through, cuz the crooks don't have to. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't want the bess do you. Hmmm, that may be a problem, we can process that request over in our criminal division.

nother interesting theory about the first amendment:

one has the right to speak, but one does not have the right to be heard...

not sure how I feel about that? how bout you?

ZZZZZZZZZ, ooops, hang on, not my nap yet. Thank you, I feel good, and yourself.

Great answer craig... more than adequate for someone like ed who only has the intellect to skim without comprehension anyway.

No sense wasting a good and thoughtful reply on an anti-gun idiot! But I do appreciate the fact that ed is keeping my thread about King Brown's many anti-Second Amendment/anti-NRA statements at the top of the page. And he's reminding everyone that he is another of our anti-gun trolls. Great when a plan comes together.

His buddy King is likely hanging out with his new friends, the Koch Brothers, as he hopes this thread fades into obscurity. Well, it's not... thanks to ed. And when it does, I'll be there to add another of King's anti-Second Amendment quotes to bring it back to life!

Will that visionary, Dave W., who has done so much to promote the shooting sports and lawful ownership of firearms, come to King's rescue... or will he finally see that King and ed and a few other anti-gun/anti- Second Amendment/anti-NRA/anti-lead ammunition trolls are the antithesis of what he believes and loves?

What say you King? Want to ask him... or will you simply hope this all fades away as it always has?

Ed,
read Title 10 U.S.C. 311 - Militia: composition and classes.
it clearly defines what the militia is.

During WW2 thru Korean War there were more than 5.5 Million M1’s produced and more than 6.5 Million M1 Carbines produced. Over the course of the next 30 years (up to the age of the AR which pretty much started to get big in the late 80’s) millions of these were sold on the US market to civilians, through commercial channels, the CMP and other sources. Funny how you never heard of the guy with an M1 Carbine and some 30 round mags (todays parlance: “assault rifle and a bunch of high capacity magazines ) going off and shooting a bunch of people. They were available then in great numbers with even less restrictions and it didn’t happen.
Its not the weapon and magazines that fosters these murders, its more of the mental health issues that have manifested themselves in society since the whole mainstreaming movement that started after Geraldo Rivera made his bones with his expose’ on Willowbrook and the issues with the mentally ill.
What about the Mini 14? Takes hi-cap mags. You don’t hear anything about them? Why? Because they don’t have the look. That’s the basis of the “assault weapon” banning craze. These AR15’s look evil.
Don’t believe me, just look at NY SAFE Act. The current NY SAFE Act compliant AR is the same mechanism as before with no pistol grip and no muzzle brake. That’s it in a nutshell. Oh. Our illustrious governor decided that AR’s are evil and hi cap mags are too. So he made it so that you had to register you r rifles but you had to sell your magazines out of state. If they were that dangerous, why did he basically tell the other 49 states,” F you, as long as these aren’t in NY, I don’t care if the dangerous Hi cap mags flood your states. That’s your problem now suckers!!!” If Andrew Cuomo was as compassionate as he claims he is, he would have had NY buy them up from everyone to prevent these “evil, dangerous magazines” from causing any more harm. But in typical liberal hypocrisy, he didn’t.


Hey all you anti gunners here,
And this is straight form the CDC,
January 12, 2012
A new condition made CDC's most recent top causes of death list, squeezing out one 45-year mainstay.
For the report—which presents preliminary findings—CDC researchers analyzed data from state vital statistics offices. They found that 2,465,936 U.S. residents died in 2010, bringing the death rate to 798.7 per 100,000 residents, 0.5% higher than the 2009 death rate. After accounting for age distribution changes, the U.S. death rate reached a record low of 746.2 per 100,000 U.S. residents in 2010.
The top 15 causes of death in the US. Note that Assault weapons aren’t there. In fact the CDC has dropped murder form the top 15.
If you look you will see that a great number of the 15 top causes can be prevents by outlawing certain foods, beverages, product that are detrimental to one’s health. But the government wont do that. Just take away our guns instead to try and affect a miniscule portion of what ails the population. Let’s ignore all of the real dangers to the people and focus on the one that is “icky”.
According to the analysis, heart disease (#1) and cancer (#2) remained the top killers and accounted for more than half of the nation's deaths in 2010.
These two killed more than 1.2 MILLION people in the US in 2012. Yet we don’t outlaw cigarettes, tobacco products which are the product used by so many that die from these two diseases.
The other conditions that rounded out the top 15 list include:
3. Lower respiratory diseases;
4. Stroke and related cerebrovascular diseases;
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries);
6. Alzheimer's disease;
7. Diabetes;
8. Kidney diseases;
9. Influenza and pneumonia;
10. Suicide;
11. Septicemia;
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis; (ALCOHOL, why y isn’t it outlawed?)
13. Hypertension and related renal disease;
14. Parkinson's disease; and
15. Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids.

There are far more conditions and items that need the attention of the government if they truly want to reduce deaths in the US. Firearms of any kind don’t even come close to the needed level of scrutiny that the above conditions would indicate.

So Ed, King, here are a few questions for you
1. What do you consider reasonable restrictions on constitutional rights?
2. What do you think would be an effective law that would impact the use of firearms for illegal purposes yet not restrict law abiding citizens.
3. Do you think that restricting the constitutional rights of those who have done nothing wrong is acceptable to address acts being committed by criminals? In other words, do you support the theory and practice of being considered guilty until proven innocent?
4. Would you support a system that registers all persons convicted of a felony into a single data base and require them to have an ID card that shows them being a convicted felon?

brian: yep, that seems to do it. but, it don't clearly define what the unorganized militia consists of...so that is left to interpretation in the context of a "well regulated militia".

in the context of the times, a well regulated militia, could be defined as local volunteer militia companies, organized by captains holding state commissions. guess the closes thing we have to that today are volunteer fire companies...

too bad, it don't say somewhere that the militia also consists of citizen civilians, who are not necessarily well regulated. you know, like guys like me.

Brian,

ed has told us that he merely skims what he reads... and it has become obvious that he cannot comprehend what he skims, or claims to skim.

I don't think he actually even looks at any links or proof we might take the time to provide for him. It is obvious that he has his preconceived anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment notions, and no amount of proof or logic is going to change his mind.

I dedicated this thread to King Brown's many anti-2nd Amendment statements, but this post from ed is just more proof that, while King is the major international player who puts forth the most effort to undermine our gun rights... he is not alone.

We have a number of anti-gun trolls. Nearly every gun forum does. It is important to identify them and neutralize their subversions. When they prosper, our rights become diminished.

As I said earlier today, no sense wasting a good and thoughtful reply on an anti-gun idiot! But I do appreciate the fact that ed is keeping my thread about King Brown's many anti-Second Amendment/anti-NRA statements at the top of the page. And he's reminding everyone that he is another of our anti-gun trolls. Great when a plan comes together.

His buddy King is likely hanging out with his new friends, the Koch Brothers, as he hopes this thread fades into obscurity. Well, it's not... thanks to ed. And when it does, I'll be there to add another of King's anti-Second Amendment quotes to bring it back to life!

Will that visionary, Dave W., who has done so much to promote the shooting sports and lawful ownership of firearms, come to King's rescue... or will he finally see that King and ed and a few other anti-gun/anti- Second Amendment/anti-NRA/anti-lead ammunition trolls are the antithesis of what he believes and loves?

What say you King? Want to ask him... or will you simply hope this all fades away as it always has?

brian: it aint the type of weapons that bother me so much as it is the high numbers of them that are now in the hands of the public...about a half dozen north eastern states have severe restrictions on the possession of hand guns. I see you are from ny as was I until 1998. so, we are both familiar with the Sullivan law...in my opinion, laws that restrict ownership of firearms are geared to limit the number of firearms in the hands of the general public. the theory being, that if there are less guns out there, then there will be less misuse of guns...logically, that makes sense to me. but, one could also use that same logic to limit public possession of other things that are misused, such as automobiles. now, that would be an even harder sell than gun control.

See, now it isn't the type of weapons which bother ed, but the high numbers of them. He wishes to restrict the number of guns we may buy or own. Sound familiar?

I'll bet he'd have a problem if someone proposed restricting sales of bitched-up torch colored shotguns which have a leaf or sprig of parsley in the backround of the Gunbroker pictures.

We have told the several anti-gun trolls here numerous times that while the sheer number of guns in the U.S. has risen astronomically since Bill Clinton took office... especially so-called assault type guns... the incidence of murder and violent gun crime has fallen dramatically.

None of this matters to our anti-gun trolls. None of this matters to our anti-gun administration. They still look at the awful situation they created in Chicago and other places and blame the inanimate object. They simply want to gradually disarm us... right down to the last single-shot muzzleloader.

ed and King Brown & Co. are just too stupid to see that.

Maybe we could cut to your chase, let's just call a well regulated militia, criminals. 'Sep for the will to enforce, does that make you 'feel' better.

Don't worry to much if you'd rather feel more regulated, I'm sure more is to come. Are you comfortable though being lumped in with criminals, isn't it a crime to use firearms illegally. Hey, there's a thought, stage some buses at malls so after they get shot up, the shooters can dropped off at the next mall with a note pinned to their shirt saying that they should show up for their hearing in six months.

brian: here are my answers to your questions above:

1. in my view there are no reasonable restrictions on our constitutional rights...except those imposed on us by the supreme court of the land.

2. a law that may impact the use of firearms for illegal purposes would include mandatory severe prison sentences for those convicted of criminal possession and misuse of firearms. otherwise, all laws restricting the possession of firearms restrict law abide citizens, as well as criminals.

3. as good citizens we sometimes need to give up some of our rights to promote the general welfare. for example, much of our environmental practices would not be viable without the willing cooperation of good citizens. we have the right to throw our trash out the window, but good citizens do not do that.

4. yes, and I believe we do have that now, in the form of the nics system which is used by most ffl dealers for background checks. I think that is a good idea. primarily, because it makes it possible for dealers like myself to sell firearms nationwide to people they do not know and have never seen, with reasonable assurance that the firearms that pass through their hands will not be transferred to criminals.

an brian: as you are from ny and are patiently waiting for the opening of grouse season, I would love to trade ny grouse huntin stories with you...I hunted grouse mostly in eastern and central ny state in the seventies and eighties...the nineties were a low period in the cycle in ny, so I moved my hunting activities to north eastern and north central pa...sadly, there are few birds left in new england, except for northern maine. besides, I am retired now, but have many fond memories that I would love to share with you and other fellow grouse hunters.

Brian, ed's answers above are either lies, or he is more mentally ill that it appears.

1.) He keeps proposing additional restrictions on the types and numbers of guns which may be bought or owned by law abiding gun owners.

2.) He ignores the fact that there are penalties for violation of present firearms laws, and ignores the fact that the Obama Justice dept. refuses to prosecute even a tiny fraction of convicted felons who attempt to buy guns, but are stopped by the NICS check.

3.)Which Constitutional Amendment or right did we give up when the States passed anti-littering laws? This is just more evidence of illiteracy.

4.) see no.2 above. Backround checks on the law abiding are nothing more than a smokescreen, and a precursor to Registration.
See Haynes vs. the U.S. to understand this. Not you ed... you couldn't comprehend it anyway.


And if I was a N.Y. State Grouse hunter, I wouldn't give an anti-gunner like ed the dirt off my dog's paws.

brian: there seems to be some rudeness and resistance to civil discourse here...If you would like to take our discussion private, that is fine by me.

ed, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.

On second thought, why don't you hold your breath waiting.

and brian, in addition to rudeness and resistance to civil discourse, there are other attributes that define the keiths of this forum:

-notice how they jump to negative conclusions and make outrageous claims about others who express ideas that may not be in 100% agreement with their own.

-notice how they take every opportunity to tell us what we already know, over and over again.

-they do not seem to understand the concept of good citizenship. good citizens do not always have to have a law to require them to do what is right for the general welfare of all.

-by telling the same lies and making the same outrageous claims over and over again, they seem to subscribe to the theory that if you say something long enough and loud enough, people will begin to believe it...come to think of it, isn't that how Clinton and Obama got elected pres?

Are you holding your breath waiting for Brian to agree with an anti-gunner and discuss N.Y. grouse hunting with you? I sure hope so.

Please have your widow let us know where to send condolences and flowers.

oh yeah, I forgot one: meanness. there is just a lot of mean spirited posts here by a few individuals, that ruins it for the majority of us.

this could be such a wonderful forum, if the moderator would just enforce the rules:

Misfires @ doublegunshop.com – All topics that do not belong in one of the other forums can be placed here…Politics, Gun Rights, Hunting Dogs, Non-Fine Firearms, Non-Firearms…etc. Tirades and banters permitted so long as they remain cordial with no profanity, racial slurs and or other aggressive behavior towards groups or individuals. Threats, and or overt aggression and or stupidity will not be tolerated. No pornography or discussions of a sexual nature. In an effort to keep off topic posts out of the primary forums, I will give this forum a fairly wide berth so knock your-self out.
WARNING – I expect at times the material in this forum may become adult in nature and some what controversial. If you find the material offensive…don’t’ read it.

Brian, all this anti-gunner accusations is a lot of nonsense---and you know it. You've been around, seen things, been on the board long enough to know that most would be hard-pressed to name a member who's against guns, owning guns, shooting guns, collecting guns, looking at them, fixing them, reading about them, storing them in a vault etc. All or some of those interests are why members are here. I can't think of an anti-gunner here---ever.

Most of us have read voluminous statistics about homicides, massacres, risks of use compared to other activities. A few members declare their use of the board to promote their opinions and political ideologies. Fair enough, that's what Misfires is for. Most of us know that US liberals and conservatives are almost divided equally at election-time although a few members rant continually that anyone voting differently are---well, you know all the words.

There's a measure of arrogance in asking me what I consider reasonable restrictions on constitutional rights, blithely arrogating that I would restrict them. You've read my opinions of what others have said about those rights. I wrote to an American legislator and the NRA around the time of last massacre about considering how and why Canada got rid of its long gun registry. I was a active gunner in our own struggle to keep gun rights.

Here' are other statistics: Charles Darwin's signature discovery ceased to be a matter of serious debate long ago in most of the world. But 42 per cent of Americans are "not to" or "not at all" confident that all life on earth is the product of evolution. Similarly, 51 per cent are skeptical the universe started with a "big bang," and 36 per cent doubt the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. A former Playboy model with a high school education is a world-wide leader in the anti-vaccination movement.

I can understand a cock-eyed accusation about me coming from that environment. The US is being inundated by a wave of anti-science, anti-intellectual thinking to the point, from magazine articles, the country is losing its mind. But you are a citizen and serving military officer of senior responsibilities contributing to your country and community. Where's something more substantial than pernicious spite-and-spleen evidence to support your accusation? I'm no more anti-gunner than you are---and you know it.

Ed
it clearly defines both the organized and un-organized militia of the United States:

10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311#sthash.gMcAPaq7.dpuf

There are no people with anti-gun agenda on these forums. This is figment of some peoples rather vivid imagination.

brian: "the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Milita"...that's the part to me that is not clearly defined. and perhaps it was left that way on purpose?

one could interpret that the unorganized militia includes those militia units under the command of state governors.

and one could also interpret that the unorganized militia includes all citizens.

wonder if this question has ever been presented to a federal court?

ed good:

Friend to owls and doves....slayer of grouse.(the bastards!)
No.....I misquote.... hunter of grouse...no birds were harmed in his pursuits. (allegedly).

King asks, "Where's something more substantial than pernicious spite-and-spleen evidence to support your accusation? I'm no more anti-gunner than you are---and you know it." First off, Brian has accused King of nothing. I have voiced my opinion of him based upon his own words posted here. I only ask that others read and consider the evidence. Nothing pernicious.

Here's something rather substantial supporting alleged spite and spleen opinions of King's anti-gun proclivities... his own words. Once again, here is King Brown's most recent statement subverting the Second Amendment. This is from his post on 7-7-14 in post# 371726:



Here is my reply to him and a link to an article by Second Amendment Constitutional scholar David Kopel which shows that King was lying when he claimed that the Heller ruling in any way supported what Warren Burger was promoting in his infamous Parade Magazine article.:




King went on later to claim that Burger was a Conservative Supreme Court Justice. While he was nominated by Nixon, he turned out to be a flaming Liberal once on the SCOTUS, and was a major disappointment to Conservatives. Burger voted with the majority to legalize abortion in Roe v. Wade for example.

King claims that this is all nonsense... in spite of written proof to the contrary. ed good claims I am a liar without telling us where I lied or offering up a shred of evidence. Funny how these guys operate.

King has made many similar deceptive claims in the months since the Newtown shootings. His letter to Sen. McCain and the NRA was simply an attempt to convince them that concessions to the anti-gun forces was the correct path. King would never show us the text from those letters, but that is what he was proposing here as he pilloried the NRA for its' response after Newtown. The same strategy in 1968 led to the passage of GCA 1968, which put onerous restrictions on the law abiding without making even a small dent in gun crime. King has had dozens of requests to show us even one little thing he has done to preserve or promote gun rights in Canada. Still nothing, unless shooting a gun from time to time is supposed to be proof that you are an ardent supporter of gun rights. I think Obama tried that with his famous skeet shooting photo-op. Nobody's buying it.

Now King is frantically attempting to reinvent himself. But it is now too late for him to go back and delete what he has said. Everytime King posts an anti-Second Amendment remark, I put the thread, date, and post number into a notebook in my desk. The evidence file. I also have an almost full page color photo and article about John Kerry's goose hunt in Mahoning County, Ohio when he was attempting to convince Ohio gunners that he was not an anti-gun liar. I call that the Democrat I.Q.Test. It didn't work for him either.

King's newest attempt at deception is not going to work either. If he did not wish to be perceived as an anti-gun/anti-NRA/anti-Second Amendment troll, he should not have posted the things that he said. He can't put the Genie back in the bottle with more lies this time.

King, you had over a full day to come up with something better than that lame-ass response. I really expected more from an advanced liar like you.

Are you still worried that the venerated visionary Dave W. will finally take notice that you and a few other anti-gun trolls are frequently attempting to subvert the foundation of firearms freedom, and that which he has built and believes in?

Boy, I can remember the good ole days when there wasn't any demonizing. I did enjoy your facts though, kinda wished you did one of the link things to pictures of Ms Vaccination World. Just fool'in around King, I must refocus my flowery tolerance for the occasional greatness of differing opinion.

I will answer my own questions and elaborate on this line of questioning
1. What do you consider reasonable restrictions on constitutional rights?
No.
2. What do you think would be an effective law that would impact the use of firearms for illegal purposes yet not restrict law abiding citizens.
We have more than 20,000 laws on the books, form local, county, state and federal. Enforce existing law.
3. Do you think that restricting the constitutional rights of those who have done nothing wrong is acceptable to address acts being committed by criminals? In other words, do you support the theory and practice of being considered guilty until proven innocent? The act of having to participate in a background check is being guilty until proven innocent. Until you can prove (via a NICS Check) that you have no record, the assumption is that you do. Again “guilty until proven innocent.”. There is no other constitutional right that requires the procedures involved in purchasing a firearm to exercise that right.
4. Would you support a system that registers all persons convicted of a felony into a single data base and require them to have an ID card that shows them being a convicted felon? Absolutely. Criminals , by virtue of their actions have abdicated the rights of citizenship. In many states we need a firearms ID Card or permit to purchase, possesses guns and we have broken no laws. Why is it felt to be wrong, humiliating, degrading, ostracizing etc. to require a criminal to have identification indicating that they are a convicted Felon. Why is there not a database in this country that anyone can access to see who is a convicted felon? Now the trend is to eliminate asking a person if they have a criminal record on job applications. Lowers their self-esteem they say.
5. Class 3: legal in about 36 states. Suppressors, full auto. I believe that I should be allowed to won them. Why you might ask. Because I want to. Just like why people are allowed to own and drive cars that can go in excess of 150 MPH but the speed limits do not exceed 75 in this country. High performance cars, high performance firearms. I love doubles and black guns. And check the records on how many legally owned Class 3 firearms have been involved in crimes.
6. Permits: why is my drivers license good in all 50 states but not my permit? cars kill and main far more than firearms. Makes no sense. At a minimum permits should be good anywhere in the country. What’s even worse is that my NY Permit is no good in NYC but theirs are good throughout NY. Makes no sense.
7. Back ground checks. : keep the existing system and ensure that the records aren’t being kept. The proposed expanded back ground checks as proposed by the Senate after Sandy Hook were extremely restrictive and would have turned you into a felon if you lent your friend a gun to hunt with and you didn’t do a background check. That is just one example of what it would have done.

Bottom line is to show me where additional restrictions have reduced crime.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me on the current trend of wanting to allow convicted felons the right to vote again. The logic given is that they have paid their debt to society and therefore should have their rights restored. I have not heard them address the question of whether or not that would include gun ownership rights since being a convicted felon disqualifies one from owning a gun now. But they want full restoration from what I have seen.

brian: "the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Milita"...that's the part to me that is not clearly defined. and perhaps it was left that way on purpose?

one could interpret that the unorganized militia includes those militia units under the command of state governors.

and one could also interpret that the unorganized militia includes all citizens.


Ed,
the Bill Of rights was ratified when there was no Active Army. After the revolution, states still maintained their own militias called to service when needed. These have been and are now under the control of the Governor of each state unless federalized. These are the organized militias.
The unorganized militia would be those citizens not members of the organized militia or in todays parlance, not members of the National Guard.

Brian, I believe King already typed that crime was unavoidable, or at least the headline grabbing tragedies. I'd tend to assume there're other motivations?

Excellent response Brian. Too bad it was directed at an illiterate anti-gun troll with prejudice toward the 2nd Amendment and his own misguided and uneducated preconceived notions. I certainly appreciate it. Totally wasted on guys like ed, King, nca225, homer, etc.

[\quote]
Here' are other statistics: Charles Darwin's signature discovery ceased to be a matter of serious debate long ago in most of the world. But 42 per cent of Americans are "not to" or "not at all" confident that all life on earth is the product of evolution. Similarly, 51 per cent are skeptical the universe started with a "big bang," and 36 per cent doubt the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. A former Playboy model with a high school education is a world-wide leader in the anti-vaccination movement.[/quote]

Comrade King, not only do you miss the point, but you're the "Gift that Keeps on Giving".

Now, you've completely identified yourself as just another common, anti-intellectual, sociopathic, statist religious BIGOT.

When you demonize other's faith-based beliefs, you should be ready for the rebuttal of your own. The true anti-intellectual religious movement is found among religious statists like yourself. The issue is not the dogma, but the resulting morality. Since none of those christian beliefs are being sociopathically inflicted on others, your point is irrelevant since it's a matter of individual religious freedom.

Look at you own statist religious beliefs, complete with unconstitutional, sociopathic infliction and forcing free and equal citizens into involuntary exchanges of goods and service.

It's you and your ilk that are the anti-intellectual, sociopathic, religious fundamentalists.

brian: I am confused as to the differences between the national guard and the national guard of the united states. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States) for more details.

anyway, it would be nice if congress or a federal court would define for us the current meaning of, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," as referenced in the preamble of the second amendment. logic tells me that back then it was referring to the state militias and not any federal military organization, reserve or otherwise. and it did not include any other citizens who were not enrolled in a state militia...even us unregulated citizen militiamen.

Well, there's anti-gun Constitutional Scholar ed good still questioning settled law about the Militia and the Individual RKBA... and looking hard for any imagined loophole that might help him restrict our rights.

Then there's more from 2nd Amendment Scholar King Brown:



From his post # 371710. Apparently, from his perverted and confused view of the Second Amendment, King obviously finds it tragic that the High Court had the temerity to rule it unconstitutional for states and localities to place restrictions on our Constitutional right. I'm not sure how the SCOTUS rulings in Heller or McDonald increases the number of "grabbers" by ruling that D.C. or Chicago can't just arbitrarily usurp the Bill of Rights. But the Liberal Leftist Democrat grabbers have been working overtime since then to create new laws to do an end run around our Constitutional Rights. Wherever we see infringements on the 2nd, we see politicians of the same mindset as King.

But hey... King does not have an anti-Second Amendment bone in his body. If he says it... it must be true. Quotes from him to the contrary! Don't believe what he himself has said... believe the lie he later uses to cover up what he has said!

You gotta love a guy who can deny his own words with a straight face. What a fraud!

Hey King... Are you still worried that the venerated visionary Dave W. will finally take notice that you and a few other anti-gun trolls are frequently attempting to undermine the foundation of firearms freedom, and that upon which he has built this website, and believes in? Do you think sucking up to him will help? I can give you a few more flowery adjectives. How 'bout cerebral and eloquent!

Posting dimensions of US religious is not demonizing and bigotry, any more than if I had written that Americans only accepted 50-some years ago that a Catholic could be president and not accept his orders from the pope. Unusual to say the least but hardly bigotry and demonizing. Facts. Get a grip.

Comrade King, you miss my point.

You equated faith-based beliefs to anti-intellectualism. Which of course THEY ARE, that's why it's called "Faith". The difference is whether or not they are sociopathically inflicted upon others against their will. They one's you cited are not, the one's you hold certainly are. So, you're truly the anti-intellectual, unconstitutional, religious, BIGOT.

One of the biggest statist religious sociopathic scams going on is man-made global warming, based on CO2 carbon-forcing mythology. Despite being constantly scientifically refuted, the statists continue to spread the myth, and won't even try to discuss the science. Typical sociopathic religious reaction. Demonize the evil nonbelievers!

Squeal away, you little statist religious bigot, you...

brian: alas, also, notice that when one takes exception with the narrow views of some here, instead of responding with civil discourse, one is instead subjected to grade school yard name calling and bullying, including the vilest of innuendo, such as that above posted by ken against king...childish and disappointing that supposed adults conduct themselves in such a juvenile uncivil manner...here.

an brian, by the way, I don't really know or care what they are talking about...but, its ken's tone that is so disturbing to me...how do you have civil discourse with that?

there seem to be few gentle men left here.

Ed, you're funny.

My posts are a reaction against those whose beliefs deprive their fellow citizens of their constitutionally protected Freedom, Liberty, and Equality. Of course I react forcefully, as well as intellectually. If that disturbs you, I suggest you "grow up" and take responsibility for your actions and views. If you profess views that are inflictive upon others, you should expect a philosophical smack-down. Stop sniveling. Man-up, Buck-up, and attempt to take it like a Man.

Funny thing to me. He has a three in a row running conversation with himself, and he's not all that civil. Then he edits a couple of his comments, yup that helped a bunch.

In the words of pitchman Ron Popeil, "Wait, there's more!"

In this case, it's more anti-Second Amendment lies and bullshit from King Brown:



Want to hear what Mark Levin really has to say about the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment? Take 5 minutes to listen to this:

http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-the-...cal-government/

Of course, Mr. Levin realizes that the individual right to bear arms and the right of self defense are merely affirmed by the 2nd Amendment, but granted by the God that King does not believe in.

And Justice John Paul Stevens? Again we have King dishonestly attempting to characterize another Justice as a Conservative when it is well known that he was another major disappointment to Conservatives and the President who nominated him. He turned quite Liberal and most often sided with the Liberal Left wing of the Court, reaffirming Roe v. Wade and strongly supporting affirmative action. Stevens was not asked about Roe v. Wade at his confirmation hearings, so it is unknown how he felt on that when appointed.

Stevens voted with the Liberal Left minority in both Heller and McDonald. Now retired, he is preaching for a rewrite of the Second Amendment and strongly believes that the decisions in Heller and McDonald were wrong. Steven wants to add five words to the Second Amendment... the right of the People to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed. Of course, the Liberal Left will insist that there no longer is a Militia... thus, the Constitutional RKBA is obsolete. Little steps. Lies, and chipping away at it. That's the plan. And little foot-soldiers like King and ed are right here trying to make it happen.

But this illustrates King Brown's frequent dishonesty. It kind of reminds us of how OWD (Obsessed With Doubles) attempted to deceive us about Justice Elena Kagan's anti-gun fervor when she was nominated. Our anti-Second Amendment Liberals just say anything and hope that no one checks the facts. The ends justify the means, and lies and deception are just part of the game.

Then there's ed and Jagermeister who, even after all of this, will still say there are no anti-Second Amendment guys here. They would stand by their Libtard friend if we had a video of King pouring gasoline on the Constitution and setting it ablaze.

Stay tuned... there's lots more!

jager: well, now there are three of us anti gunners...welcome to this exclusive club...

ed, are you really going to deny that you have many times called for restrictions on semi-autos and high capacity magazines such as Jagermeisters AKM with his 30 rd. mags.? And didn't you also say you are concerned about the large number of guns in the U.S.? And didn't you question the definition of "arms" in the Second Amendment and say that "arms" did not mean firearms... and that the only arms covered would be .69 and .75 cal. muskets? (That's one part you edited out, but we remember) How about the Militia ed? Haven't you been dissecting the Militia of the Second Amendment looking for some way to say it no longer exists... even though the Supreme Court recognizes it and a pre-existing individual right to bear arms for both personal and national defense?





Are you either that dishonest or are you that stupid that you don't even know or remember what you post here? Skim over your posts in this thread and show us where I'm wrong.

I didn't call Jagermeister an anti-gunner ed. But he too would have to be either dishonest or very stupid to not see the anti-Second Amendment beliefs that you, King, and several other trolls ascribe to. And King too... there's another honest Boy Scout who claims he has never seen an anti-gun guy anywhere on this Forum.

So just what do you call a liar?

I don't expect you to answer this ed. I just wanted to show folks how dishonest or mentally ill you and your fellow anti-gunners are.

notice how some here continue to jump to negative conclusions and present information here about others that is simply not true. for example:

suggesting that we discuss restriction of certain classes of firearms is not the same thing as calling for it.

I am concerned about the over supply of semiautomatic firearms in the hands of the general public.

I never said that "arms" does not include firearms. and I never said that the only arms covered by the second amendment were .69 and .75 caliber muskets.

I have never suggested that the militia no longer exists.

I support the second amendment in principle. I also support the right of all levels of government to restrict and regulate firearms arms as the need dictates. and I rely upon the judicial system to determine if there are any violation of our rights under the second amendment...to bad some others do not feel likewise, as then we could talk about something else....

but, based upon the repeated not cordial posts, aggressive behavior, overt aggression and stupidity, by some who post here, I doubt it.

OK ed, thanks for settling matters. You are both stupid and dishonest.

You support the right of all levels of government to restrict and regulate firearms... yet say that is not the same as calling for it.

You now claim that you are only concerned about the numbers of "semi-automatic" firearms in the hands of the general public, but what you really said is: "brian: it aint the type of weapons that bother me so much as it is the high numbers of them that are now in the hands of the public." I quoted that entire post verbatim in my last post ed, so anyone can see that you are being dishonest about what you actually said. Too late to edit it now.

You did in fact say that "arms" would not include firearms... but as I noted, you edited that part out. You also removed your reference to .69 and .76 cal muskets and changed it to this:



Edited by ed good (Yesterday at 09:00 AM)

You have edited quite a bit in this thread actually, as has already been noted by one of the participants. You can drop a load of shit and then come back and scrape it up... but the stain is still there, as is the smell. It was in the "sxs: careful..." sentence. That sentence does not even flow well or make sense since you changed it. Nice try though. Now you want to lie about what you said and say that I am agressive, not cordial, and jumping to negative conclusions for merely repeating your own words.

There is absolutely no reason to ever discuss restriction of certain classes of firearms unless you are proposing conceding more ground to the anti-gunners. All of the discussions you have attempted to initiate suggest just that.

You can lie, you can deny, and you can edit to your hearts content. I am not the only one who has seen and who knows what you have said here. I have formed the opinion that you are an anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment troll. But it has become obvious, in my opinion, that you are every bit the liar that King Brown has shown us to be time and time again. It's disgusting that you have to stoop so low and resort to lies. Civilized men don't act like that. Low class white trash men resort to those methods. Do a better job of covering your tracks the next time you try to lie to us.

You say you simply wish to have discussions? Who in hell wants to discuss anything with liars?

Lying birds of a feather stick together. Your unholy alliance with King makes perfect sense now.

I just thought it would be a good idea to quote what you said in your own words before you do another editing job and then claim that I am lying.

ed, you bring all the ill feelings upon yourself. You usually only open your mouth to change feet.

1. - Semi Automatic firearms are here to stay, from the lowly Winchester model 63 .22 & Browning .22 semi-auto's up to and including the BAR's, .50 caliber semi-auto rifles that are now so popular. This includes all varieties of semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic shotguns.........

2. - Fully Automatic guns are here to stay for those that wish to enjoy them and collect them AS THEY SHOULD. A close friend of mine who collects all MODELS of the old Vickers machine guns and has over 30 or so, including aircraft mounted, tripod mounted and hand held. He also built a 100 % scale Sopwith Camel airplane from original plans and mounted an original Vickers machine gun on it with the prop interrupter gear on the original Le Rhone 9J rotary engine. He fires blanks with it at airshows. Lot's of Americans take part in these types of activities with fully automatic weapons.

3. - Anybody, who approves and condones the "right of ALL LEVELS of the government to RESTRICT AND REGULATE FIREARMS AS THE NEED DICTATES" IS AN IDIOT IN MY BOOK. With over 20,000 gun laws on the books which are not enforced properly, what advantage does more useless punishing legislation do for the American Sportsman or a single female carrying for protection OR ANYBODY ELSE THAT COLLECTS, SHOOTS OR OWNS FIREARMS......?

4. - Somehow, Sometime, Somewhere, idiots who support firearm restrictions need to UNDERSTAND THAT NEARLY ALL OF THE FIREARM CRIMES ARE COMMITTED WITH ILLEGAL GUNS, EITHER STOLEN, BLACK MARKET STREET SALE WEAPONS WITH NO SERIAL NUMBERS, STRAW PURCHASE WEAPONS AND SO FORTH.....There are reams and reams of data that prove beyond any reasonable doubt exactly where these guns come from, just look at the F.B.I. and other law enforcement data/graphs/charts etc. Look at all the data that the NRA has put forward as public information. Only a "Mushroom" would not comprehend the cause, the reasoning and the end results of these detailed studies and data tracking.

5. - You waste every members time by posting your continual tirade of b.s. attacking the Second Amendment or making ridiculous statements about modifying any existing gun laws or adding any more ridiculous restrictive gun laws which WILL NOT CHANGE, MODIFY OR ENHANCE THE REDUCTION IN CRIME...AT ANY LEVEL......PERIOD. All because you have some overwhelming concern about who has what, which is none of your business, when speaking of firearms. LET ME SAY IT AGAIN, THE PEOPLE WHO PURCHASE FIREARMS LEGALLY OVER THE COUNTER OR BY OTHER LEGAL MEANS, "DO NOT" COMIT FIREARMS CRIMES. LOOK AT THE DATA. The data has been posted on this BBS for years, for all to see....

6. - Your firearms opinions are very similar to your hunting opinions, or so you have said over the years on this board, it is o.k. to shoot this, but not o.k. to shoot that......who in the hell are you to determine or reprimand sportsman hunting legally in their geographical area for any game bird, animal, pest or other wildlife. I think local Division of Wildlife Agencies have a much better grasp on "what should and can be hunted" than ed goods opinionated conservation attempts.

7. - We all know you like attention, and try hard to attract attention and must have no life, but please get real.....enough is enough ed. You are pissing again in your own bed.

Ed is not the only person against (semi)automatic firearms, he has support from this eloquent fellow;

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/20...utomatic-Weapon

I wonder what Al's views on CCH are.

pa:

1. agreed semi autos are here to stay. but must we have so many of them? perhaps when enough of them are misused, like when full autos were in the early thirties, then there will be similar federal restrictions on some semis as well? we already have restrictions on handguns in many north eastern states.

2. agreed, full autos are here too stay and hopefully will continue to be regulated and restricted.

3. restriction and regulation of firearms results when government at all levels deem it necessary to protect the general welfare. if the people disagree, then those laws and rulings will be repealed or left to expire. the federal assault rifle ban is a classic example. however, some states have passed their own firearms bans. that is their right.

4. those may be that facts, but others may still feel better with some restriction on some firearms. it is their right to cause their representatives to pass laws and rulings that make them feel better about almost everything. its about respecting the rights of others. if you do not agree, then lobby for change.

5. I have never attacked the second amendment. discussing the differences in how it may be viewed is not attacking anything.

6. as to hunting...I have my standards. you and others have theirs. I do not impose my standards on others and expect the same respect.

7. so long as I meet my gun sales goals, I am happy.

thanks for your somewhat cordial post. however, you did degrade yourself with some rather juvenile name calling.

There's a distinction between preference, tolerance and "against" semi-automatics. A safe guess is most double gun members prefer doubles. I prefer doubles and easily accommodate those who use semis. I'm not against their use.

I think of above-22 calibre efficacy in semi hunting rifles as more of novelty; not for nothing were most of us started on singles, making the first shot count. My Ruger .250-3000 and CZ 7 X 57 are all I use on deer and moose.

None---not one---of my buddies believes larger loads and barrages of shot and bullet enhances the experience or results. Nor would they restrict their use. One size doesn't fit all.

You say you have never attacked the Second Amendment... re-read the first four points you made here dimwit. Everyone of them is or would be an infringement upon the Second Amendment. The change you speak of lobbying for would have to be either a repeal or change to the Second Amendment. Anything else is an infringement on our existing rights. The infringements we have now came to be because of people like you and King Brown. You are promoting the weakening of our rights... one step at a time. That's like saying an attack on New Hampshire is not an attack on the United States.

Tell your buddy King that the topic of this thread is his anti-Second Amendment/anti-NRA proclivities. We don't care what his preferences in shotguns or .22's are.

king: what is your feeling about the general public having millions and millions of 9mm or larger semi auto handguns, in their possession?

the only thing scarier than that to me is, that same general public also having free access to millions and millions of multi ton automobiles that can easily exceed speeds of 60 mph or more. woe to those who find themselves in front of one of those things with a distracted driver at the wheel.

Why does posters on this thread continually try to link the Second Amendment to hunting? The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting.

Ahhhh, the Northeast.....where handgun crime soars no matter how many restrictive laws the liberal fools pass....One only has to look at New York City and Boston with their handgun restrictions to see that these foolish liberal laws DO NOT WORK..........YOU WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BETTER LUCK OUTLAWING "FILES AND GRINDERS" THAN HANDGUNS, but as many have said, you just "Can't Fix Stupid".......


1. The North Eastern Liberal Bastions CANNOT dictate to the rest of the nation their liberal laws and philosophy.....EVER......

**Out here we carry "loaded hanguns in our auto glovebox and it is NOT considered a concealed weapon".......I wonder why we have zero car jackings and a very low crime rate...?......

2. The liberals who "may feel better" with some firearms restrictions MUST LEARN TO GET THEIR "WARM COZY FEELING" BY ANOTHER MEANS, STARTING WITH FACTS, FACTS AND FACTS....

THESE LIBERALS MUST STUDY REALITY, THE REAL WORLD THEN TRANSFER THAT INFORMATION TO A "WARM AND COZY MENTAL STATE"....ATTACKING AN INANIMATE OBJECT ACCOMPLISHES ZERO AND STUPIDITY THEN THRIVES .........

These liberal North Easterners can either learn the truth about reality and the real world, or buy more teddy bears and barricade themselves inside their apartment high rises, row houses or other place of residence.

Gun owners with 9mm pistols don't bother me at all. My buddy has half-a-dozen Czech, French, American and German. I sold my Luger when restrictions tightened pistol-use. I kept my Ruger bull-barrel .22 for my two gun clubs with pistol ranges.

Pistols are regulated in Canada to the point where ownership is not a public issue. In the US, a much different culture concerning gun-ownership tradition and responsibilities, it is a major public issue that will be decided by majority vote as it is doing at state and municipal levels.

Whatever the intent of the Second, recreational use of guns is so significant to members that our founding father Dave Weber placed the Second in the masthead of this board. The shooting fraternity is the strongest force for its protection. Do you know any other?

A bit too vague King, but hopefully the NRA can be included as part of the shooting fraternity. You may know, they're an important component of the voting process and a lightening rod for opposition.

I think this is a very key issue. Wants, likes, feelings and 'recreation' are not enough for even a little bit of protection. It trickles out slowly, but I thank cback for explaining how justifiable it has been to restrict Canadian 'recreation'.

ken: roger that!

but, then its not about linking hunting with the second amendment...its about attacking those who advance ideas that may be different than your own...

so much for cordiality...

Where has this sentiment been for the past couple years? Looks like our Second Amendment athiest has suddenly found religion. No Athiests in foxholes, eh King?

If it was coming from any of a thousand other people, I might give them the benefit of doubt and cautiously accept it. Coming from this fraud who has repeatedly lied, obfuscated, changed the subject, disappeared for awhile 'till things die down, ... it's "fool me once, shame on you--- fool me twice, shame on me!

Doing the "Dance of the Gnomoron" and all the other fancy footwork isn't going to work this time.

More of King Brown's anti-Second Amendment/anti/NRA quotes to follow...

Very good points craig! King would be a whole lot more agreeable with the NRA if they would just stop being steadfast about not giving ground to the antis. His comment, "Do you know any other?" does not even acknowledge the NRA as a valid force for protection of our rights. It supports his notion that just going out and shooting at a few ducks is all he ever needed to do to advance and protect the cause in Canada. And believe it... that's all he ever did, for this braggart would have told us he almost won a Nobel Prize had he done anything other than firing a few rounds now and then..

And just where is Canvasback anyway? And just how many times in the past has he raised the dark veil of King's obfuscation, lies, and misinformation about Canadian gun rights, or lack thereof?

I grow weary of this as well...I go for nap now...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Good idea ed, why don't you sleep on it. Maybe later you can think of a right or two that's being infringed on by folks that want to preserve the right granted under the 2nd Amendment.

I've been reading occasionally but not posting to many of the threads in misfires these days. I'm extremely busy and posting well requires some thought to make sure I'm saying what I mean to say. Additionally IMHO misfires has recently become too much about Ed and King. I don't see everything through the lens of Ed and King nor do I want to. To be honest, I have found misfires boring lately.

So in a nutshell, I haven't had much to add, nor had much time to add it. I'm sure in the future I'll read something here that stirs my creative juices but in the meantime, I'm spending what time I do have when I'm home, fiddling with my guns in anticipation of the upcoming fall season.

I have three guns apart at the moment, with their wood sent off various places for repair and rehabilitation while I carefully inspect the metal for needed work and cleaning. As I said recently to the gentleman repairing two of the stocks....it's nice to get off TDC on these projects. And I just put the finishing touches on a planned quail hunt in the fall with good friends and some family.

How's that for getting off topic!

I share your sentiments James. The two you cited bring nothing of importance to the table. They just continue to upchuck the some old tired Libtard vomit.
Jim

Please try to post something upbeat and positive. PLEEEEase.

Canvasback, glad to hear you're well and keeping busy with work, family, and guns and hunting plans. I certainly understand your reluctance to spend valuable time here. Just as you devoted time and energy to rolling back the Long Gun Registry, I am spending time supporting and preventing further erosions of our Second Amendment, working, playing with my guns, and getting ready to work on electing pro-gun Conservatives in the 2014 mid term elections.

You know how much I have appreciated your input on the importance of protecting our Gun Rights, and your warnings to us to never let down our guard so that we are in the position once again of digging ourselves out of a hole. I miss OldStarfire's Canadian perspective too, and keep hoping he'll return.

I too, regret the fact that Misfires has become too much about King and ed, and yes, it is a bit time consuming to have to counter their misinformation and attempts to undermine the foundation of our Constitutional Rights. In my opinion, it reached a point where there was a large enough body of evidence to support my opinion that King is working from up north to weaken and cast doubt on the meaning and origins and validity of our Second Amendment, along with many other bedrock principles that made this country great. He's been able to fly under the radar doing hit and run attacks, and then pretending he supports us. I think that was a calculated maneuver, so I decided awhile back to amass a large enough body of evidence to support my opinions, and then keep it front and center, and squarely in the crosshairs. His attempts over the last two days to reinvent himself as an ardent supporter of gun rights aren't gaining much traction. He can't have it both ways if we don't let him. I will not let him! ed jumped into the fray and has shown us that he is just as committed to weakening the Second. I can't be at the computer 24/7, but I can be pretty damn relentless over the long haul. I pop in and type a response or two, and then go out and get some work done. I can also sometimes make a post from my phone when I'm between jobs at work. Hell to type on that little touchscreen keyboard though. With the help of Jim, craig, Doug, J.R.B., Ken61, Mike, bone, JCHannum, Brian, and others... maybe we can finally stop the vermin who constantly subvert and discredit guns, gun rights, and the NRA. I hope anyone else who feels the same will contribute. These trolls need to learn that they can't hide behind lies, stupidity, and the fact that they maybe shoot something once in a while. That takes some tenacity, and unfortunately, playing nice is just playing in to their hands. I am nicely, civilly, and cordially... going for the throat.

On an upbeat and positive note, King Brown's lame and dishonest attempts to show he supports the Second Amendment as written and as originally intended by the Framers is falling flat on it's face!

Great idea ed. When you wake up you may go play in the neighbor kid's sandbox and dig for cat turds again.

canvas: "To be honest, I have found misfires boring lately. "

roger dat!

King,
you didn't respond to my reply in #372098. I clarified what I said and was expecting your response.
I even answered the same questions myself in a subsequent post.

Sorry, Brian. I read what you wrote in response to your own questions and thought ---just going by memory now---that your opinion was reasonable. And I
thought I had answered your earlier by saying that there was a measure of arrogance by your arrogating anti-gun sentiments to me i.e. which restrictions do you want? I don't want any more restrictions in Canada and what Americans choose to regulate or deregulate is up to them. I'll go back and look at 372098. Right now I'm beating at work alligators closest to the boat!

For those who didn't see it in the "Contraception Mandate" thread, here's some more of King Brown's dishonesty on display concerning our Second Amendment. The first King quote was from one of his very recent attempts to now portray himself as a staunch gun rights advocate...from his post# 372221. First, he's telling us that he believes what Constitutional Scholar Mark Levin has to say about the Second Amendment, but he goes on to lament that the Framers did not put their thoughts about what the Second Amendment said in writing. He managed to squeeze two big lies into one short paragraph. Jim replied to him at length...again! And my reply follows his lies and bullshit... along with another of his quotes to prove he's lying. There, he had tried to convince us that Mark Levin only believed that the 2nd protected the RTKBA within the confines of a Militia... the same Militia that Liberals like he and ed are constantly saying is obsolete. He was also trying to portray ex-SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens as a Conservative. Lies on top of filthy lies! The second King quote is from post #371868.

So here's King Brown trying to dishonestly re-cast himself as one of us!.... But he's not one of us. No friend of ours would try so hard and so frequently to discredit the Second Amendment.



Oh, but they did write it down King. Many of them, and in a multitude of places. We have given you ample references over the years, but you are just like the Jurists who choose to legislate from the bench and choose to ignore the original intent of the founders. The quotes provided above by Jim are but a small fraction, and he has given them to you many times before. Where do you come off pretending to be so civil when you are nothing but a compulsive liar?

And even if they did go on and on and dot every I and cross every T, and add footnotes and Cliffs Notes... it wouldn't be enough. And you and your kind would still be looking for the same kind of dishonest loophole you found to justify Obama's violations of his Oath of Office.

And if you really believe what Levin said about the Second was in the founder's minds, why did you dishonestly try to say he only recognized a right to bear arms within the confines of a Militia? Here it is again... in your own lying words King:



It's hard to keep all your lies straight when you tell so many, isn't it?

King,
I responded to that accusation of arrogance and was seeking clarification. My point being that if we are engaging in a debate, and I was asking questions about what people thought of specifics, how would that be arrogant. does that mean that all pollsters are arrogant because any of the questioned I asked could be used in a poll.

If asking a pointed question is being arrogant, then the majority of the members of the entire site are arrogant; just look at the pointed questions about the superiority of one double over another.

I don't cast aspersions about people here but do hold opinions based on what I read that is written by folks here. Just as you and the others may have an opinion of me form what I write about here. Those are all perceptions and perception is reality for pretty much everyone.

Brian, if there is any question in your mind about King's motives and veracity, just re-read my post directly above yours. That is just a small fraction of his lies and double talk. You can ask him for answers to your questions, but don't expect the truth.

Perceptions have become reality because King has engaged in a long standing pattern of behavior, as opposed to perhaps making an error or slip of the tongue (or keyboard). King will launch an attack on the foundations of our gun rights, and then go into full denial mode when called out on it. He has been doing this on a regular basis ever since the shootings by a mentally ill gunman at Newtown, and he was among the cast of anti-gun trolls who has made every attempt to portray Obama and other vehemently anti-gun politicians as being pro-gun rights.

It's time folks understand that King has been, and will continue to be, totally dishonest about his feelings about the Second Amendment. He has made no secret that he disagrees with the very successful strategy of the NRA, and feels we should revert to a concessionary posture of give-backs and begging for what is rightfully ours.

King Brown claims to be our friend. Friends don't repeatedly lie to you and attempt to undermine your Constitutional Freedoms.

I accept entirely the sincerity and content of your message, Brian. When did you stop beating your wife? is how your list of questions appeared to me, coming under this nonsensical thread of my being an anti-gunner.

We all ask questions. It isn't arrogant to do so. I believe---and this comes from my craft---that a person can ask any question of another if it's seen in the public interest and not perceived as mean and mischievous.

Your view last paragraph of perceptions unfortunately doesn't work with those members who turn a comment or quote from sources as not only my personal opinion but prevarication and dishonesty.

I have never written anything that I knew was untrue i.e. describing circumstances of amending the Second cannot be ascribed as favouring the original or what it is now. Citing pros and cons is just that.

To say the Second is what courts say it is in dozens of jurisdictions isn't a knock on the Second; it is what is. To say New Yorkers are bad people for their restrictive regulations is ignorance; not all voted for them.

Similarly my criticism of NRA response after the massacre---an opinion shared by many---could hardly make me anti-NRA when I had provided information to the organization to assist in handling the public blowback.

There is a tiny cabal, however, that says my party, my organization right or wrong; criticize and you're an anti-gunner, an enemy. When I wrote I am not an anti-gunner and you know it---twice---I felt that as a reasonable person you would see it that way, too.

Answering your own questions was imaginative. At the risk of putting you in bad company, I repeat: your answers seemed reasonable to me.

You never cease to amaze King. Just when I think you can't get any more dishonest, you give us a load of bullshit like your last post.

How can you say this with a straight face and then deny that you are a liar?--



Here's your quote... your words... which I posted. These are not the comments or a quote from Mark Levin. These are your own words which you now have the gall to deny.



That was you King, who claimed that Levin and Stevens do not believe in an Individual RKBA. We all know Stevens doesn't, but Levin has never said that. You are attempting to ascribe beliefs to Levin which are NOT HIS. I didn't turn someone's personal opinion into your quote. These are your own words, and now you are essentially calling me a liar. In addition, you also said this about LIBERAL ex-Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in the same post, #371868:



Now, you know damn well that ex-Justice Stevens was extreme Liberal Left in his rulings. You know he is now promoting a re-write of the Second Amendment because he so vehemently disagreed with the Heller decision recognizing an Individual Right and the right to bear arms for both national AND self-defense. Yet you went out of your way to paint him as a Conservative appointed by a Conservative, Richard Nixon. That wasn't exactly a lie. But it was very deceitful King.

In addition, you have not missed an opportunity to criticize the NRA except when you thought they were criticizing the open carry protesters in Texas. You abandoned your thread praising that when I told you that was the opinion of one staffer, and the NRA rebuked him and apologized for it. You claim you offered them help, but you only wanted them to lay down and allow the anti-gun Obama & Co. to have their way with us. You said you felt we should concede on Universal Registration... so you lied to Brian about imposing presumption of guilt type burdens on law abiding gun owners when you said his answers to the questions you would not answer seemed reasonable to you. In the aftermath of Newtown, you also said we should give up the fight against restrictions of high capacity clips (magazines). Your ideas of helping the NRA is like giving water to a drowning man.

You have gloated that the "Second is not inviolate" because it has been infringed upon in some locales by Liberal Leftist Democrat politicians who share your Leftist Socialist dogma, and who were elected by people of your Libtard mindset. You go on and on about the "Wild West Gun Culture" we have here, but all you had to say in Doug's recent thread about the killing and violence in Chicago last week was self serving crap where you again attack our notions about what the Second Amendment means... even though it is now settled law.:



Strange, to say the least, that you claim to not be anti-Second Amendment, yet you feel the need to correct our "wacky" notions of what it means, and those notions you agree with and tout and reproduce here are those of anti-gunners. Explain that. To say the Second is what the Courts say it is in dozens of jurisdictions actually is a knock on the Second Amendment now that the highest court in the land has made it settled law. But it is not settled as far as you are concerned, and you frequently make that argument by refusing to accept Supreme Court rulings that occurred six years ago. Those lower courts that upheld infringements on the Individual Right had it wrong King. Deal with it already. Actually, why don't you just stay out of it. You are not a citizen here. It's none of your business. Work on gun rights in Canada, where you have done absolutely nothing to help.

The best part is where you say you have never written anything that you knew was untrue. But you have been caught in so many lies here, so many times, it's hard to quantify. When you get busted... caught red handed, you resort to denial, or you attempt to distort what you actually said... even when quoted verbatim, as you have done here, or you just drop out of that thread and hide for a few days. But you always re-emerge with more lies for us.

If you seriously think you have never lied to us, you need to print out this whole thread and take it to your Doctor. You need help.

Strange, to say the least, that you claim to not be anti-Second Amendment, yet you feel the need to correct our "wacky" notions of what it means, and those notions you agree with and tout and reproduce here are those of anti-gunners. Explain that. To say the Second is what the Courts say it is in dozens of jurisdictions actually is a knock on the Second Amendment now that the highest court in the land has made it settled law.

Bingo !

King is more then happy to say he is a liberal,he also love tho claim he works behind the scenes to push his agenda-strangely like our "campaigner in chief",why not just come out and admit that you are anti-gun King ? (Because it exposes the sad attempt at "lulling" )

Exactly, the NRA and special interest groups made the Second what it is today. No one disputes it. It's settled. It does not, however, prevent what many Americans consider infringements on the Second by courts in state and municipal jurisdictions.

The "wacky" notion is that some believe the Second is inviolable, sacred, an inalienable right. How do you square that with jurisdictions all over the country interpreting it differently according to majority vote? Can and can't carry, different rules. If I am wrong in this respect, let's hear it.

I don't know how I can be anti-gun with a house full of them from an early age, an active gunner, collector, member of two gun clubs and promoter of gun rights, including chosen spokesman for four-county gunners at an all-political- party anti-gun rally. Your notion is silly.

Once again, smoke and hot air without ANY proof King-its getting old and you know better,a lot better !

The Founders framed the Second Amendment as a certification to protect what was frequently called “the first law of nature”—the right of self-protection, an inalienable right—guaranteed to every citizen individually.

Understanding the Second Amendment’s intention that secures the right “to keep and bear arms”, it is important to establish the source of inalienable rights constitutionally. Constitution signer John Dickenson, like many of the others in his day, defined an inalienable right as a right “which God gave to you and which no inferior power has a right to take away.”

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/self-d...1oOrGWfe4TSb.99

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Sorry King but Canada and its "wacky" gun control laws not listed-so your SOL.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2011/guarantees-of-the-right-to-arms-in-stat.aspx



Now to the lapdog media,one look at the public's trust-lost after Fast And Furious,Benghazi,IRS,Veterans Admin,and now the illegal "crisis"

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/01/30/poll-msnbc-nbc-sink-to-bottom-of-public-trust

American public's most and least trusted news outlets found that NBC and MSNBC have sunk to the very bottom this year. Only 3% choose either as the networks they trust above all others. Fox News is the most trusted, with 35% choosing the "Fair and Balanced Network."

How can you be anti-gun with a house full of them? You just showed us again in your reply to Dave... because you're still pretending to ignore me for allegedly putting words in your mouth after I quoted you verbatim.

I explained how it came to pass that different courts interpreted the Second differently than what the Framers intended. It all came from Liberal Leftist like you. You are not the solution, you are the problem. The NRA and special interests did not define the Second... the Framers did... and the Supreme Court reaffirmed that over six tears ago. You still can't stomach it, and you celebrate the fact that Liberal politicians and judges are still finding creative ways to do end runs around it. You are not wrong that there have been, and continue to be infringements. They come from people just like you.

Real Pro-Gun Rights folks do not support and provide cover for the politicians and judges who subvert the Second. You are not just making observations. You are actively giving aid and comfort to the enemy. That makes you one of them... no matter how you slice it! You are no help and you are not our friend. And liar that you are, you keep right on trying to make dishonest excuses. You have NEVER promoted gun rights here until this thread. Now you keep piling up lies to re-invent yourself into something that you have never been until the last few days. Even then, you still keep posting things that deny and refute the Individual Right, such as your totally dishonest observation of Mark Levin's beliefs. Why not add Gun Rights advocate to your inflated resume? The only people you've managed to fool have been ed and Jagermeister, the brain trust of Misfires.

I'd love to hear what LULLING and concessionary words you said when you supposedly spoke to support gun rights in Canada. This is the first we ever heard of it after dozens of requests. Why should we believe anything you say now after all of your lies King?

King, You didn't respond here to my heartfelt reply to your lies and bullshit, and instead wrote these off topic comments within the Forum Decorum thread where they are inappropriate. I decided to also place them here for you, and my response will follow.





I know you always have trouble staying on topic within a thread, so with bountiful of generosity of spirit, I decided to help. You're welcome!

And here's my replies to those posts that were off-topic in the other thread King. More of your frequent anti-Second Amendment/anti-NRA/anti-gun comments... quoted verbatim... no lies involved... to follow. No need to impute motives. The motives seem quite evident after a prolonged drum beat.

Once again, King Brown is being dishonest and LULLING. He is once again repeating his tired refrain that it's all going by the wayside, so why fight it?... it's only a matter of time before we die off and the anti- gunners win Only thing is, it's not going away like King says. The number of guns in the U.S. has increased by nearly 50% since Bill Clinton was elected. People who really didn't care whether they ever owned a gun went out and bought one when it looked like they might lose that chance. People who never dreamed of carrying a gun got one when Concealed Carry became widespread. And the blood in the streets that was predicted by the anti-gunners has not happened. Quite the opposite really.

Women and girls are getting into the shooting sports. The antis will lie and say that private ownership of guns has fallen in recent years, but actual sales numbers disprove that. Gun makers are building new and larger production lines in Southern states where Liberal Left Democrats aren't trying to put them out of business. So many more new shooters shooting so many more new guns that even after the ammo hoarders have become glutted, ammo is still in short supply... with the production lines running full tilt 24/7.

King knows all of this. He's said the same crap before, and has been corrected before. But that won't stop him from repeating the same tired lies.

And oh, the hand wringing about the dangers of not embracing guys like ed and King who do nothing to support and protect our firearms freedoms, and do much to undermine them. What a crock of shit! We don't need friends like you. You are no help, and never have been. There are plenty of new shooters who can and will be better than you ever were. We don't need to help roll the Trojan Horse into our midst.

You support and give cover to the anti-gunners King. The anti-gunners are actually worse than a heroin junkie who would break in and steal my guns. The junkie only wants my guns to sell for quick money to buy drugs. He does not care if I replace them with insurance or my own money. The anti-gunners want to take them, and they eventually want to make it impossible to buy more. You help those anti-gunners King. You support them. You praise them. If you lived here, you would vote for them. Don't pretend to be on our side. Actions speak far louder than your words. Don't pretend to be our friend.

Give it up King. We're on to you and your LULLING and lying. We don't need you writing the epitaph of gun ownership and shooting. It's not true. But if we allow ourselves to be fooled by folks like you who do so much to subvert our Second Amendment, it could come to pass. I aim to see that does not happen. Not here. Not anywhere. I'll go along with what one of our Framers said before I fall for any more of your lies:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

Patrick Henry

"The NRA and special interests did not define the Second... the Framers did... and the Supreme Court reaffirmed that over six tears ago. You still can't stomach it, and you celebrate the fact that Liberal politicians and judges are still finding creative ways to do end runs around it. You are not wrong that there have been, and continue to be infringements. They come from people just like you."

Perfect Keith !

And here is another one for ya King,(BTW we Americans carry guns because we can-not because we have to).



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/09/murder-drops-as-concealed-carry-permits-rise-claims-study/

Murder rate drops as concealed carry permits rise, study claims.


A dramatic spike in the number of Americans with permits to carry concealed weapons coincides with an equally stark drop in violent crime, according to a new study, which Second Amendment advocates say makes the case that more guns can mean safer streets.

The study by the Crime Prevention Research Center found that 11.1 million Americans now have permits to carry concealed weapons, up from 4.5 million in 2007. The 146 percent increase has come even as both murder and violent crime rates have dropped by 22 percent.

ADVERTISEMENT

“When you allow people to carry concealed handguns, you see changes in the behavior of criminals," said the center’s president, John R. Lott, a Fox News contributor. “Some criminals stop committing crimes, others move on to crimes in which they don’t come into contact with victims and others actually move to areas where they have less fear of being confronted by armed victims.”

and then there is another side to it:

consider that most Americans don't give a damn about guns, one way or the other. but, they do care if they perceive their personal safety is threatened...so, every time we hear about someone getting shot by a stray bullet, our fear level goes up.

advertising that millions more people are now packin handguns, since 2007, does not help quell those fears...its not the criminals people fear so much now, as it is the random bullets flying around...

"The NRA and special interests did not define the Second... the Framers did... and the Supreme Court reaffirmed that over six tears ago. You still can't stomach it, and you celebrate the fact that Liberal politicians and judges are still finding creative ways to do end runs around it. You are not wrong that there have been, and continue to be infringements. They come from people just like you."

Perfect Keith !

And here is another one for ya King,(BTW we Americans carry guns because we can-not because we have to).



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/09/murder-drops-as-concealed-carry-permits-rise-claims-study/

Murder rate drops as concealed carry permits rise, study claims.


A dramatic spike in the number of Americans with permits to carry concealed weapons coincides with an equally stark drop in violent crime, according to a new study, which Second Amendment advocates say makes the case that more guns can mean safer streets.

The study by the Crime Prevention Research Center found that 11.1 million Americans now have permits to carry concealed weapons, up from 4.5 million in 2007. The 146 percent increase has come even as both murder and violent crime rates have dropped by 22 percent !

“When you allow people to carry concealed handguns, you see changes in the behavior of criminals," said the center’s president, John R. Lott, a Fox News contributor. “Some criminals stop committing crimes, others move on to crimes in which they don’t come into contact with victims and others actually move to areas where they have less fear of being confronted by armed victims.”

Dave, Dave, Dave: you're like those fundamentalists who claim Jesus walked with the dinosaurs. There was no NRA at time of the Founding Fathers. The change was recent to what the Second is today. You acknowledge as "infringements" all those jurisdictions making the Second what they want it to be. But still the law.

I believe Brian posted earlier it would be better to have one federal law respecting firearms (as it is in Canada) instead of a hodgepodge of communities putting gun control to a vote. I'm not celebrating what those communities do other than commenting on their democratic example.

The Second is what majorities say it is. Majorities comprise liberals and conservatives. With the consumer approach to politics today, majorities provided at elections with "deals" of a lifetime---their wants rather than needs---change quickly, particularly with a trusted salesman.

Whether Americans carry because they can or have to is not the issue. They democratically make decisions on how they want to live. Their homicide record is not edifying among modern societies. It is a violent country.

we the people are more important than we the nra...

In 1998, MA passed a gun control law requiring a Firearm ID or a LTC to own a gun. Gun ownership fell by 80% in the intervening decade, to the point where now roughly 1 in 10 MA residents own a gun. Since 1998, in MA gun-related deaths have increased by 68%, and gun-related assault injuries have increased by 72%. Emergency room visits due to gun-related assaults have increased by a whopping 222%. At the same time, these rates were falling elsewhere in the US, where legal gun ownership rates were rising.

Reducing legal gun ownership does not reduce gun violence, or violence in general.

More guns less crime :

Two sets of data published by the FBI seven months apart show increased gun ownership coinciding with a reduction in violent crime.

Last July, the FBI completed its monthly update of an online table showing the number of firearm-related checks conducted through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The new numbers showed that the number of checks increased from 8.9 million during the first six months of 2012, to a whopping 11.4 million during the same period in 2013, an increase of 29 percent.


This week, the FBI issued a report comparing the numbers of violent and property crimes reported by law enforcement agencies during the first half of 2012 to the numbers reported during the first half of 2013. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports Section, “Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the nation reported a decrease of 5.4 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention for the first 6 months of 2013 when compared with figures reported for the same time in 2012.”

Under the Uniform Crime Reporting System, violent crime consists of four categories of crime, each of which experienced decreases during the first half of 2013. Murders decreased 6.9 percent, rapes decreased 10.6 percent, robberies decreased 1.8 percent, and aggravated assaults decreased 6.6 percent. Of 30 cities of 500,000 or greater population, 20 reported decreases in murders, two reported no change in their numbers, and only eight reported increases.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/fbi-more-guns-less-violent-crime/#ixzz37e07ttLm

From here (great site to bookmark to fight misinformation/lies from anti gunners who live in Canada

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/

MA Gun Law Proves All Gun Control Laws Are Bad Laws

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07...s-are-bad-laws/

Gun ownership-as well as NRA membership is growing,the country is on our side and realizes that yes the Second Amendment is indeed an inalienable right to self defense.

Everyone at the time agreed that the federal government had no power to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Contemporary debates for the most part also fail to address the essential question of why the right to bear arms was enshrined in the Constitution in the first place. The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life. The Second Amendment therefore does not grant the people a new right; it merely recognizes the inalienable natural right to self-defense.

dave k: and here is some other info, that perhaps those here are not aware of:

- the sky is usually blue, cept when it rains. then it takes on shades of gray.

- the water is also blue, most of the time. but, it also looks green from time to time.

Guns don't kill people, do they, Dave? People kill people. Americans are violent people compared to Canada and western Europe. I have no quarrel with what Americans do; I had nothing to do with making it the place it is. If gun ownership reduces homicides---there's a claim that 88 out of 100 Americans own one---the US should have the public safety record---and it's a far way from it. Problem with a few here is that referencing facts about guns makes one an anti-gunner. Does questioning Red Sox notions or their stats make one anti-baseball?

I thought that perhaps Ed and a few others might read this to get a fuller understanding of the ridiculousness the anti gun team will go to. This commentary was written and published in today's National Post, one of two national newspapers in Canada. It deals with the efforts of a left wing politician, running for mayor of Toronto, to turn the upcoming election into a debate about banning guns, when guns are a federal jurisdiction. Cynical fear-mongering and politicking at it's best.

Ed, you sound like you have the same irrational fears the candidate has and your solution is remarkably similar. Too bad, as ably put forward in this column, that it would only serve to punish the law abiding while doing nothing to prevent gun crime.



THE NATIONAL POST - Matt Gurney: Exposing the silly math behind Chow's feel-good handgun ban

Olivia Chow, former federal NDP MP and now a candidate for mayor of Toronto, wants to reduce gun crime in the city. Fair enough. It’s hard to imagine that anyone wouldn’t. But one of the ways she wants to get there is a handgun ban, which, due to firearms law being a federal jurisdiction, would have to be nation-wide. And that’s a problem.

It’s helpful, before we continue, to consider the scope of the problem, and compare it to the scope of the proposed remedy. We’re blessed to have the numbers at hand to do both. The Toronto Police Service, as you’d expect, closely tracks gun violence within the City of Toronto. And the RCMP, which runs the Canadian Firearms Centre, similarly tracks information on firearms licences and the registered guns possessed by the licence holders.

So let’s look at those numbers. In 2013, there were 57 homicides in Toronto, of which 22 were committed with firearms. That was a pretty good year, but not really an exceptional one. In 2010, 32 people were murdered by guns in Toronto, out of 63 murders total. In 2011, it was 27 shootings out of 50 total murders. In 2012, 33 shootings out of 54 murders. Year to date trends for 2014 suggest that both murders, shooting incidents and fatal shootings are all coming in lower than in 2013 … murders quite remarkably so.

So the takeaway, roughly, is this: Fifty-some odd people are murdered in Toronto each year, and somewhere between a third and half of murders in Toronto involve a gun (not even necessarily a handgun, but any firearm — the Toronto police stats don’t differentiate). The average number of annual gun killings in the city, in recent years, is somewhere in the mid-20s. Again, that’s per year, or roughly two a month. Not bad in a city of 2.5 million.

While every murder is a tragedy, of course, that alone would suggest that there isn’t a gigantic problem with guns — handguns, rifles, shotguns — in Toronto. But something very interesting becomes clear when you look at the RCMP statistics for firearms ownership over the same period. Under Canadian law, handguns are classified as either restricted or prohibited (the definition is sadly inexact, as certain rifles and shotguns are also classed that way, but for simplicity, let’s assume that most prohibited and restricted guns are the handguns Ms. Chow wants to ban). Based on RCMP figures, the number of these firearms in Ontario has been climbing steadily since 2010. Indeed, using the stats compiled by the RCMP in March of 2010 and March of this year, we see, in Ontario, that there are 24% more of these restricted and prohibited firearms in the province. I own some of them myself, in fact.

The numbers are not broken down into geographical units smaller than provinces, so we’ll have to assume that the Toronto area broadly reflects the overall provincial trend. Interesting, no? Ownership of the deadliest firearms going up, sharply, since 2010 … and gun deaths in Toronto trending down to levels that are, again acknowledging the human toll of murder, positively paltry.

Forgive the barrage of numbers, but there is one further point that needs to be made. Ms. Chow, in announcing that she will call for a handgun ban to make Toronto a safer city, acknowledged that the vast majority of guns used in Toronto murders are smuggled in from the United States. Her campaign cites the figure of 70%. It’s probably higher, but fine. Let’s go with 70%.

In 2013, in a province where 284,559 restricted or prohibited guns were owned by law-abiding citizens, the number of gun killings in Toronto that could possibly be linked to these guns, using Ms. Chow’s own figure, was … 6.6.

And even that assumes that every one of those murders was committed using a handgun, instead of a rifle or shotgun, which we don’t know to be the case!

Seriously, people. In order to maybe, in some magical, unexplained way, prevent a maximum of 6.6 murders that, in 2013, could theoretically have been blamed on handgun ownership in Ontario, Ms. Chow thinks the 541,528 Ontarians licenced that year to own guns, who among them owned 284,559 prohibited and restricted firearms, should have to give them up. In case that somehow, through means that no one has yet been able to explain, helps prevent, at most, one murder every two months.

Does this sound like overkill to anyone?

It’s actually worse even than that. I’ve limited my examination of the numbers above to Ontario. Firearms regulation is a federal jurisdiction, and any attempt to ban something as easily transported as a handgun would logically require the ban to be national in scope (unless Ms. Chow intends to establish a Toronto Border Patrol at the 905 border —presumably an unarmed one). So in order to prevent the maximum 6.6 gun murders Toronto experienced in 2013 that could be linked to domestically-owned handguns, Ms. Chow wants to ban 1,967,657 Canadians, coast to coast to coast, from owning the 867,549 restricted or prohibited firearms they currently possess (those figures from March of this year).

It’s absurd. Stripping lawfully obtained and possessed property from law-abiding Canadians, who have already been carefully screened before receiving this firearms licence, is a tremendous infringement on their freedoms. It would be grossly disproportionate to the social issue it was intended to address. And it would be done without any reasonable expectation that it would materially address the problem of gun crime in our major cities, which despite public fears, remains very, very rare. If you don’t want to take my word for it, ask Toronto’s respected police chief, Bill Blair, who is on record saying that he feels that current laws are working and that a handgun ban is unnecessary.

In summary, a big city NDPer wants target shooters from Victoria to Halifax to give up their revolvers, not because it will actually save lives in Toronto, but because she knows many downtowners there have never owned a gun, don’t know anyone who does, and won’t care if they’re banned. It’s populist blather, not leadership. Toronto deserves better than what Ms. Chow is offering.[quote][/quote]

Dave, Dave,Dave, King Brown is just as deranged in his ideas about our Second Amendment now as he has always been. Of course there was no NRA at the time of the origin Bill Of Rights. What started as an organization to promote shooting and marksmanship morphed into preserving our rights as Liberals like King began to pick away at it and attempt to rewrite or eliminate it... just as they have perverted other rights away from Original Intent. Liberal politicians have attempted to redefine the 2nd, and Liberal judges have upheld their insane interpretations where they ignored Original Intent.

Despite Kings claims to the contrary, the Framers did indeed express that intent in writing in a multitude of places. They were unanimous in their feelings about an armed populace as a means to thwart unconstitutional power grabs by a large central government. The right to arms for self defense predated all that and was ordained by the God that athiest King is loathe to acknowledge.

It's not that King cannot understand that the Supreme Court finally defined what the 2nd is and has always been... it's just that Liberals think they can lie and wish it away by continuing to be in dishonest denial.

Oh yeah, I do not recall the Bible saying Jesus ever walked with dinosaurs, and the Old Testament does not mention them. Fundamentalists only take the literal version that the earth is 6000 or so years old. Maybe some say Adam and Eve had a dinosaur pet, but I think that was Fred Flintstone. More denigration of some religious folks who aren't hurting King Brown a bit. And more attempts to justify subverting our Second Amendment by a Canadian who should worry even half as much about the rights of gun owners in his own country.

King, that all seems rational until you consider that in every American jurisdiction that has passed conceal carry laws in the last 20 years, violent crime has gone down faster that demographics alone would have predicted. So there is a seriously plausible argument currently that suggests, in fact, gun ownership IS reducing homicides and other forms of violent crime. Acknowledging this fact might be useful as you marshal your arguments, whatever they may be.

Thank you CB ! Once again it is nice to know that there are some Canadians that understand that facts and static's trump rhetoric and ideology !
King I know your laws suck in Canada- I would never move there,in fact my neighbor just came back,less his car-it was stolen like countless others,I also know your do not want Americans to carry guns and only own sporting weapons.You have admitted many times you are a liberal-good for you at least there is no hiding,now admit your ideology and allegiance to the "worst president in 70 years" requires you to also support his antigun agenda.

here is were you take marching orders,and we know it,no amount of lulling will convince us to give up ANY of our rights-our inalienable rights to protect ourselves !

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/un/do.htm

Globalist Plan to Disarm America:

PL87-297 Arms Control and Disarmament Act /
State Department Publication No.7277

Thank you Keith for continuing to post and the battle (and ignoring Ed)You mention the framers and the second amendment.here is a great link;

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm

FIRST: The Second Amendment protects an individual right that existed before the creation of any government. The Declaration of Independence made clear that all human beings are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that governments are created to protect those rights.

SECOND: The language of the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from “infringing” on this right of the people. There is nothing ambiguous about “shall not be infringed.” (See Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2d ed.1983, p. 941.) The language of the Second Amendment is about as clear as the First Amendment’s prohibiting Congress from infringing the right to freedom of speech, press, and religious expression. There is no logical reason to read the Second Amendment as a weak statement, while treating the First Amendment as a strong protector of rights.

THIRD: The Second Amendment refers to “a well-regulated militia.”The right of the people to form citizen militias was unquestioned by the Founders.

A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]

B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]

C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]

D. There was no National Guard, and the Founders opposed anything but a very small national military. The phrase “well-regulated” means well-trained and disciplined — not “regulated” as we understand that term in the modern sense of bureaucratic regulation. [This meaning still can be found in the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. 1989, Vol 13, p. 524, and Vol 20. p. 138.]

E. The Federalists promised that state governments and citizen militias would exist to make sure the federal military never became large or oppressive. To say that the National Guard replaces the notion of the militia runs contrary to what the Founders said and wrote.

If I'm not mistaken, the NRA was founded in the 1870's. They've recorded extensive chunks of American history and organized popular sporting events of that time. Maybe, pat 'em on the back for persistence and bending with the wind.

As for majorities, wants and whims there should be protections in the US against mob rule. Yes, the 2nd can be changed, but there is law to follow.

Well huh, poo on you. We used to have a long gun registry in the US and everyone knew it was bunk because it was too expensive. So, I back channeled and frontal assaulted, civil kumbaya'd, and slay that pointless registry. What's a public safety thing-a-ma-jig.

King,

Sometimes you never cease to amaze me, considering the background you portray on here.

Being a liberal negro supporter and minorities in general supporter, you must realize that if you took negroes and hispanics out of the equasion, there would be almost no homicide record to talk about......if you took negroes and hispanics out of our prison system, we could close over half of the prisons and still have vacancies. I would guess that in Ontario you could do the same.

The blacks in this country in Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Miami, New Orleans, Newark, Los Angeles, New York City, Atlanta, Houston and other large ghetto comprised cities account for 90% of the homicides in this country, look it up. And all with illegal, primarily stolen guns. Blacks kill each other wholesale in this country "daily"........

Since you support these people over and over on this board and have such vast knowledge that we do not have access to, please explain why this is so, we would all like to know...?...

canvas: "Ed, you sound like you have the same irrational fears the candidate has and your solution is remarkably similar. Too bad, as ably put forward in this column, that it would only serve to punish the law abiding while doing nothing to prevent gun crime."

so, what do you perceive my solution to be?

pa: shame on you for bringing race into this...what a disappointment.

What's the matter, does the truth offend you? Deal with it or shut the f____ up.

While I would have made the point a little differently than Doug did, here are the USDOJ stats:

USDOJ

Ed, I would say, as this columnist said, that you don't have a problem with guns. So guns, or the lack thereof aren't part of the solution.

You could consider the problem of single parent, welfare supported, absent male role model families. You might think about poor educational outcomes. You may want to think about high unemployment. You should consider the politics of racial divide in America. But blaming guns is just barking up the wrong tree.

I'm not sure I have solutions for the problems I just named. But I do know they are real problems and they bear serious consideration by Americans, rather than glibly imagining an inanimate object is the cause of the tragedy of violence in America today.

You know Ed, if you really want to solve a problem, in this case the problem of gun violence in America, then you really need to start by considering the facts, regardless of how distasteful you may find reality to be. I'm pretty sure old Ed Landers up in Alexandria NH, gunsmithing since he got out of the service in '46, first finds out what's wrong with the gun before he starts fixing it.

Otherwise your solution is most likely to be wrong and will fail. Oh, wait! Your solution IS wrong

oh, ok, now I get it...so if we got rid of all of the poor black folks and all of the poor hispanic folks, then most of our murder problem would be eliminated. and we could close half of our prisons. is that what you are tellin me?

Ed, I didn't say anything about getting rid of anybody. I merely pointed out there are real problems and they need to be considered and adrressed effectively if violence is to be reduced. There are no quick fixes.

In a typical fashion common to those without a sensible argument or position, you respond by inferring something that hasn't been said and yelling "racist"! No wonder there are such problems.

One of the issues I mentioned was the politics of racial division and here we are, being schooled in it by Ed right here on our own board.

Ed does not care about fixing any problems,all he cares about i getting attention-one loo at his "midnight posts" and constant need to get a reply/post made to his deranged ones.

He has NO life, he sells damaged guns many that were torched or ruined by crappy gunsmithing and wants one thing in life. Line his pockets by using deception-poor pics and shady return policy.

when other forum members want to take the board back they will only do so by IGNORING the deranged Ed Good

Sales of heirloom quality ed good clunkers must be in the tank. Perhaps he should practice "truth in advertising"....... replace the pine cones and leaves in his advertisement pictures with dog turds.

Dave, I think you and Stan (in the other thread) have this correct. His behavior and comments are designed simply to get responses. And that can only happen when we bite.

I took some time last night to read various threads on different forums pulled up by Google searches that date back to the middle of the last decade. It's the same stuff, again and again. I haven't done this with anyone else but I believe I will be putting Mr Good on the ignore list.

The best way to fight temptation is to remove it.

canvas: interesting that you could go back that far and pull up my history...

it would be even more interesting to be able to do the same for some others here, such as keith, dave k and yeah even you...but alas that is not possible because we dont really know who they are do we? and for that matter, what do we know about you?

have a nice day.

I agree, Stan really hit the nail on the head with the "fishing" term, and your putting him on ignore is a smart move CB.
The internet now has pages and pages of his posts-hopefully some new collectors will take the time to research him before handing over money on crap.
I am as well and done falling for the bait,he will be gone in a day or two if he gets NO replies.

Lets hope others join in as well.

here is the link to page with Stans well done post !

(http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=264363&page=9.

On todays Drudge;

Detroit police chief gives credit to armed citizens for drop in crime

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140716/METRO01/307160034#ixzz37jt5FWGS

Detroit has experienced 37 percent fewer robberies in 2014 than during the same period last year, 22 percent fewer break-ins of businesses and homes, and 30 percent fewer carjackings. Craig attributed the drop to better police work and criminals being reluctant to prey on citizens who may be carrying guns.

“Criminals are getting the message that good Detroiters are armed and will use that weapon,” said Craig, who has repeatedly said he believes armed citizens deter crime. “I don’t want to take away from the good work our investigators are doing, but I think part of the drop in crime, and robberies in particular, is because criminals are thinking twice that citizens could be armed.

King, I said noting of the sort. what I said was:
"I would disagree. It would be a very bad idea to allow any municipality, county, or state to decide on our constitutional rights . Read that plural. Not just about guns. Towns, cities etc. deciding what is appropriate to read or say? I think not. Constitutional rights are rights we enjoy regardless of state boundaries.

I was talking about constitutional rights as a whole , not any one in particular. The way I see it, this administration is not just going after the 2nd amendment. They have shredded the Constitution and are now burning the little pieces. Noting about just a federal law for guns. The courts have ruled on the 2nd and my point is that we do not stand by and allow the abrogation of our constitutional rights.

Here is a liberal/yes liberal Constitutional lawyer on Obama and his ,unconstitutional expansion of presidential powers :

Thanks for that; I should not have relied on memory before posting. But pretty close: many jurisdictions arbitrating and making it stick on constitutional rights. Constitutional civil rights were enforced some 50 years at the point of a gun, blithely neglected from Day One because the majority didn't have its heart in extending same rights to blacks and whites. Supreme Court ruled against Guantanamo but still no change. Roe vs Wade wrangling continues to this day.

Your point is to stop "abrogation of constitutional rights." How would you do it when all high offices derive their legitimacy from the will of the people as expressed in elections? One size never fits all. Dave's New Hampshire has comparatively few gun restrictions; your New York considerably more. How do you balance the interests? Different strokes for different folks? Countries differ from when constitutions were written, and are amended all the time.

Maybe he's saying that there is a real problem within these communitites that have nothing to do with our Second Amendment rights. These problems only became as bad as they are as a direct result of the Great Society, Liberalism, and the Welfare State. Illigitimacy rose, as people became slaves on the Democrat Plantation. Mothers have multiple kids with multiple fathers who are not involved. Discipline and parental supervision has given us a generation of kids having babies, and kids with no moral compass. God forbid that the schools teach them right from wrong or enforce discipline. School prayer is a complete no-no.

It isn't law abiding gun-owners who did all those shootings in Chicago, and continue to do it in every big city that already has extremely restrictive gun laws. But it's law abiding gun-owners who guys like you and King think should give up more rights.

Didn't King just allude above, as Liberals are so fond of doing... that our Constitution is a living document, and the country has changed since it was written, so then, the Constitution must be changed or ammended in order to address current trends and problems???... even if those problems were created by Libtards?

You and King both know where the real problem is, but you and King will never admit it. That's how dishonest people with a dishonest agenda operate. I recently provided King with statistics on murder and violent crime rates for the U.S. and the rest of the world. There are many many countries far more violent than the U.S. including Greenland with a murder rate four times as high. I'd venture to say that if we shipped all of our black and hispanic gangbangers to Canadian cities, the murder and violent crime rates would spike there and fall dramatically here in spite of any gun laws in either country. Or maybe Canadian lawmakers would quickly notice that the problem was something other than fear of inanimate objects. Maybe they'd stop giving parole and probation to violent offenders and just lock them up and throw away the key. Much cheaper for society in the long run. But Liberals like King would cry bloody murder and wring their hands about racism and profiling, even when it became apparent that it was working... just as they have done here.

It's still abundantly clear that King wishes to carry the anti-gun/anti Second Amendment/anti-NRA message while pretending that he is on our side and only reporting the news. Well, we see dishonest and biased Liberal journalism all the time here... and King makes excuses for that too. Actions speak louder than words and dishonesty still isn't civility. It's not working King. The Emperor has no clothes and everyone here now knows it except for ed and Jagermeister. Get used to the new normal. More proof to support my opinion of your anti-Second Amendment behaviors to follow...

much bloviation here today, eh what?

ed is now officially on my ignore list. It's the first time in my years on many forums that I've had to do this but enough is enough.

Haha, now that I've actually done it, I see I can't completely ignore old Ed. Where his comments are in each post, it now tells me I am ignoring him.

Anyone else see the irony in this. Lol

I sure do canvas.

It also says that I can "toggle" the post. I won't do that though because with my luck ed's posts will be back on my screen and they will be like some rare kind of venerial disease that you can't get rid of.

now, if you guys will only keep your promises, maybe we can have some civil dialog here about controversial subjects without the tedeious mean spirited posts by a few malcontents who often polute this fine forum. keith and dave k: any chance that you two will also take the pledge? i do hope so...

No ed, I kind of get a kick out of seeing you make a fool of yourself, and you help keep my thread about the anti-gunner(s) in our midst at the top of the page. Plus, you and King continually illustrate that my opinions about the anti-gun trolls here are indeed valid. Even though I planned to do that anyway, you are helping me do it when I can't be here.

Ever hear the term useful idiot, ed? Thanks for being one.
_________________________

in the words of the god dave: "knock your-self out".

Monomania, purest form. Textbook.

Great to see you joining J.R.B.,and yes enough is enough and is so easy to not see that clown post,he will be gone as soon as the others hit that IGNORE button as well.

Not really King, but you can lie, as usual, and call it anything you wish. I prefer to think of it as finally getting a nasty job done right... no matter how long it takes.

Dealing with an agenda driven Libtard anti-Second Amendment liar like you can be like painting right over rust. You can make it temporarily go away with a half-hearted job, but then it always comes back. I'm going right down to bare metal this time. I'm sure you'll understand since there's no uninamity in anything, and this would be a boring place indeed if we all agreed. Deal with it. The new normal has arrived.

Meglomania, purest form. Textbook.

thanks dave...an keith you monomanic, whats it gona take to get yo pledge?

You'll have to submit a $1000.00 pledge to Mike's pledge drive to have yourself permanently banned. And no reneging on the pledge.

Since I'm dealing with both you and King, does that make me a duomaniac?

Keith,you could eliminate one, the jerk-off anti-gun ed good like many here have-just put the a-hole on ignore,once we all ignore him he will have no one to "take the bait" he will leave.

Spoken like a true anti-gunner who wants nothing more that for us to stop fighting and give in to the most destructive force in history... Radical Left Liberalism.

I would suggest joining National Audubon Society and buy good set of bios, camera with zoom lens, plus reference book. One can get together with bunch of nice nature huggers and have real good time. Big plus is one does not have to gut and skin what they killed.


[img:left][/img]

Here's a quote by King Brown copied and pasted verbatim from his post # 308159 on 1/8/13 where he lambasted the NRA and suggested that they should consider the massive gun control Obama was attempting to shove down our throats as he exploited a tragedy to infringe upon our Constitutional Rights:

(Quote: King Brown)

"Your messages appear as from one who hasn't been involved directly in action of what it takes to beat back grabbers other than a NRA membership. (And that antagonizing NRA comment while the nation mourning was no service to our cause, as I said here at the time. Better that the NRA would consider what Obama proposing and it would respond in good time in the country's best interests etc.) Unwarranted inflaming of public opinion is a mistake, and in confrontations of this kind, it's the faux pas that can kill you. Some November dandies come to mind."

King said the above words within this very thread... but in his post #312056 from 2/2/13, he said this:



This is just one of King's proposals that suggest law abiding citizens should give up their right to large capacity magazines or "clips", but it is not the only time he has done this. He has lied to us and denied ever making such a proposal, but there you have it in his own words. Maybe King's buddies would not restrict the possession of large capacity magazines... but he sure would!

I despise anti-gunners, but anti-gunners who lie about it and pretend to be one of us are the most disgusting, vile, and loathsome thing I can think of.

nonsense...

Speak of the devil...

King Brown's post above is chock full of Lies and total Bullshit.

Once again, we have the Burger King telling us that SCOTUS Justices Burger and Stevens are Conservatives. He knows this is not true and that they typically voted with the Liberal wing of the High Court. It is true that both were appointed by Republicans, but they turned out to be far from Conservative. Conservatives are equally disappointed in Stevens and Burger. Here's a quote from TalkLeft, an online Liberal Magazine on Stevens: "By that point, Justice Stevens had long since proved a great disappointment to conservatives. But his nomination remained one of Mr. Ford’s proudest achievements as president, for Justice Stevens’ moderate-to-liberal record reflected Mr. Ford’s own later views, as his stand on affirmative action illustrated."

The Harvard professor King quotes apparently hasn't heard of the McDonald or Heller decisions when he says that assault weapons bans would be consistent with the Second Amendment. And as recently as April, 2014 ex-Justice Stevens was proposing changes to the Second Amendment, and disagreeing with the majority in the Heller and McDonald cases.

Once again King Brown is attempting to LULL U.S. gun owners into complacency, and he is telling us LIES... things that he knows are not true. We have corrected him on Burger and Stevens many times in the past. He continues to repeat the LIE that they are Conservatives.


Make no mistake, King Brown is no friend to anyone in this gun related forum. He does all he can to support and defend anti-gun politicians and to undermine our Rights.

The answer to the original question is No.

could have fooled me..........

Here's a little more from our anti-gun troll King Brown from his post #390913 on 1/19/15 in the "It's About Time" thread, where King once again slobbers all over himself with admiration for Obama, and attempts to LULL us into believing he is no threat to our gun rights. I encourage you to read all of King's drivel in the whole thread.



Are you telling us lies again King, or are you telling us your mind is failing you?

Let me remind you about Obama having his Anti-2nd Amendment gun out of his holster in 2013 after the Newtown shootings. Even after a stinging defeat of his new gun control proposals, he vowed to revisit the issue.

He has repeatedly pressed for more gun control legislation since then, and he has signed at least 25 Executive Orders enacting new gun control provisions. Here's an article about some from the NYT.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/obama-announces-gun-control-actions/?_r=0

What is apparent is that you always seem to support the most anti-gun of U.S. politicians, and you attempt to LULL U.S. gun owners into complacency by telling them that their Constitutional RKBA is in no danger from them. This is a lie, and you know it. It was only a rapid response and mobilization by gun owners and the NRA that prevented draconian new measures in 2013 that would have affected law abiding gun owners without any appreciable effect upon the problem of gun violence.

You also consistently support anti-gun Liberal Left Democrats at the State and Local levels too, in spite of their constant assault on U.S. gun rights.

You claim that you are not anti-2nd Amendment, but your actions and words betray your dishonesty about the matter.

King, I brought the thread with many of your anti-2nd Amendment statements back to the top since your dishonesty or your dementia (or both) is obviously preventing you from recalling your own words.

Read 'em and weep ace. Remember the good ol' days when you could just dance away from your lies?

king: if you ignore this mole, maybe it will go dig elsewhere?

Ed, the little fella is hard to ignore, his huffin' and puffin' as Misfires gladiator of righteousness and all, making noises with a gnat's eyelash of influence, digging deeper to incoherence with every post. It's fun to observe a self-appointed arbiter of what goes on the board!

i guess...it just gets old after a while...

So you think this is getting old ed? Tough shit. It's going to get a lot older.

I decided that you closet anti-2nd Amendment guys are not going to get away with pretending to be on the side of gun rights and the RKBA anymore, while at the same time working to undermine those rights. And I meant it. King Brown thought I would get tired of it if he pretended to ignore me. When I set my mind to something, I never get tired.

When I get some free time, I plan to go through this thread and your own thread of anti 2nd-Amendment quotes, and condense all of yours and King Brown's anti-gun, anti-NRA, anti Second Amendment statements into a few short pages so that others don't have to sift through many pages of unrelated and off-topic posts to see them all.

You both can lie and deny all you want. Your own anti-gun words are right here to show how dishonest you both are. When the time comes, I think a link to your anti-gun words in the "Silent Doubles" forum would be an appropriate memorial tribute. Then we can all drink a toast to both of you with some of King's award winning wine... which is actually made by someone else. "Once a fraud, always a fraud! Na Zdorovie!"

You can collect and condense as many statements as you wish, but Ed and King are anti-gun. By perpetuating this nonsense you're acting like member of PETA saying SPCA members do not care about animals.

Thanks for finally admitting that Ed and King are actually Anti-Gun Jagermeister.

I don't know how you were able to be in denial of their own words which I have saved and quoted here in these threads. I guess your stupidity and own anti-gun behavior might explain it.

Of course, anyone who knows how anti-gun Obama was and proudly voted for him twice anyway is also Anti-Gun too. That would be you Jagermeister. You can't claim to be pro-gun and pro-2nd Amendment when you support one of the most anti-gun politicians to ever run for President.

I forgot to insert NOT before anti gunners.

Yeah, an obvious Freudian Slip, since anyone who has actually read their own words and pays attention to the anti-gun politicians they support would know that King Brown and Ed Good are about as honorable as Hanoi Jane Fonda... and about as much help to supporting the Second Amendment as Sarah Brady.

Of course, you proudly support Obama and voted for him twice, so we all know where you are coming from. Nice try.

Here's the definition of "Freudian Slip" Jagermeister, from Merriam Webster. It is not one of those undergarments you wear under a skirt or kilt.

Freudian Slip: a mistake in speech that shows what the speaker is truly thinking.

Well, time to bring this thread back to the top with some more of King Brown's anti-gun, anti-NRA rhetoric. On 6/18/2015, Jim posted this link to a story about Obama's latest Executive Order assault on our gun rights:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150605/stop-obamas-planned-gag-order-on-firearm-related-speech

Then the anti-gun LULLER King Brown posted this:

more drivel from a juvenile, whose posts here are of little substance and consists of weak attempts at school yard bullying.

what a waste...

Anti-gunner Ed Good once again making excuses for Anti-gun Anti-NRA Socialist King Brown. This thread is full of the anti-gun words of King Brown. Read 'em and weep assh*le.

More support for gun control from King Brown from post #408039 on 6/24/15.



Here's the rest of his anti-gun drivel. No thanks to King for seeking less onerous regulations on pistols, but he is too busy here promoting gun control, and anti-gun politicians, to do anything to help fight burdensome gun control in Canada. We still hear the complaints that King is deaf to from Canadian shooters all the way down here. No doubt that many have simply tired of the fight. That's the goal of the anti-gunners here, and a reason they employ divide and conquer techniques and incrementalism.

Thanks once again King, for showing us what you're made of!

Here's another zinger from the anti-gunner King Brown in answer to Jim's list of rankings of "Best And Worst States For Gun Owners"



And here is my reply to King:

[quote=keith]


King, you know damn well that almost all infringements upon the 2nd Amendment come in states and cities governed by anti-gun Liberal Left Democrats... the very politicians you support 100%. Mitt Romney was the absolute lesser of two evils when it came to gun rights and you know that as well. Obama had a 100% anti gun voting record as an Illinois representative and U.S. Senator. I have no doubt that your motivation for posting was to get this thread moved to Misfires where your anti-gun, anti-NRA, and anti-2nd Amendment stance is well known.

ANTI-GUN POSTS by KING BROWN

Gee whiz:
There is almost a perfect correlation regarding severe firearms regulations between worst States and States that are under Libtard control. Oh I guess this is just a coincidence!
Jim

It may not be a perfect correlation of gun sentiments in red and blue states, Jim. It is confirmation that there's no such thing as unanimity about the "inalienable" Second Amendment rights of gun owners. It's reaffirmation that citizens---majorities---make decisions about how they want to live. God bless America!

Really King? Or is it only "God Bless America" from the avowed atheist when things go your way? You applaud the infringements as citizens making decisions about how they want to live, yet are strangely silent about those recall elections in Colorado that citizens used to fire the politicians who turned on them and voted to infringe upon their gun rights.

And you won't acknowledge that that voting to go along with your anti-gun Obama led to a major shellacking of many Liberal Democrats in the 2014 mid-terms.

Do you tell us "God Bless America" about those little circumstances, or do you criticize the 2nd Amendment and the NRA and pontificate about our Wild West Gun culture? Can you show us even one time where you supported a pro-gun American politician? Why do you feel so compelled to lie about your affinity for anti-gunners, and your anti-gun rhetoric?

Here's King Brown once again from his post #413666. King believes that incremental gun control strategies such as Universal Background Checks are worthy of discussion, but he dismisses any notion that we should stand firm and not give any ground to anti-gun forces. We all know that these registration schemes have led to outright bans and enabled confiscations in other countries. But King wants us to ignore history and have the onus of gun crime placed upon the backs of law abiding citizens while making excuses for those directly responsible.

wow! over 31000 hits! gotta be the all time most popular thread on this web site?

Unless, of course, the 'majorities' happen to reaffirm Trump, then it changes to the rev wright version of America.

That's 31,788--- and counting--- to be exact Ed. A lot of people like to see how dishonest your pal King is about his anti-gun attitudes and rhetoric. Even the off topic posts like the one above submitted by craigd are valuable to illustrate King's utter dishonesty about it, and also his agenda driven hypocrisy.

Some people believe certain laws and regulations are needed to protect those that posses guns legally. That in itself does not make them anti-gun. It begs question what would Kingsley Brown have to gain from promoting gun control in USA? I say nothing.

As a Canadian, what does he have to lose?



_________________
Sir, you have debauched my sloth. Jack Aubrey

Wow! This may be the most intelligent thing you ever posted here Jagermeister. It proves the adage: "If you sit 1000 monkeys in front of 1000 typewriters for 1000 years, one of them will write a book."

On the other hand, considering the full spectrum of what King Brown posts here, it seems his motivation for promoting gun control in the U.S. is simply a part of his overall promotion of the Liberal left Democrat agenda which has made the nation weaker, less prosperous, and less free.

King has mentioned a bunch of times that he believes some issues and people are full of hot air, and he visits to let the air out, of just one side. He's also mentioned how terrific Canadian firearms laws are and implied the US would do well to follow. When's the last time you took your latest best ever auto pistols up to Canada for a fun target shoot with friends?

You're a funny guy Jm, all the laws and regs are for is to protect your ownership rights. Good for you.

Stephen Maturin said it.



_________________
Sir, you have debauched my sloth. Jack Aubrey [/quote]

Sheesh. These misfires fact checkers. It's getting so bad that you can't mis attribute an inaccurate quote to a fictional character anymore.




_________________
In the Army, when selecting a MRE for lunch, you should choose the lesser of two weevils. Anonymous

That's funny. Wish I had written it.

Thanks.

Gil

I don't think they're terrific, Craig. There's been slackening on pistol regulations but they are still onerous. Overall, however, I think our long-gun regulations are a fair accommodation of our interests.

I am participating with a study and book on our gun culture with a hope of finding a way to diminish anti's ignorance of it. (I think US cross-border gun transport is more rigid than Canada's.)

I haven't advocated that Americans do what we do because we are two different people, two different cultures, in some way as different as day and night. ". . . do well to follow" is inaccurate.

Why don't you tell us more about this research study and book King? Who is doing the study? How will a study done by you cool the jets of the anti-gunners when you generally agree with them and universally support and defend them? I'd love to read this book or review the manuscript. I'd expect the same type of LULLING of gun owners you give here, and the same advice you gave to the NRA to roll over like a whipped puppy and concede ground to the anti-gunners.

I don't know what gives you the idea that cross border transport of guns is less onerous in Canada than in the US. Our Southern border is pretty much wide open to drugs, guns, and illegal aliens thanks to Obama's refusal to secure the border. And we are warned that even having an NRA decal on your truck or car window will generate harrassment and long tedious searches when we attempt to cross into Canada.

Sounds like more bullshit from you, and a dishonest attempt to pretend to be pro-gun when your actual words here demonstrate otherwise. You can't put the Genie back in the bottle King. You are not fooling anyone.

This guy is not anti-gunner. I'm 100% sure of that.

Why you blank'in, blankity, blank. Okay, now I feel better. You shouldn't mention advocate either, it's inaccurate, but two thumbs up for the tactic.

I'd guess you would tolerate a visit from jagerm, because you've mentioned welcoming convict work release chain gangs doing recycling projects up in your neck of the woods. Would you tell jagerm to just sneak a few of his auto pistols in because, heck, you have an old trappers pistol stashed away somewhere. After all, your interest is just recreational.

Chain gang recycling? Craig, you're teasing, harassing an old man!

Ah craigd, then you probably also remember the story King told us about illegally flying around Canada with a handgun in his float plane.

He wouldn't have had to resort to being a law breaker and risk sharing a prison cell with some Canadian Bubba who would make a guy in a kilt his wife if they had the same level of RKBA as we do.

Jagermeister, you are also 100% sure that the Militia of the 2nd Amendment is the National Guard. The opinion of an idiot and an anti-gun troll is meaningless to anyone who has actually read King's repeated anti-gun and anti-NRA words.

Jag, it's another of his lies. Another one is flying with a pistol. Survival guns are not illegal. I forgot it was there once while flying into the states. That is a no-no. Keet is obsessed by me. He can't help himself. An affliction, to be pitied.

Well King, it could very well be a lie, because it is what you told us a while back. And a great many things you tell us are lies. But when I repeat one of your bullshit stories and complete fabrications, that does not make me a liar. I've told you that I'm not obsessed with you. I merely decided to illuminate your lies and bullshit and anti-gun rhetoric. Who knew that would become a full-time job? Most people who aren't mentally ill will slink away after getting caught in a lie. But you just double down and attempt to deny and demonize.

You are only fooling two idiots... Ed Good and Jagermeister. Congratulations!

That's not what you told us here King in your post # 360486 on 3/10/14:



Do you remember what Canvasback had to say about your illegal transport of handguns in Canada... and apparently even across the border?



I wouldn't blame Jim or anyone if they reported you to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police just as you reported Jim to Dave Weber for voicing his opinion about the anti-gunner George Soros. You know... to protect the integrity of Canadian airspace.

It would appear that King Brown is once again telling lies to cover up previous lies. And he is attempting to deflect his inherent dishonesty by transferring it to me.

That seems to be the current opinion. Put it this way, why would our Founding Fathers have the military which is another government agency put down or stop the government which they are a part from being tyrannical? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Deflect? Keet shifts his recent admission of his lie about Jim and Soros to my RCMP advice on use of a pistol 60-odd years ago. He also shifts my use of a pistol to flying with a pistol. My survival firearm is a Savage 24 .22-20ga. I asked Dave to "take a look" at Jim's counselling to kill an American Jew for saying "disgusting" things. A Canadian could expect a visit from the Mounties for such hate on an international board.

For the record, I have carried a pistol in my fishing kit on RCMP advice to not use it anywhere people are around within miles. I left my kit once on a woods trail, distracted by collecting our children. It was found and returned to the RCMP. When I went to pick it up the sergeant rolled his eyes, pointed to the bag and said "There it is, take it and don't do it again." They know an honest, barefoot country boy when they see one!

Dear obsessive Keet can't make a post without mentioning my name.

Admittedly just rumors, but there're unconfirmed reports that eleventeen folks made considerable donations to planned tissue marketing, and(!), cross dress deep in national wilderness forests, miles from other folks. Yet, when we find out they vote Republican, they're automatically homophobes and misogynists. Go figure.

Do Canadians measure the content of honesty, or the party affiliation of the card that they carry. Important lesson, don't leave home without it! Platinum card, eh!

The great Liar King Brown is the obsessive one. He is obsessed with telling us lies and then telling more lies to explain his previous lies.

King just lied in his previous post again when he said that I "shifted his use of a pistol to flying with a pistol". But he said this in his post # 360486:

Originally Posted By: King Brown

Carry is mostly prohibited but the Mounties told me when I bought my first one 60-odd years ago that I'd never have any trouble anywhere if I used common sense, not do something foolish with people around. Used it in our wide open spaces and forgot to remove it several times crossing the border in my aircraft.

Is he now trying to tell us that he was talking about a Savage .22/20 gauge survival gun here? Is he telling us he crossed the border several times while illegally transporting a firearm without flying? Was he towing the "aircraft" he referred to behind his truck? It's too bad that Canadian handgun laws are so onerous that you have to be sneaky and break the law to do a little target shooting, and be careful to know that there are no other people within miles of you.

That RCMP officer who returned King Brown's illegal handgun when he carelessly left it behind on a fishing trip sounds like he was practicing selective enforcement. King would be incensed if he looked the other way when a poor barefoot white country boy was not arrested while a poor barefoot black city boy in the same circumstances was thrown in jail.

King, you ratted Jim out to Dave over nothing but voicing his opinion, like the squealing little rat you are. I hope someone returns the favor and tells someone in the RCMP who actually follows the law about your illegal use of a handgun. Someone who cannot remember his previous lies is a danger to everyone. It may seem trivial to you, but it is Canadian law, which you think is superior to U.S. firearms laws.

I told you King, when I set my mind to something, I never quit. We are all sick of your incessant lies, bullshit, and anti-gun rhetoric. None more than me. I will not take my foot off the neck of the snake. You can always try another approach and just stop lying, but by now we all know you are too mentally ill to ever do that.

So where did you go King Liar? Is it really mostly prohibited to carry a Savage model 24 in Canada... or were you lying to us yet again?

Do you really have to make certain you are miles away from other people to get away with shooting a Savage model 24 .22/20 ga.? Was canvasback warning you that you could be prohibited from owning any firearms for life for using a Savage model 24? Are things really that tough for gunners in Canada... or were you lying to us again?

And here, in your post # 397342 from 3/13/15... are you going to try to tell us that you were talking about a Savage model 24 here?:



I can't wait to see your "craft of journalism" and use of weasel words to wiggle out of this one King. I wouldn't worry about it too much though. It's not like it is the first time you got caught red-handed in a lie and simply acted like it never happened. Mentally ill pathological liars are very adept at that. I think it indicates that you are mentally unfit to even own a pistol let alone illegally carrying it all around Canada and repeatedly crossing the border with it as you have claimed here on an international board. Maybe you should turn yourself and your pistol in to the authorities. No one is above the law.

king: please be so kind as to answer the following questions:

do you see a difference between government regulation and prohibition of arms ownership?

does government regulation of arms violate the constitution? and if so, specifically how?

and does the long standing federal firearms act of 1934 violate the constitution?

do state laws regulating arms violate the constitution?

does licensing of semi auto handgun owners violate their constitutional rights?

and finally, is there a need to reduce the firepower in the hands of the people?

Ed, I don't know the answers to all of those questions nor do state and federal governments whose challenged gun laws are sent to your Supreme Court for arbitration. The Second is a never-ending debate.

Government regulations are challenged every day. The Supreme Court decides if they violate the constitution. In gun cases, according to how the jurists find for originalist or living-document arguments.

Overall generally, on the evidence of what governments wanted to regulate and could not, current state and federal legislation is not a violation of the constitution. Obama huffed and puffed and, as I predicted, got little traction.

Reducing firepower in the hands of the people? People decide how they want to live. I believe Canada has come to a reasonable accommodation with both sides. Onerous pistol laws need to be and are being eased.

On our relative gun cultures, it's early days for my participation in a study and book on Canada's gun culture, and how both may bring more support for gun ownership. Canadians and Americans are different in this respect.

king: thank you for your thoughtful and gentlemanly response.

an you don't sound like an anti-gunner to me...

Well, there's one anti-gunner sucking up to and defending another anti-gun troll. Of course you also deny to us that you are an anti-gunner Ed Good, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary:

ANTI-GUN POSTS by ED GOOD

Well King Brown, I see you are trying to run away from another of your lies... this time about your illegal use and transport of a pistol within Canada, and even across the border.

Is it really mostly prohibited to carry a Savage model 24 in Canada... or were you lying to us yet again?

Do you really have to make certain you are miles away from other people to get away with shooting a Savage model 24 .22/20 ga.? Was canvasback warning you that you could be prohibited from owning any firearms for life for using a Savage model 24? Are things really that tough for gunners in Canada... or were you lying to us again?

And here, in your post # 397342 from 3/13/15... are you going to try to tell us that you were talking about a Savage model 24 here?:



I can't wait to see your "craft of journalism" and use of weasel words to wiggle out of this one King. I wouldn't worry about it too much though. It's not like it is the first time you got caught red-handed in a lie and simply acted like it never happened. Mentally ill pathological liars are very adept at that. I think it indicates that you are mentally unfit to even own a pistol let alone illegally carrying it all around Canada and repeatedly crossing the border with it as you have claimed here on an international board. Maybe you should turn yourself and your pistol in to the authorities. No one is above the law.

You really are a low life white trash fraud King. Not only did you lie to us again, you tried to make me out to be the bad guy.

A case of two anti-gunners hawking loogies down each other's throats.

J.R.B., I wonder if King Brown will hawker a loogie down the throats of any Mounties who visit him to inquire about his self-confessed illegal use and transport of a pistol in Canada and across the border. Can you believe he was stupid enough to brag about his illegal activities on an international board?

And can you believe the filthy liar called me a liar to cover up his own lies? I can believe it, because King is a low-life fraud who will stoop very low to advance his agenda.

" low-life fraud"

pot callin da kettle black...

Let's keep this on top where King Brown the King of Liars can see it...

Well King Brown, I see you are trying to run away from another of your lies... this time about your illegal use and transport of a pistol within Canada, and even across the border.

Is it really mostly prohibited to carry a Savage model 24 in Canada... or were you lying to us yet again?

Do you really have to make certain you are miles away from other people to get away with shooting a Savage model 24 .22/20 ga.? Was canvasback warning you that you could be prohibited from owning any firearms for life for using a Savage model 24? Are things really that tough for gunners in Canada... or were you lying to us again?

And here, in your post # 397342 from 3/13/15... are you going to try to tell us that you were talking about a Savage model 24 here?:



I can't wait to see your "craft of journalism" and use of weasel words to wiggle out of this one King. I wouldn't worry about it too much though. It's not like it is the first time you got caught red-handed in a lie and simply acted like it never happened. Mentally ill pathological liars are very adept at that. I think it indicates that you are mentally unfit to even own a pistol let alone illegally carrying it all around Canada and repeatedly crossing the border with it as you have claimed here on an international board. Maybe you should turn yourself and your pistol in to the authorities. No one is above the law.

You really are a low life white trash fraud King. Not only did you lie to us again, you tried to make me out to be the bad guy.

"white trash"..

exposing comment from an unknown...

No one has to try to make out Keet as a bad guy, Ed. He does it to himself here every day.

Hey King Pinnochio Brown, you said that I was a liar when I reminded craigd about your illegal transport of a pistol in your aircraft. Then you concocted another lie and claimed that the gun you ferried around Canada and even took across the border was a Savage model 24, and not a pistol.

When I proved that was another of your rotten lies by using your own words, you choose to not acknowledge your lies and to instead denigrate me.

You really are a coward and a low class compulsive liar. And without your lies and bullshit, you are nothing.

Let's keep this on top where King Brown the King of Liars can see it...

Well King Brown, I see you are trying to run away from another of your lies... this time about your illegal use and transport of a pistol within Canada, and even across the border.

Is it really mostly prohibited to carry a Savage model 24 in Canada... or were you lying to us yet again?

Do you really have to make certain you are miles away from other people to get away with shooting a Savage model 24 .22/20 ga.? Was canvasback warning you that you could be prohibited from owning any firearms for life for using a Savage model 24? Are things really that tough for gunners in Canada... or were you lying to us again?

And here, in your post # 397342 from 3/13/15... are you going to try to tell us that you were talking about a Savage model 24 here?:



I can't wait to see your "craft of journalism" and use of weasel words to wiggle out of this one King. I wouldn't worry about it too much though. It's not like it is the first time you got caught red-handed in a lie and simply acted like it never happened. Mentally ill pathological liars are very adept at that. I think it indicates that you are mentally unfit to even own a pistol let alone illegally carrying it all around Canada and repeatedly crossing the border with it as you have claimed here on an international board. Maybe you should turn yourself and your pistol in to the authorities. No one is above the law. Here is where you can turn yourself in:

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
6080 Riverside Dr E, Windsor, ON N8S 1B6, Canada
+1 519-948-5287

Would you like me to be a character reference? Or will you settle for your little anti-gun idiot lap dog Ed Good?

You really are a low class fraud King. Not only did you lie to us again, you tried to make me out to be the dishonest one. Too bad you cannot delete or edit old posts King. You can't run from your own words anymore.

Members may be aware that American and Canadian pilots and aircraft owners are required to carry survival kits---including long guns and pistols---in wilderness areas. In general, they can transport firearms from any place where they can lawfully possess and carry such firearms to any other place where they can do the same thing: possess and carry. The RCMP website www.rcmp.gc.ca not only confirms this but adds that a professional licensed trapper as myself may also transport a pistol. Both the Firearms Act and the Aeronautics Act provides the privilege. From the RCMP website:

"In general, the only firearms allowed for wilderness protection are non-restricted rifles and shotguns. The following individuals, provided they are Canadian residents and have a licence that allows them to possess restricted firearms, may be authorized to carry a handgun or restricted long gun for wilderness protection: licensed professional trappers, and
individuals who need protection from wild animals while working at their lawful occupation, most often in a remote wilderness location."

I have been a licensed pilot for nearly 60 years, an aircraft owner for more than 50. A constant companion in its leather-bound strapped case is a Savage 24 .22-20 gauge. I forgot to remove a pistol attending Oshkosh in '83, a no-no mentioned here a week or so ago. I also carried a pistol illegally in my fishing kit for decades in every part of Canada when you could buy a new Ruger for $35 and the law left you alone if you acted responsibly. It still does.

As for the RCMP, I work with The Force, at its request. My family has held senior responsibilities and relationships with it for 80 years. Keet's fulminations remind me of his twin Jim's pestering the police with preposterous notions of the school massacre as staged event, a hoax to distract everyone from the devil incarnate Obama! The RCMP and I are doing just fine, thank you.

why is a m24 illegal?

It is not illegal, mc. It's combination rifle/shotgun, perfectly legal on the ground or in the air.

I didn't know you were a Star Wars fan. You should change to a cool nickname like yoda or something like that.

Now let me get this straight. When you landed in Wisconsin, back in '83, armed for bear, you thought bo was going to bite? Hardly, he was still 'experimenting' with a little recreational party favors back in kali. Hang on, we may be able to place him in some unorganized community down in chicago. Hmmm, maybe you did meet the young jedi before he accumulated riches beyond his wildest dreams of his father, maybe not.

Craig, we spar a bit, and that's good. You make me laugh, as I just did about your post after a long, hot day doing field work and chores---30C is hot for us. Laughs are important. If we're not having fun we aren't living. Thanks.

more wisdom from da king...

Well, it was good of King Brown to admit that he was lying to us about his transport of a pistol in his airplane. You'd think he would have apologized for saying that I was lying about that, and concocting the dishonest story about the Savage model 24. But it would take a man to apologize and admit when you are wrong, and King the cowardly liar will never be a man.

I enjoyed how it took King two days to come up with a cover story that now says he only took the pistol across the border to Oshkosh once in 1983... when he tells us in his post # 360486 which I quoted that he did it several times. It does get hard to keep all those lies straight, doesn't it King?

King lied through his teeth when he said that I "shifted his use of a pistol to flying with a pistol". But he said this in his post # 360486:

Originally Posted By: King Brown

Carry is mostly prohibited but the Mounties told me when I bought my first one 60-odd years ago that I'd never have any trouble anywhere if I used common sense, not do something foolish with people around. Used it in our wide open spaces and forgot to remove it several times crossing the border in my aircraft.

I also enjoyed the tall tale about him having the right to transport a pistol in his airplane because he has a Professional Trappers License. So let's add Professional Trapper to King's greatly inflated resume. Funny he never mentioned his trapping activities to us before. With his usual bloviation and exaggeration, I'm surprised he hasn't claimed to have trapped a Sasquatch and trained him to smash grapes with its' big feet to make award winning wines.


Yes, you aren't living if you aren't having fun... and I'm having loads of fun illuminating King Brown's lies and his anti-gun rhetoric. I'm having so much fun that I have no plans to quit. Well, maybe if King agreed to the same terms of surrender that Mike has demanded from jOe... but he will have to stop lying too. And we all know he can't.

Members will have noted that his response to being caught in a web of lies about my firearms transport is to add another: my "tall tale" of being a licensed professional trapper. It isn't true because he didn't know of it!

He imposes this moral and virtuous judgement to my vineyard and wine, distinguished journalism career, my father's acceptance into the Roman Catholic Church not believing in the resurrection, common also in Canada's largest Protestant denomination.

A week or so ago he was supporting Jim's anti-Semitic hate speech to the point of challenging me to prove Jim said it, and then provided the evidence he had himself lied about its existence. His specificity is amusing.

Was it once or several times I crossed the border with a firearm in my survival kit? I remember Oshkosh more than 30 years ago. American and Canadian pilots used airports along the border without clearing customs for years, particularly with neighbourly Maine and Vermont and New Brunswick.

I've flown hundreds of hours along the border in my work.

King a big supporter of anti semite's likes Joe,Bobby and yes JFK Kennedy as well as the Muslim president throwing that card down is laughable !!

You keep chugging your Koolaid up there in never never land oz and misrepresenting everything to do with politics/gun laws AND rights in a country he does NOT live in King and we will keep laughing at ya !

Long time no hear, Dave. Good to see you well and happy. Laughing is good medicine. Trump has you in good cheer!

dave k: you out on the campaign trail? bet you an udder repubs in nh are fraid o de donald...aint too late fur you to jurn us an become a trumpite...

DaveK, good to see you back. As you can see, the only thing that has changed here is that King Brown is more delusional than ever. Also, your buddy Jerry is back under the assumed identity of a girl named Gunluvr. I wonder if Jerry is from Nova Scotia too.

King Pinnochio is now claiming I lied about his illegal transport of a pistol when I merely used his own exact words to prove he was lying to us again. Good Lord, next he'll be claiming that it was me who made the wild-assed claim about his father converting to Catholicism without belief in the Resurrection. The old atheist is still dishonoring his father with that crazy lie. And he still hasn't given up the names of any of those Canadian Catholic clerics who also disbelieve... according to him. So I don't imagine for a second that he can provide a shred of evidence that disbelief in the Resurrection is also common in Canada's largest Protestant denomination.

Funny thing is, I can't think of a single person who identifies himself as a Christian who does not believe in it. It must be a uniquely Canadian thing. Or another King Brown lie.

His "distinguished journalism career"... what a crock! He was a quitter who imagines he was on equal footing with real heavyweights like Morely Safer and Peter Jennings. His vineyard and winemaking... well, it turns out the winemaking was done by someone else and he was the smallest independent supplier of grapes to Jost Winery until his falling out with new owner Carl Sparkes a few years ago. He won't tell us who he sold grapes to from his 1 acre vineyard since then, nor if Carl Sparkes knows that King is claiming he mistreated his employees.

The lunatic even thinks Jim was engaging in anti-Semitic hate speech when Jim gave his opinion about the Nazi collaborator George Soros, a scumbag anti-gunner who King defends.

King thinks that Misfires is keeping his synapses firing. What a JOKE!

Amen to that...

Can you bring up post where JimM was raving about why members of Mossad haven't knocked off George Soros? You know, for the mythical crimes he committed against the Jews during WWII. I read what George Soros confessed to doing according to JimM. Was it from 60 minutes interview? I can remember there was no indication in it that Soros did anything to the Jews.

It's not my responsibility to educate a person so unaware he doesn't know resurrection as literal or metaphorical is a continuing debate among theologians within Catholic and Protestant churches. My father's mentor for baptism was a senior church official who studied seven years in Rome. The Moderator of Canada's largest Protestant denomination, The United Church, considered it metaphorical, and was backed up by the National Council. I prefer to think of it as a metaphor, not a scientific fact. I also am not obligated to straighten out a totally confused account of my vineyard and winery except to say the winery has hired its first human resources person to lift morale. Jim said a prominent American Jew should be shot on sight like a dog for saying disgusting things. His Twin denied he said it---a lie--- but was forced to give in.

Canada is a culture of violence and misery. You bet the fear of being gunned down by a rabid right winger will grate on anyone's morale. Short of paying your workers a decent wage for their work, might I suggest armed guards. Nothing like a good guy or two with a gun to protect those who won't protect themselves, or to keep the proletariat inline. Maybe, fire the boss?

So now we have a self professed atheist telling us that he considers the Resurrection of Jesus metaphorical. And our resident liar King Brown also cites a former moderator of the United Church of Canada who has also rejected the Deity of Jesus, and said in 1997, “I don’t believe Jesus was God, but I’m no theologian,” This is someone largely responsible for the United Church of Canada being fractured and the fastest declining church in Canada. It has lost well over 50% of its' membership in the last 50 years while overall population of Canada has increased.

Of course, it is perfectly in character for King to cite so-called leaders of a failing church that has a number of insane Leftist Liberal leaders who have strayed far from their roots and place more emphasis on homosexual Deacons, gay marriage, and wacked out environmentalist dogma than upon their founding principles... one of which is this:

We believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, Who, for us men and our salvation became man and dwelt among us.

We believe that He lived a perfect human life, wholly devoted to the will of God and the service of man.

We believe that in Him God comes face to face with men; so that they learn that God loves them seeks their good, bears their sorrows and their sin, and claims their exclusive faith and perfect obedience.

We believe that in Jesus Christ God acted to save man, taking, at measureless cost, man's sin upon Himself; that the Cross reveals at once God's abhorrence of sin and His saving love in its height and depth and power; and that the Cross is for all time the effectual means of reconciling the world unto God.

We believe that Jesus was raised victorious over death and declared to be the Son of God with power; and that He is alive for evermore, our Savior and our Lord.

So we acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Son of God Incarnate, the Savior of the world.

Here's more on King's wacked out (formerly) United Church of Canada:

http://news.nationalpost.com/holy-post/the-split-in-the-united-church

Who will you cite next King... Wiccans, Druids, or Pagans? Nice try King, but I've learned to do fact checking with most everything you claim because you lie so often. What a fraud.

King won't name his father's Catholic mentors who supposedly do not believe in the Resurrection so that we can educate ourselves on their actual beliefs instead of little King's rotten lies.

He is also intentionally very vague on his vineyard and what he refers to as "his" winery even though he was never anything more than their smallest supplier of grapes. And why wouldn't he be vague after acting as though he was an award winning vintner when all he was is a very small grower of grapes? He also told us he quit selling Jost Winery grapes when the new owner, Carl Sparkes, took over a few years ago, and was mistreating his employees. At that time, he claimed that Sparkes was still using the name of his little vineyard without authorization, and that he was selling his grapes to another winery. So which winery is King referring to as his, and which winery hired an HR person to lift morale?

Also, I never denied that Jim said that the Nazi collaborator and extreme anti-gunner who King defends should be shot. I said that Jim was giving his opinion, and we are entitled to an opinion here in the U.S. Apparently Dave Weber agrees, because he did not delete Jim's posts or otherwise censure him after King squealed on Jim like a little rat. Actually, King lied when he said Jim was inciting murder, yet he excuses the anti-gun Nazi collaborator George Soros who funded riots and hate speech by race hustlers that actually did lead to the murder of cops. In fact, when King quoted Jim's first statement on the matter, King deceptively and intentionally deleted Jim's "IMO" or "In My Opinion" and then lied when he said that Jim's post had been deleted. For a guy who claims to have never lied to us, he sure is tripping over his forked tongue.

Then the lying P.O.S. King Brown said this:



So after he claims that I am lying about him flying with a pistol, he is in obvious denial of his own words where he tells us that he did indeed fly with his pistol and even illegally crossed the border SEVERAL TIMES with it in his airplane:

Originally Posted By: King Brown

Carry is mostly prohibited but the Mounties told me when I bought my first one 60-odd years ago that I'd never have any trouble anywhere if I used common sense, not do something foolish with people around. Used it in our wide open spaces and forgot to remove it several times crossing the border in my aircraft.

But first he concocted another lie about only flying with a Savage model 24 survival gun, and then telling us about his right and obligation to fly with a pistol as a survival gun because he now claims to be a Licensed Professional Trapper. I would believe Licensed Professional Liar.

This is the mark of a pathological and compulsive liar. And as he becomes more and more senile, it becomes increasingly difficult for him to keep all his lies straight. I'd feel sorry for him, but I have no empathy for anti-gunners.

Another example of his wild-eyed ignorance, of believing that all those who disagree with him on any issue are morons and idiots or "whacko" in the case of the membership of Canada's largest Protestant denomination, acknowledged as the trailblazer among Christian churches for biting the bullet on homosexuality, engagement with homosexual, heterosexual and LGBT members, removing sexism and old dogma from church teachings, ordination of women, human rights protection for all regardless of sexual orientation, gay marriage, serving Jesus by the way its membership lives---a dynamic of exploding acceptance by the United States in federal, state, military laws and churches, even the Roman Catholic Church coming around with expanding roles for women and from Francis himself "Who am I to judge?"

(I call myself an atheist because I don't know what I am except I believe in Jesus and his teachings of how to live in a loving community. It's a sin for me to call any Christian denomination a mental case should its beliefs be different from mine. Jesus would have little time for those who believe THEY are arbiters of faith and truth and denigrate, distort, denounce and lie about fellow citizens and communicants, particularly those who receive regular Holy Communion. They spit in Jesus's eye. They do it to become a somebody from a nobody. May the Spirit save us from them.)

I can see why you tolerate the church of Canada, pc. You folks should try to separate church from state, if nothing else, but to take a break from reciting talking points. Nice balance, only 'souls' of your political stripe are entitled to saving. If the right could only shed their blinders, they could open their hearts and surrender their souls to the government.

Interesting, the only 'teaching' of Jesus that's accepted is how to live the easy life, just like your fellow Christians in balmy iran. Introspection is the key to breaking the culture of violence, misery and mayhem, so apparent to outside observers, and distance yourselves from the likes of the quds forces and allow lbt's their pulpit. Hmmm, never mind, you already did that.

Craig, interesting views. I don't go to church or any activity that expects regular attendance, can't abide by it's Tuesday, men's night etc. I contribute to church projects of any denomination that strikes my fancy, as my wife and two retired daughters did at noon and last night, as well as to political parties, Ducks Unlimited, gun groups and the usual obligations.

It does seem at times that church acceptance of Jesus's teachings has the appearance of picking and choosing of what's easiest. Our Acadian parish bishop has been particularly critical in this respect. I believe Christians must be tough personally or--- to put it in another way--- they need greater courage and skill to bring forward Christian tenets of love and community.

The United Church took a big hit in membership by saying its treatment of women and those of different sexual orientation is wrong. After that was "settled" I attended Antigonish's United Church among the elms on Main Street to hear the first sermon by an ordained female friend. I was greeted at the door with a hug and kiss from a black activist female friend. Entering the church was a poignant and deeply emotional moment for me. Lo and behold, the church was full. The Spirit had prevailed.

Not always, however, are religious occasions as favourable to me. When my brother-in-law, an United Church clergyman, died my sister asked me to do the eulogy. They broke away from the UCC and formed a new church because of UCC sexual policies. My sister was a federal candidate for the Christian Heritage Party. I loved my brother-in-law and honoured his life and work in his pulpit in his brand-new church, in full Highland dress.

Love comes first.

Lots-o-baggage attached though. I guess I wonder if it's a selfish or a selfless love. How do you 'feel' about it?

Yes, a lot of baggage. I don't know the answer to your question, never thought of it. It's part of what I do to get past things. In that respect, it could be selfish. Confronted by personal and public hard ones, the easy out for me is to ask myself Who am I? Then act as a brother, lover, father, son, friend or citizen should act using their finer instincts for selfless reasons. That's how I generally feel about it. I don't know.

King i don't understand "trail blazer"when a church changes it's belief to accommodate individuals,when according to the basic writing in the bible say that they are sinners,and should follow the biblical teachings.and you can not be a catholic without the holy trinity and resurrection.

mc, I googled Early Christian trailblazers and I thought the following was a fair shot at your question:

"At the very heart of Christianity lies the life of Jesus Christ, which from nearly every perspective imaginable involves complications of some sort. Believers can choose to focus on Christ's human suffering or divine transcendence, theologians are left to debate the specific details of his resurrection and, without any contemporary portraits to go by, artists have little or no guidance in depicting him. Most problematical of all, an array of accounts now known as the Gospels ascribed to various disciples connected with him, present different and sometimes incompatible recollections of his teachings. But of all those struggling to situate him in some kind of framework, historians perhaps face the most intimidating challenge of all, trying to figure out what-really-happened in the wake of Jesus' life."

Constitutions can't be compared to the Bible but they also have similarly changing interpretations of how we're supposed to live, as do different Christian denominations and within denominations. You and I may wish to believe Holy Scripture of a man in a whale, an eye for an eye or the earth created in six days while others of faith say they're metaphors, inconsistent with other teachings. I referred to the United Church of Canada as a trailblazer because its actions, which did NOT accommodate the majority membership, are increasingly accepted by churches and governments as laws to live by.

I think of current Catholic and Protestant church reforms as a sort of mini-revival of the Protestant Reformation to get Christianity back to Christ's teachings. FromWikipedia again:

"The Protestant Reformation was the 16th-century religious, political, intellectual and cultural upheaval that splintered Catholic Europe, setting in place the structures and beliefs that would define the continent in the modern era."

Love comes first.

its church doctrine and you are off base.and missed my point,if you are a catholic you accept the resurrection as fact and not a point of debate.in fact. Jesus was a jew kept kosher, observed the Sabbath and ritual bath.and temple.you don't change church doctrine to be politically correct.even though sol of tarsis my have done exactly that.

Why you secular progressive sly fox, you have been thinking about it. Left comes first.

Admittedly, it's a small component, but key to the strategy. Gov baits 'em in by creating a 'church', then does the ole switch-a-roo force feeds 'em new laws to live by.

If a heart is busy feeling good, are you sure there's room in it for selfless love. Loving friends and family is easy. Isn't it interesting that the only other 'love' is being an agenda compliant 'citizen'.

If you serve a whine before its time, why does it pair so well with shellfish?

mc, I don't criticize what Christians believe in matters of their faith. I have a spiritual life and others have theirs. Proof of vast differences of doctrine, dogma and scripture is the splintering of the "One True Church" into thousands of Christian denominations with their own biblical interpretations of resurrection, infallibility of the pope, immaculate conception, dietary laws, of how we should live etc.

I believe Jesus would prefer questioning followers than ones who accept everything as it's written without questioning. In my region, Acadian and Irish Catholic congregations have different relationships with church authority; the Irish defer, the Acadians more likely to tell off their priests on their performance. Churches are changing and reforming all the time, the Catholic Church particularly, now cleaning up Vatican fraud and criminal priests, with a pope who declares on sexual orientation "Who am I to judge."

I can speak of only my experience as the son of a Baptist mother who followed the Old Testament dietary laws, and an Anglican father whose mother was a British Israelite believing the British were one of the 10 lost tribes of Israel. My father was accepted into the Catholic Church not believing in the immaculate, infallibility or resurrection. There are always those who sniff around and challenge and denounce others' authenticity but I was there as his caregiver through it all. It's a true story.

And think of it, mc, what church would shut the door if you asked to come in--- even at the last minute, at the last breath, as my Catholic priest friends say?

Craig, don't get big-headed. You're the only member who provides me with a burst-out spontaneous laugh. I had left my post to mc on arrival at the house of a friend, finished and posted it later without noticing your post above. Whine and shellfish, chewing of cud and cloven hooves, fish with fins and scales are a perfect fit. Thank you.

"You're the only member who provides me with a burst-out spontaneous laugh."

king: i am hurt and discouraged....but, i will suck it up and try to do better...

yuck, yuck, yuck!

Don't feel bad. Neither of us are smart enough to be satirical. Craig sneaks it in now and then.

the pope is the vicar of Christ,and if the pope takes the bible literally the the pope must judge.churches will be forced to accept and administer ,against there doctrine and teaching, this is the problem that's coming. but it will be christian churches not muslim or jewish that suffer and Christians have to defend them selves jews don't want you, muslims don't want you,and will close the door on you.you are not a catholic unless you believe in the resurrection.and the trinity.

mc, King Brown picks and chooses what he wants to believe and frequently lies about the rest. I provided links proving that the United Church of Canada had a huge decline in membership after adopting radical and obviously unpopular views. King would have you believe that adoption of those views has led to overflowing Churches.

You can Google it for yourself to see who is lying.... again.

Same thing with his cock and bull story of his fathers conversion. Obviously, you know something about the requirements for adult baptism for Catholics. King can not and will not name any Catholic clerics who would baptize someone who did not believe in the most basic and crucial tenet of Catholicism... the Resurrection of Jesus.

What a disgusting fraud.

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES,,,

KING BROWN IS AN ANTIGUNNER...

NOW WILL YOU LEAVE IT ALONE?

AN MIKIE...YOU AN JoE GOTTA GET A ROOM...

Oh no. I've told jOe over and over that I like women and only women. But he just never takes the hint. Keeps trying to get my address so he can send his panties to me. Asks me if I dream about him at night. And then I tell him again I only date women.

I notice he has been being really nice to you lately. Gosh, I hope he has switched his obsession from me to you. I know you spent some time in Florida awhile back. On your next trip South you might stop in and see jOe. I bet jOe would play Deliverance with you.

You two will have to work out which one squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaals like a piggy though.

Mike, spare me a serious minute. Some 36,000 views of homoerotic posts on a thread asking if I'm an anti-gunner, answered by the same poster claiming that I am---with an infinitesimal showing of hands-up in agreement either way. There should be no question of you and Joe as straight or my pro-gun position. How do you account for the 36,000?

"How do you account for the 36,000?"

All y'all are a bunch of nutters?




____________________
He who lives without golf is not fit to live. Mole Year
(A wise Cajun writer/sage/philosopher)

Roads, click back a page and take a look at the number of views shown for this thread. Nothing like entertainment!...Geo

I am certain that both jOe and Mike are straight as arrows.

And I am equally certain that you are not pro-gun King Brown. That is not just my opinion... that has been answered by you yourself in your own anti-2nd Amendment and anti-NRA words and rhetoric. Nothing I can say could do as much damage to you as your own words. They have been reproduced and saved here for posterity. They will stand as your DoubleGunShop epitaph. It all has been punctuated by your unabashed support of extreme anti-gun politicians who have nothing else to offer except inexperience, incompetence, and complete disdain for the things that built this country and made it great and strong.

I'd feel confident that only a small fraction of the 36,750 plus views of this thread are by spectators who wish to follow the dispute between Mike and jOe... especially since they have not contributed very many "homoerotic" off-topic posts within this particular thread. I'd prefer that we all stay on the topic really. We can discuss your many lies in a "King Pinnochio" thread or we can initiate a a new thread to discuss your obvious homoerotic excitement over the contribution that acceptance of homosexuals had in the dramatic decline of members in the United Church of Canada... something else you tried to lie about.

But here, it should be about you King Brown, and your "Living Tree" or "Living Document" Liberal Left fantasy version of our Constitution, which would make the 2nd Amendment as useful as toilet paper and would destroy gun rights in a generation. It should be about your glee over jurisdictions where the 2nd Amendment has been infringed upon. It should be about your criticism of the NRA, our gun culture, and your LULLING advice to us to simply give ground to the anti-gunners. Deny it all you want. Those words of yours are here in this thread forever.

The vast majority of those 36,750 plus views are by those visitors who are getting an eyeful and an education in how anti-gun trolls operate. Clearly, it bothers King that he no longer has the support of people who long held their tongue out of pity for an old man. An old man who is a pathological liar is merely a liar with more experience. Respect is earned... not bestowed because of advanced age.



No Ed, this is not over yet. Only a fool takes his foot off the neck of a snake.

In a nearly unmoderated forum you get what you get. Explain the fascination with Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner. Or the "Black Lives Matter" advocates still sainterizing a thug named Michael Brown. Or "The Macarena" (in case you missed it: Wiki - Macarena)

The universe, and people, are stranger than we imagine and stranger than we can imagine.

That is my best shot at a serious answer to your question.

Members will note he reminds us continually that the majority of Americans are anti-gun morons and idiots because they didn't vote Republican, as if a a true American is a Republican in love with his guns and like himself takes his identity from NRA donations whereas other members have tag lines of memorable quotes and whimsy!

His posts play into the hands of the antis by dividing the shooting fraternity---if you're not a Republican you're plain-and-simple anti-gun---in the same way that LaPierre hurt the NRA by his callous remarks following the school massacre, for which I censured the NRA here for its disrespect of a grieving nation and consequent effect on the organization. Our NRA Benefactor Plus believed otherwise.

Business Insider reported Jan 16 2013, under headline "In Just One Month, The NRA Has Torpedoed Its Reputation", this:

"The overall favorability rating of the NRA has plunged in the last month, putting its image in a negative light for the first time. In separate polls conducted by Public Policy Polling and the Washington Post/ABC News, the association's favorability ratings sit underwater with the majority of Americans.

The PPP poll shows a big shift from before CEO Wayne LaPierre's press conference, which cast blame on the media, and violent video games and movies for the elementary-school massacre in Newtown, Conn., last month. Before the press conference, 48 percent of Americans viewed the organization in a positive light, compared with 41 percent who viewed it unfavourably.

After the press conference and a subsequent appearance on "Meet the Press," the NRA's favorability shifted to a 42-45 negative split — a 10-point swing in three weeks.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post and ABC found that the NRA's favorability rating is underwater for the first time ever in their limited polling of the question. According to the poll, only 36 percent said they have a favorable opinion of the NRA, compared with 44 percent who view it in a negative light.

When the WaPo/ABC last polled on the subject in 1999, the group's favorability rating stood comfortably positive at a 48-39 split."

The spirit of citizenship is NOT to keep your mouth shut when the public interest is abused. I believe the public interest---particularly protecting gun rights from growing and unreasonable criticism---is served by protest wherever ignorance and incompetence compromises our interests. Anyone who divides shooters and antagonizes those who think differently is out of any game.

By his standard, those who don't place the Republican Party and guns as their country's highest priority are idiots and morons. Members may decide for themselves what he thinks of them.

Thanks, Mike. I don't have an answer either.

Wow, Canada is a culture of violence and a bunch of other bad things, I mean are your fingers okay after all that NRA demonizing. I get it, you don't like the NRA. I think I picked up on that before. Hmmm, question is, is the NRA a political party?

Love guns? No, it's not necessary, but I suppose such great lengths are taken to justify a progressive Constitution because guns are a right in the US, meaning love or hate doesn't matter.

But, back to the NRA party. If they show up on the ballot, yup, you probably get a divided vote, but so far, it hasn't happened. How about morons? Is it possible to claim one position, but vote polar opposite.

I thought there was a comment floating around about politicians stirring up gun control controversy in the name of some sort of national security. Which party would identify closest with france?

If it is possible to focus, here's a simple question. Are dem politicians, regulators, judges, and various other policy/lawmakers pro gun control? No fair going to wiki for a quote from some small town Wyoming mayor who has a rifle rack in his pickup, but ran as a dem.

more brilliant insight and commentary from da king...

"His posts play into the hands of the antis by dividing the shooting fraternity---if you're not a Republican you're plain-and-simple anti-gun---in the same way that LaPierre hurt the NRA by his callous remarks following the school massacre, for which I censured the NRA here for its disrespect of a grieving nation and consequent effect on the organization. Our NRA Benefactor Plus believed otherwise. "

You're sounding like the little fella, Craig. Where did I demonize the NRA, please? I identified a sharp tongue, unwise and emotional NRA response that would put its membership and gun ownership in a bad light---and it did.

Responsible organizations welcome comment to make them more accountable to their membership and, in this case, to the general public. They consider public interest and constructive criticism the highest compliment to their activities.

When they blow it, as the NRA did with Sandy Hook, those who are not concerned with the NRA's role and influence on public opinion let it go, or approve of it as the little fella did. The NRA to me is an important gun lobby, not a political party.

I wrote to the NRA and McCain some years ago with advice on how Canadians pushed back the antis. You may agree that's more pro-gun than being a fifth column within the NRA, deliberately dividing our shooting fraternity on political lines and making waste of all that money he brags of donating to NRA.

Taking a position and voting polar opposite is not only possible but common. Romney's 47 per cent, a totally unexpected campaign issue, and Canada's current scandal involving the Senate and the Prime Minister Office, changed conservative loyalties in both countries.

Changing minds is not moronic.

King, the NRA has been extraordinarily effective in promoting Second Amendment rights.

I give them much of the credit for getting the right case in front of SCOTUS that allowed that court to rule that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

They were able to get the government to eliminate the ban on "assault weapons".

The recent and rapid adoption of concealed-carry laws by dozens of states was much facilitated by the NRA.

Bloomberg and his allies created organizatons based on the NRA model, hoping to emulate the NRA's methods in their own anti-gun campaign.

You tell us the approval rating for the NRA is down, yet the percentage of Americans that think protecting gun rights is important has increased and the Second Amendment supporters are now in the majority. The percentage of those that think gun control is important declined.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/us/gun-control-gun-rights-pew-survey.html

Your antipathy for the NRA must spring from your liberal mindset. It is not based on any objective judgement. The fact is that the NRA is highly effective and very successful in defending gun rights in the USA.

Are you a member of the NRA?

You should be.

Pound for pound, I felt the need to trim a bunch-o-stuff off of this one too. You may not be aware of it, but I have a scale sitting next to my comp, more of a balance beam.

In this small example, I threw the pro gun dem reality on one side and the less than flattering NRA comments on the other, and guess what? Broke my scale, it took a distinctive anti NRA bent.

I believe you wrote johnny mac, who's heart and who's mind did it change exactly? Changing minds may not be moronic, but window dressing may be aimed at perceived morons. For all the greatness of an upper third best, couldn't he have thrown a few window dressing right wing victories at the fools to disarm opposition to future gun control progress. Or, maybe the hearts and minds that matter are inflexible. Hey, those are both the same.

King continues to flog the dead horse of Wayne LaPiere's response to Sandy Hook simply because it does not suit him. In fact, it was reserved, accurate and delayed out of consideration to the gravity of the situation.

The truth is that the concept has been widely accepted by many school districts which are in fact actively training those who are capable of being armed and willing to be so. In addition police and others in many municipalities such as the police chief of Detroit are encouraging citizens to legally arm themselves.

It has done all of those things. I made a point of NRA's importance. As for membership, I posted public opinion of LaPierre's gaffe in 2013. I don't know what membership is now. From my experience of running easily 100 campaigns, stupidity and mistakes, totally unexpected issues, kill well-thought-out strategies for keeping the public onside. Sandy Hook was an example. The little fella is another.

The issue has nothing to do with liberal or conservative mindsets. The fraternity is under seemingly increasing criticism from every quarter. The Second is a continuing debate; evidence a plethora of contradictory gun laws in municipal, state and federal jurisdictions. I have no more antipathy toward NRA than when the Blue Jays change a perfect lineup. The issue is minimizing any actions on our part that militates against gun rights.

Become an NRA member? The NRA's principal spokesman here says I'm an anti-gun troll in the same way he characterizes all other members and anyone who think differently from him---politically. They abjure reasonably from membership for the same reason as I do: we're not fit to be in his company.

The effect was to diminish positive public opinion of the NRA.

You need to judge NRA on its totality, not just some act you disagree with.

And keith is a member here and you certainly are too. So you can stand sharing Misfires with him but not the NRA?

Can't we seem to come up with a more specific quarter. In the interest of compromise, who anyway is driving the 'debate'?

Any time there's a Second challenge, there's no end to public debate, even on whether the constitution is the federal charter as a thread the other day, and it will go on as long as America pushes its originalist and living document opinions. And a Supreme Court decision doesn't mean much if nothing changes i.e. Guantanamo.

I'll take a shot. The antigun sentiment is coming from the urban centers of our Country where the the ruling class is contending with rampant murder and a backlash of police over reaction.

The management of these urban centers has relied upon taxing and regulating the productive members of society out and leaving the self absorbed "can't help its" to stew in a terrible government handout environment where violence seems the only way to survive. Gun control may actually be the only answer to inner city madness.

Those of us on the outside though see that in our system, the regulation of the inner city thugs must be applied to all of us if applied to them. If gun banning works to save lives in Chicago, et al a large number of Americans think that it is worth restricting the rights of all of us to achieve that goal.

Bloomberg and Obama both are "right" from their limited point of view. We the rest of the people have every right to respectfully disagree. And clearly we do...Geo

I would add that almost all of those large urban crime ridden cities have been under Democratic control for decades. So if keeping the cities safe is the responsibility of the Mayor and city council and the city is unsafe then who is to blame? "Guns! That's it! Guns! And that nasty old NRA won't let us outlaw them with sensible gun control laws! We don't have the tools we need to do our jobs!"

It is all excuses and lies from the failed political ideologists running those cities.

My posts above declare that I see NRA in its totality as an important organization for protecting gun rights and that I have no more antipathy toward it than for the Jays when a lineup change sends scores south.

I don't think of my participation in Misfires as sharing anything with him--that is, in the true meaning of sharing equally with others--- because his malicious and filthy behaviour made it impossible for me to share anything with him.

I am obliged to inform members of his obsessively nasty behaviour when he deliberately misrepresents my life and activities. I take no pleasure from it. I prefer to not answer his daily twisting. The result is satisfactory.

To answer your post specifically: I don't participate with him on anything. I share nothing with him on Misfires. I have written to NRA twice to offer assistance. My nationality may have been the reason for no response.

How many other members contributed similarly to NRA to push back the antis? Anyone can send money.

That's a helluva a good shot, Geo!

Uh oh...Geo

Pity, isn't it, that it's a Republican board! I call them as I see them, Geo. I admire courage, reasonableness and kindness---it's the Canadian way; dull and boring, they say---and give credit where it's due. Your post was all of that, and sincere. An ornament in Misfires.

If there were aany diminishment of positive public opinion of the NRA, it was very short lived as evidenced by increased menbership as well as increased gun ownership since.

As far as your opinion that this is somehow a "Republican board" that is also wrong. There obviously is a significant number of contributors who are patriots, disgusted in the direction the country has taken, particularly under the aegis of the current administration. They are strongly conservative leaning, but cannot be defined as republican, misogynist, racist or whatever definition you choose to apply to discredit them.

King, has a computer,and a liberal mindset,his absolute disregard of U.S. Immigration and gun laws confirms this ,he wont acknowledge the facts of catholic doctrine and accept this as being the primary difference in this first of the christian religions.when ever possible he denigrates the U.S and the U.S. military.even though he knows that the united states has done more for the world freedom than any country ever.he acts like the NRA is a monolithic organization who's members live under a bridge and have zero input on the direction of the organization.i say never give and inch to anti gunners and politicians.from reading your post i don't think you are pro gun even tho you might own guns. and i think you dislike the united states because of your country's limited influence in the world and having the live in the united states shadow.you seem to see what the current event is and take the side of what ever is anti American. mc

Sure King thinks it's a hell-of-a shot, because he still 'wins'. 'We the rest of the people' don't stack up half as many in numbers as your 'large number of Americans'. Who taught 'em that, and do Americans have a 'right' to disagree with pc?

You're seeing something I don't see in Geo's post. I'm no apologist for his opinion, he's a conservative and I a liberal, both pro-gun. He answered a simple question in a reasonable and balanced way. I and Mike, both pro-gun, found no explanation for the question. His "shot" was an improvement on ours, Craig.

If there's a "winner" it's Geo, not me. Geo's accurate take on respective rural-urban numbers and mindsets should strengthen the notion that separating members on political grounds will end shooting sports as we know it within the foreseeable future. A right to disagree? Americans are as good at that as anyone. Look at the 17!

spot on evaluation of the harm keet the subversive is doing here and perhaps elsewhere:

"I wrote to the NRA and McCain some years ago with advice on how Canadians pushed back the antis. You may agree that's more pro-gun than being a fifth column within the NRA, deliberately dividing our shooting fraternity on political lines and making waste of all that money he brags of donating to NRA. "

Not discrediting anyone, Jim. Increasing NRA membership and gun ownership is not germane. The battlefront is public opinion as always. That's what brought the troops home from foreign engagements and led the country to honour its justice and liberty commitments to all Americans. Geo put his finger on the way it is.

"Republican board" only quoted Republican members who also recently confided here of voting while holding their noses. As for the direction the country has taken, there has been no disapproval here of the current Republican favourite except for mine. Disgust is no reason to do it the country again.

mc, I won't be disrespectful of your opinion of me and Canada. Only ask: Have you written to an influential US politician and presidential candidate and the NRA to offer strategies to beat back the antis, as I have?

Canada always hits above it weight in world affairs, and didn't have to be torpedoed into the First World War and bombed into the Second while Great Britain and the Commonwealth stood alone against fascism.

Canada has managed its affairs to be recognized as most contented in the world with its governance and public services, while Americans according to polls and members here are angry and disgusted with their representation in Washington.

Canada is in no one's shadow.

Not a big deal King. Geo mentioned that 'a large number of Americans THINK' pro gun control. There is a specific political party, over many decades, that has taught our children and lobbied/advertised to adults that guns are bad.

Geo definitely explained a reason, but didn't touch on why a large number of Americans think only one way. Yes, I believe we see it differently. Don't you take for granted that your position is supported by a large base that has no idea why the object is bad other than what they've been taught?

That could be construed as a luxury, a perk for starting off of the 'winning' side, and then dictating the 'dialog'.

I don't know what you mean by "your position." I'm as pro-gun as you are or pretty close. My position as a gunner and gun rights advocate isn't supported by a large base, quite the opposite. I said shortly after joining the board our fraternity will decline in numbers and influence with each generation, and only smarts and consummate PR skills will keep us in the shooting game.

My children and grandchildren tried guns and hunting and lost interest mostly because of the killing. Target shooting was okay for a year or two. They didn't get the Bambi sin-to-kill from me. I make no apologies for my killing and tell friends who confront me that it's the way I was brought up, to get over it because my type will be gone like the dinosaurs in their lifetimes.

The naysayers of guns and hunting and killing know why they hate it; they're disgusted by it. Shooting anything is abhorrent. I've been scratching my head for the last month trying to find a silver bullet for moderation, accommodation, something more than Lott et al, the facts we always trot out (with barren results).

I have an idea I'm trying to sell for a better-informed general populace based on national pride. We'll see.

King ,you know that the uk couldnt have maintained the war footing that it did with out the united states support.and it did take time to get the us involved ,Russia and the uk couldn't have put up much resistance with out our supplies, lend lease, ,illegal support.the Murmansk run kept going till the end of the war.politically, economically,the unites state cast a large shadow.i have been involved in the fight against anti gun politics and policy's and have worked for campaigns to defeat these policy's. i have had my opinions published in local publications.i worked with the NRA at a local level to defeat a proposition that would have had you leave your legally owned firearm behind if you moved to California.i personally talked to candidates about there position on gun control.and worked to defeat anti gunners.and i still think you are not a pro gun individual except for your own personnel property protection i.e. keeping your own weapons

canada and the united states are democratic republics, yes?

if so, then issues like gun control are decided by the people and specifically the majority of the people via the votes of their elected representatives...should the majority of the people decide to ban or restrict firearms, then will you as a good citizen obey the law? yes or no?

I thought I mentioned this a bit ago. Is it possible to SAY someone is progun, but 'know' they're voting and supporting pro gun control politicians. It doesn't matter what you think you are, the reality is you support an agenda, and part of the agenda is gun control.

Remember, you have the luxury of 'selling' your position with the appearance of civility. Why, because you have lock step support from folks who have no clue why there're along for the ride.

I say, instead of early grade school 'text books' about homosexual exploration, how about farmer Joe throws his gun in the pickup because it's a tool just like his tractor. Maybe ten years in a row of that from kindergarten through 4rth grade would have your great grand kids asking to go with you out in the woods. But, that would cripple the agenda for maybe triple that amount of time, eh?

OK, get ready to reload because I'm sticking my foot in the water again. Gun control is not in the present about changing the hearts and minds of all the people who would be happy to give up their 2nd amendment rights in order to get peace in the urban war zones. Those people don't like or want guns anyway and BELIEVE hunting is quaint but because its no longer necessary for sustenance it is just a barbaric cruelty. Especially trophy hunting! You are not likely to change their minds.

Is there an alternative to gun control to bring peace to the city? Sure, but it would amount to martial law and policing on a scale which will bring screams of injustice to the misbehaving city dwellers. There are two groups of urbanites: the misbegotten who will not be convinced to bite the hand that feeds them (however niggardly the portion may be), and the well to do liberal city dwellers who are well treated by the liberal establishment and largely insulated from the gang-bangers. The misbegotten are unreliable voters, and the wealthy liberals vote for self interest.


So the issue for us, that is the pro-gun minority, is how do we protect our rights for another period of time. The only answer in sight today is political victory for the people who will give lip service at least to honoring what we think the 2nd amendment guarantees the people. Today that means the Republican party, and electing a Republican President as well as maintaining control of the legislative branch and naming conservative Justices to maintain the present balance of the Supreme Court.

How? By doing just what the Republican party is doing in this election. Keeping The Donald out there revving up the base and leaving it up to the center to reach out to new elements who might see some personal interest in conservative governance in the form of a reasonable immigration policy for the hispanics, fiscal responsibility and a plan to control the streets for the benefit of the wealthy liberals who are being taxed in the cities to support the misbegotten who scare the hell out of them, and a renewed interest in national security for the safety of the Country.

When the nominating begins Trump and his supporters must be satisfied that the issues he has brought to the front pages are taken seriously and incorporated in the platform to prevent a 3rd party disaster like Perot as well as another voting strike by the core of the party like with McCain and Mitt.

I think Hillary will self destruct and that they have no bench at all except for Biden as a retread and one of the communists.

The only Republican candidate I can see who can win is Jeb Bush. Hispanics will feel comfortable with him due to his Honduran wife and the job he did governing in Florida(and he did do a good job as Governor). He will have to come up with a fair immigration policy that he can effectively articulate without stumbling as well. But he can win the Hispanic vote, I think. The Democrats make a mistake presuming the Hispanic vote; their values are pure conservative.

Not that I personally trust the Republican party on gun control. To retain power they will throw us under the bus before you know it. Seen any Confederate Flags "flapping" around the government buildings lately?...Geo

Sorry for the long post, I just felt some foolish need to express myself on what I think is an important subject, even if it down here in the romper room!

P.S.: Oh and just to keep my post on topic with the thread, no I don't think King Brown is an Anti-gunner.

Good job Geo. It would be a great job if you were more niggardly with the word count.

If you're right about Jeb, I hope, seriously, he's taking acting and speaking lessons. I've never, ever, seen a guy swing from trying to emulate O'Malley and Trump in the span of about two weeks.

In this day and age, taking issues and positions seriously seems foolish. Folks aren't that engaged, you just have to grab their attention. Then it's up to the individual if they hold their attention.

Geo, then I'll ask you to help me out on this one.

I believe you've read a ton of stuff here by King about what a pretty good to great President the current fellow is. I also couldn't help but notice your election comments up where we're not supposed to misfire.

I believe it's fairly safe to assume that you're not too impressed by the direction of the country on it's current path.

Seems to me like polar opposites of what King praises about the direction that the current fellow has taken the country. Among other directions, I believe he's taken the country in a deliberate anti gun direction, and would go farther if he could.

But, I may be mistaken, and there're many other worthy issues beyond gun control. If King could vote in the US, I suspect he'd vote the current guy in for a third term. Question, has King made a satisfactory case that the pres, who can control the agenda, is pro gun? His case does not seem to hold up in the romper room, but would you go to court with it?

King has a thing for President Obama. King is a liberal, hell he's a communist. When the civil rights movement was taking dead aim on the South, King was traveling with the freedom riders while reporting and was what my family correctly called an outside agitator. I don't think much of his politics

That period of King Brown's life was the peak of his career though and I believe to him the most important thing he has ever been involved in. The election of Mr. Obama as President of the United States was in King's eye a repudiation of all that he saw as wrong about the United States, and he can see no wrong in the man. Sometimes you just have to make allowances.

On the other hand King is the guy who in his late 70's dropped a Fox Sterlingworth in the Atlantic ocean and came back the next Summer and dove in 90 feet deep waters to recover it. He then had it restored. Tht would have been one gone Sterlingworth if it had been mine! Can't be anti-gun...Geo

May I butt in to help the question along, Craig? I believe Obama will be in the top third historically for what he did under the circumstances. I would vote for him again because the current alternative scares me. I couldn't vote Clinton. I believe Obama is anti-gun and can't go farther than he has because, as I have said here repeatedly for years, Americans are in love with their guns.

Craig, you getting about these days? I've talked to city teenagers who don't know where milk and hamburger comes from. The countryside is being emptied. Canada's population now resides primarily in a couple dozen cities strung along the border. There's no going back to pastoral and bucolic landscapes. Holding the line against antis will require an educational toolbox different from the one we're using.The horse is long over the hill. Civility won't cut it. We're long past that charming affectation, too.

mc, the US is a great country that has made a great contribution to the world, socially, economically and militarily, as I messaged in response to your earlier post. It pleases me that you are campaigning against the antis more than just sending off money for your NRA membership.

The only point where you've got it wrong is my being pro-gun to protect my property. I don't think there's a license for protection of property in Canada. Pistols are licensed under onerous conditions almost entirely for target shooting (although some may regard their pistols for safety).

You couldn't know, of course, that no one locks their homes or cars in our fishing and agricultural communities for miles around, and there hasn't been a break-and-enter here as far back as I can remember. We do not have carry concealed or otherwise. I have no need of a firearm for protection.

"We do not have to carry concealed or otherwise. I have no need of a firearm for protection."

same here in rural nh...thank goodness...

Geo, I like opinions from people who stick their neck out. My only reservation to yours is that (1) power---exercised by Republican or Democrat in the White House---is always softened by responsibility and political reality and (2) electorates withdraw support quickly when the road gets bumpy. The US is nearing a dangerous junction of civil unrest where repression could take precedence over gun rights.

The bird's done, Mom!

This is amazing. Less than 24 hours ago, King Brown was asking who the over 36,000 viewers of this thread were. Since then, almost another 800 have checked in. Of course, quite a few of those visits were made by the old anti-2nd Amendment liar himself.

King, you are positively frantic trying to deny that which is undeniable to anyone who reads your own words and rhetoric on the matter.

So what if King owns a few guns? So what if he dove 90 feet into the icy Atlantic in his late 70's to recover a lost shotgun? First of all, I would have to see that feat with my own eyes to believe it. We all know how King lies and exaggerates. It sounds like pure bullshit to me. Second, we all know of hypocrite gun owners like disgraced syndicated columnist Carl Rowan who preached the gun control mantra for years, and then were caught with guns of their own. Owning a gun or shooting a gun does not make one a pro gun rights guy by any stretch. Extreme anti-gunners like Michael Bloomberg and Rosie O'Donnell commonly utilize armed bodyguards.

Since the Newtown massacre by a deranged mentally ill shooter, NRA membership has increased by over one million members. The common sense advice given by Wayne LaPierre was proven beyond a doubt right in King Brown's Canadian Parliament when former Mountie and Seargent at Arms Kevin Vickers shot and killed a Muslim extremist killer. A Good Guy with a Gun took out a bad guy with a gun. King Brown said he was not a hero. King told us that Canada does not make heroes. I corrected that absurd statement.

King claims he is not anti-NRA. His previous posts on the matter prove otherwise. He says, "I wrote to the NRA and McCain some years ago with advice on how Canadians pushed back the antis. You may agree that's more pro-gun than being a fifth column within the NRA, deliberately dividing our shooting fraternity on political lines and making waste of all that money he brags of donating to NRA." I have asked him repeatedly to tell us exactly what advice he wrote to the NRA. I have no doubt that it was more of the same insane advice he gave to us... to concede and give ground to Obama and the anti-gunners. To give up large capacity "clips" (magazines, actually... the great gunner does not even use the correct terminology). King claims he advised the NRA to use the same strategies that Canadian gunners used to roll back the Long Gun Registry. How would he know? King never lifted a finger to help, and he would rather LULL us into complacency here than to work on getting Quebec to comply with the repeal of the Registry and destroy the database as required by law. Does anyone wonder why the NRA ignored his letters to them? King's ideas were tried in the past. The GCA of 1968 is a prime example. We spent years digging out of that hole, and King Brown would have us fall back into it.

King's so-called polls on attitudes about the NRA obviously are meaningless. We've also seen King post inaccurate and dishonest numbers and statistics many times before. Who can forget his recent lie about the amount that Obama has added to the national debt and deficit? King ran away from that rotten lie and refused to provide proof of his bullshit. He would not even acknowledge Ken61's proof to the contrary. More Americans than ever strongly believe in the RKBA. The real attitudes were seen in the wholesale slaughter of Democrats who sided with Obama in the 2014 Mid-Term Elections and the recall election in Colorado. That is the only Opinion Poll that really matters pertaining to gun rights and the NRA.

I am proud and happy to stand by my opinion that so-called gun guys like Jagermeister who vote for extreme anti-gun politicians are idiots. They are also spineless unpatriotic fools to knowingly put the Constitutional freedoms that good men fought and died for at risk, just to be on the receiving end of some government hand-outs. The fact that King has distorted and exaggerated my words and beliefs on this matter are not at all surprising. But I wholeheartedly believe what I actually said and I do not run away from my own words or fear my own tongue as King Brown does.

I can appreciate Geo Newbern wishing to believe King Brown is not an anti-gunner. I wish it were so. I'm equally certain that Geo, being a lawyer, is acutely aware of criminal defendants who were caught red handed, or caught on tape confessing to an undercover officer, and in spite of incontrovertible evidence against them... never stopped proclaiming their innocence. It's a pathetic display that King is putting on with his frantic serial posting today. He's hoping to fool others into ignoring what he has posted many time over the past few years. Pro-gunners do not repeatedly and consistently support anti-gunners. Pro-gunners do not attempt to portray anti-gun Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens as a Conservative. Pro-gunners do not take delight in pointing out those Liberal left Democrat controlled states and cities that have infringed upon the 2nd, and hold that up repeatedly as proof that the 2nd is not inviolate. Pro-gunners do not dishonestly and intentionally forget to point out that where the RKBA has been infringed upon, it is done almost 100% of the time by anti-gun Liberal left Democrats. It is these things that Little King is frantically attempting to run away from here today. It is too kind and too civil to merely call King Brown a fraud.

King Brown, it is too late to put the Genie back in the bottle. Your anti-gun words and anti-2nd amendment rhetoric are preserved within this thread. You have to be mentally ill to deny what you yourself wrote. You will eat those words until your dying day. I don't really give a damn how much you lie about me or attempt to denigrate me. That only makes me more determined to make certain that your lies, dishonesty, and anti-2nd Amendment attitudes are held up for all to see. Your words are your own worst enemy.

You made your bed. Now you shall lie in it.

TTT

Over 38,000 views... and counting.

King, i was referring to your property, being your guns,not protecting property as in defending your life and property.

The suggestion in title of the topic is so absurd that many want to see what the discussion is all about. Now do you understand?

All you have to do is read King Brown's own words with comprehension and understanding to make a sound judgement here Jagermeister. But unfortunately, I had to repeat myself several time this morning in the Bernie Sanders thread because you were in denial of something you said an hour earlier... even after I quoted it for you... and you tried to put words in my mouth. Yet you still cannot show me where I ever said what you claimed.

This is how anti-gun trolls like you, Ed Good, and King Brown operate.

Do you recall King Brown saying this to refute and deny the SCOTUS decision in the Heller case in 2008?



King was not disagreeing with Burger, He was supporting that opinion, just as he has supported and celebrated every other Liberal Left Democrat infringement upon the 2nd Amendment.

Pro-gun guys do not do such things. Civil and honest people do not attempt to deny such words after it can be shown that they actually said them. Civil and honest folk do not attempt to weasel out of their anti-gun words by lying and demonizing and denial.

Your pal King Brown is a fraud of the highest order and you are stupid enough to swallow his bullshit.

keet: you are an idiot!

All you have to do is read King Brown's own words with comprehension and understanding to make a sound judgement here Jagermeister. But unfortunately, I had to repeat myself several time this morning in the Bernie Sanders thread because you were in denial of something you said an hour earlier... even after I quoted it for you... and you tried to put words in my mouth. Yet you still cannot show me where I ever said what you claimed.

This is how anti-gun trolls like you, Ed Good, and King Brown operate.

Do you recall King Brown saying this to refute and deny the SCOTUS decision in the Heller case in 2008?



King was not disagreeing with Burger, He was supporting that opinion, just as he has supported and celebrated every other Liberal Left Democrat infringement upon the 2nd Amendment.

Pro-gun guys do not do such things. Civil and honest people do not attempt to deny such words after it can be shown that they actually said them. Civil and honest folk do not attempt to weasel out of their anti-gun words by lying and demonizing and denial.

Your pal King Brown is a fraud of the highest order and you are stupid enough to swallow his bullshit.

keet: you really are an idiot and a fraud of the worse kind!

Anti-Gun Ed Good... didn't you just initiate a new thread telling us not to engage in name calling?

STFU and stop pretending you don't see the anti-gun words of your anti-gun pal King Brown.

Oh wait... for you rotten lying hypocrite Libtards, it's "Do as I say... Not as I do."

Congratulations King. Over 40,000 views on this thread dedicated to your anti-gun and ANTI-NRA statements! There's a real milestone you can add to your inflated resume that is actually true.

I'm very happy for you.

No Ed, I won't. I am not a quitter.

This extremely dishonest series of flailing foundering posts from King Brown needs to be saved here. This is most revealing. The "he" King is referring to is me. I am "he", or "keet", or a "Terrible Twin", or "the little guy". It is King's means of demonizing me to try to build himself back up. The next three posts are copied from the "Re: SO THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO MY NRA IN 1977" thread on 8/27/15

Here is King responding to mc after he remarked about other anti-gunners here such as Ed Good, and the anti-gunners King supports:

Here is my response to the anti-gun fraud King Brown... the rotten liar who claims I am making it all up just to be mean and spiteful to a poor innocent old man... even after I have quoted his anti-gun words and rhetoric for him repeatedly.

Still flailing and frantically trying to regain credibility as a true gun guy, eh King?

I'll agree that merely mentioning that the 2nd is not inviolable is not enough to brand someone such as yourself as an anti-gun troll. But when we look at the totality of your anti-gun rhetoric over the past several years, it is disturbing to think that you could be so pathologically dishonest to be in denial of it.

Your critical view of our "Wild West" gun culture has been frequent. Your criticisms of the NRA and of Wayne LaPierre's statement after Newtown were insulting to most all of us. But you have reiterated that belief several times now. What was truly insulting to those grieving families was the Liberal Left anti-gunners using their tragedy and a nation's sorrow as a vehicle to advance an agenda that would do virtually nothing to prevent these types of crimes.

Then there are the many inaccuracies and misrepresentations you've posted. The notion that anti-gun Liberals such as John Paul Stevens were Conservatives without revealing how disappointing they were to the presidents who nominated them is another example. Then there is your frequent LULLING... the ignorant and dishonest notion that the 2nd Amendment is not threatened and not under constant attack by Liberal Left anti-gun Democrats... that the mere presence of our 2nd Amendment and our strong gun culture is enough to be certain that it can never be taken from us. If that were true, they why would the antis keep trying? How about your intentional failure to note how very close we have come to actually losing major chunks of our RKBA over the past few years? What about your recommendations that we simply roll over and just concede things like large capacity magazines to Obama/Biden?

Certainly you don't expect us to forget the most important indicator that you are no friend to us. That would be your unwavering support and defense of the most extreme anti-gun politicians and figures in the United States, including Obama, Kerry, Bill Clinton, Biden, Schumer, Ted Kennedy, George Soros, and a host of others. To paraphrase Willie Nelson... Your heroes have always been anti-gunners.

And oh, how you all protect each other here. It is beyond laughable to think that you could read the many many posts by Ed Good telling us that we should give up large numbers of firearms, and that we do not have an Individual RKBA... that the RKBA has been replaced by the National Guard and Military for example, and then piously state that he is not anti-gun. What a rotten fraud you are King.

You must think we are idiots and that you can once again make some excuses and dance away from who and what you really are and have proven to us to be time and time again. That was possible in the past for you. You were very deft and masterful at fooling people by playing the short term memory game and dancing away from things when folks started to see behind your mask. That's not going to work for you anymore, because I am not letting you.

I have mentioned all of this before. Yet here you are dishonestly acting like I zeroed in on one little thing you said and incorrectly judged you. And then you once again attempt to turn the tables by denial and demonization. And you think you can play on our heartstrings by claiming that I am doing irreparable damage by dividing our fraternity.

No! Your kind has been no friend to us, and you have not helped our cause by continually undermining it, and protecting and defending those who would gut the 2nd Amendment and take it all away from us if we let them. We don't need you. You do far more harm than good, and it is high time we out you rotten little Trojan Horses who are like a cancer growing within our ranks.

You say I haven't produced evidence of your anti-gun proclivities??? That has to be one of your biggest lies in a long time King. Members will note that you are still an anti-gun liar!

This thread containing King's anti-gun rhetoric is now up to 41,769 views. I don't think this thread containing Ed Good's anti-gun words can ever catch up:

ANTI-GUN POSTS by ED GOOD

One great thing about the Ed Good thread is that King Brown has told us he has read those anti-gun, anti-NRA, anti 2nd Amendment words, and repeated calls for banning entire classes of legal firearms... and he still believes there are no anti-gunners in Misfires.

What better proof can there be that King is an anti-gun compulsive liar who supports and defends other anti-gunners?

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Ed, the Twin isn't an idiot. He has problems. He can't post without mentioning our names. My guess is that the 40k-plus looks are waiting for him to provide the evidence that I am what he says. You can't prove innocence. You can prove guilt. Criticizing LaPierre for a stupid statement that cost NRA favourable public opinion, and reminding that no matter how much you say it the Second is clearly not inviolable or inalienable, doesn't make anyone anti-gun or anti-Second. He is obsessed: posts question, answers it himself in the positive, doesn't realize curiosity of the absurdity is all about him.

You might consider your own problem of harping on Wayne LaPierre's reference to a good guy with a gun as costing the NRA favorable public opinion when, in fact, quite the opposite happened. The NRA is stronger than ever and the good guy with a gun approach has been widely accepted by many school systewm.

Continued repeating of a lie does not make it true.

Me thinks you have a distorted view of what it means to 'stick their neck out'. Please don't project the pain, violence and misery of Canada's changing cultural landscape onto the caring, loving and peaceful US. I called your Parliament to insist on free speech for Canadians, but I got an auto recording to have my card number ready for the mandatory 'donation' to the lib party.

Sorry, I tried. You'll have to break your own chains. The cultural enslavement is from within, and massa lefty is laughing because he doesn't have to break a sweat.

Nice joke. Does Canada have socioeconomic problems that are present in the USA? When was last time they had racially motivated riots where caucasians stayed off the streets?

jagermeister. you need to read about the motorcycle gang wars in canada. shootouts in the streets of toronto.bombs being thrown and innocent children being killed.motivated by drugs and control of the drugs and prostitution.and it wasn't just in one province,everyone stayed off the streets.nirvana does not exist in the great white north.

No joke, and yup, they do.

I'm kinda like you-n-iran, if I repeat it often enough it'll be so. Just doing my part. I need help though, you can type with a straight face, when I type the nonsense, I can still tell it's nonsense.

But, if you slice through the cow pies, there's still a semi warm message that oozes out of the middle.

king you are incorrect about the second amendment.if you read the writings of the people who just finished throwing the crown off there back.everyone of them wrote that being armed was not just a right, but as important as food and water,in the federalist papers the right of individual citizens to be armed was included.and in the bill of rights( the first ten amendment to the constitution)it was included as the second amendment after freedom of speech and freedom of the press.with all the available information and historical fact you would have to be an idiot or a antigun political hack to not understand the meaning and protection of the second amendment.

According to King Brown's twisted logic concerning the 2nd Amendment, just the mere fact that his Liberal Left Democrats have infringed upon it is proof that it is not meant to be inviolable or inalienable. Forget about the Heller and McDonald cases which determined that some of King's precious infringements were illegal and unconstitutional.

This is akin to saying that murder must obviously be OK and acceptable just because thousands of murderers kill thousands of people. Hence, the laws against murder MUST therefore be written upon the same toilet paper that King thinks our Constitution is written upon. Screw the law. Screw the Ten Commandments. Screw Hammurabi's code and the Magna Carta. Nothing is inalienable or inviolable in King Brown's feeble mind.

I have provided ample proof that King Brown harbors anti-2nd Amendment and anti-NRA sentiment. I have repeatedly pointed out that King supports and defends the most extreme anti-gun politicians and even anti-gun Nazi collaborators such as George Soros. King Brown's anti-gun guilt has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

It is obvious that poor old King is mentally ill, suffering from extreme dementia, and in total denial of his own words and actions. That said, I will absolutely continue to counter his anti-gun rhetoric and that of Ed Good as well. You do not take your foot off of the neck of the snake until it is dead.

This thread, which is also a window into how the minds of sick disgusting liars work, has now surpassed 42,000 views and is going strong. I predict this will be King Brown's DoubleGunShop Legacy.

Members will note my support for Soros would have been the same for any person. I asked Dave Weber "to take a look at" the Terrible Twins' hate speech, of Jim's posting an injunction to shoot on sight Soros, a distinguished American Jew, for saying "disgusting things." The twin supported Jim by first denying he said it, then produced the post confirming Jim said it, with the lame excuse it was only his opinion.

Oh yea, noted.

As the arbiter of all things pc, are you offended? What's it like to be on the cutting edge of controlling speech. Intentional, cultural, subconscious? Details man, this stuff is fascinating.

edit to add, pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon.

That said, there are some a..holes in this world that need to be shot. Gen James Mattis. USMC




______________
Semper Fidelis

king, soros uses his liberties to try and deny other there liberties.soros is a criminal, his funding of left wing crazies are responsible for hate speech and such great organizations and occupy wall street, media matters.and other hate groups,black lives matters is another soros supported group.nice company to keep.

King do you understand that this isn't a newspaper or public publication, people express there opinions here the fact that people do not like george soros shouldn't be a surprise to you i think your fane outrage is misplaced. you would have zero problem if it was the Koch bros mentioned in the offending post.

From day one, after King whined about what Jim said about the anti-gunner George Soros, I maintained that was his opinion... a First Amendment Right not subject to interrogation by Mounties or the Thought Police.

Jim did not exhort or otherwise encourage any reader of Misfires to seek out Soros for assassination. We are entitled to our opinion in this country, and Jim's opinion was quite harmless. That is more than can be said of the Black Lives Matters Race Hustlers and George Soros funded protesters who have managed to incite several actual incidents where innocent police officers were executed. Killed. Murdered. Shot like dogs and left to die, now with orphaned children and grieving families. "Pigs in blankets".

King Brown has yet to say one critical word about that. And he still calls the extreme anti-gunner and Nazi collaborator Soros "a distinguished American Jew".

King Brown squealed like a little rat to Dave Weber about Jim... probably hoping to get his so-called "Terrible Twin" censured or banished. Dave W. did neither, and did not even delete Jim's words. So much for that grave matter. King even stooped so low as to selectively edit his quotation of Jim's original post on the matter... intentionally leaving out the IMO qualifier--- In My Opinion. Then King lied and claimed that post had been deleted. It is still there. I did not say it was Jim's opinion... Jim did that himself. I merely repeatedly reminded the mentally disturbed and obsessive squealing rat King Brown of that. King is grasping for any small straw he can. Pathetic.

Keep flailing King. I'm sure you are convincing a lot of people as you continue to denigrate the NRA, celebrate Liberal Democrat infringements upon the 2nd Amendment as proof that it is not worth the paper it is printed on, and continue to support and defend the most extreme anti-gunners on the planet.

You say I haven't supplied proof that you are anti-gun. I have... repeatedly, even though you are in denial. But it really isn't necessary when you supply so much proof yourself.

Dimensions of character---and culpability---are implied in the words we use.

" . . squealed like a little rat" implies that I erred by asking Dave to "take a look" at Jim's post counselling to kill an American citizen for saying "disgusting things."

Granted Jim had been under emotional strain i.e. claiming school massacre a hoax and pestering Connecticut police---but his twin admitted he lied to protect him.

My notion of citizenship is seeing your duty and doing it, not claiming IMO as a mitigating factor for hate speech, in a country aflame with violence, born in revolution, preserved by one of bloodiest civil wars in history, police mowed down last month like 10 pins.

(A Nova Scotia university medical student was charged yesterday two counts uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, one count of engaging in threatening conduct directed at a person, after telling his psychiatrist he wanted a gun to kill his professor and her daughter.)

A perfect example of antigun laws gone bad, and why we and the NRA are against the kneejerk laws being proposed by the antigunners and those who support them. Conversation between a psychiatrist and his patient are priveleged.

So much for freedom loving Canadians if this is what you support.

How come duty can be switched on and off based on feelings? How can someone see a duty, yet not do it, due to ideology?

an now the anti gun subversive mole has committed the unpardonable...it has referred to our leader as a rodent...

all hail dave!

Everyone's actions are determined by feelings. We share an interest in following the verities our parents and mentors taught us. Most of us act on those verities by doing what we believe is good and leaving the bad wherever we see it. My duty in this case was to bring to Dave's attention a despicable post. There's enough misery without promoting it on Misfires.

Exactly King Brown, and this is precisely why I say you have the character of a rat.



Jim did not counsel anyone to kill an American citizen, That is simply another of your rotten lies. If Jim had indeed counselled us to commit murder, please explain why Dave Weber allowed his words to remain, and why he did not expel Jim or give him a suspension?

Then, please show us where I ever admitted that I lied to protect Jim. Prove to us that Jim was under some emotional strain, and please prove your repeated lie that Jim had been pestering Connecticut police.

Show us you lying squealing little rat. You can't do that because of what you are. You show us your "dimensions of character" on a regular basis. You show us how dishonest you are here with the words you use and the lies you tell. You show your anti-gun proclivities with the words you use.

Your little idiot minions Jagermeister and Ed Good show us how utterly ignorant they are, and how subservient they are to your dishonesty as anti-gun trolls and tools. Ed shows us how illiterate he is by contending that I called Dave a rat when any idiot could see that it was you who I called the squealing lying rat... doing what you could to try to get rid of Jim. Even you knew exactly who I was referring to as the little rat. How many times have you squealed on me, and what good has it done little rat?

My humble and sincere apology to rats for comparing them to King Brown.

I was hoping 'duty' held some higher status than feeling, but that's okay. When discussing more trivial things, can an opponent agree to disagree agreeably, or resign to be subject to the pc court of the 'I'm offended' argument.

Back to your example, I wasn't wondering if you could turn your feelings on and off. You seem to want to turn 'free' speech on and off. It's okay, you may feel that way, but you turn to the government to help stifle speech that you don't like.

Yet, as an appreciator of the 'arts', you tolerate Christian symbols in vats of urine, feces smeared in various ways, and renderings of Jesus performing homosexual oral sex. Black inner city thug culture is excused from hate, racism and misogyny lyrics in their musical 'art'.

How about the duty to hold a prez responsible for steering his country on the right path, when one racist group is calling for the killing of whitey and cops? What's an uncle tom, one of the good guys, or a term that switches off the duty to separate right from wrong.

How about the duty to criticize the hate speech coming out of iran to close a 'deal', not to mention the track record of the 'people' since the shaw got booted.

How about the duty to question the line in the sand. How many toddler bodies have to wash up due to failed desperate attempts to flee syria. Let me guess, we can excuse the human brutality, because the eu is feeling a bit overwhelmed by the 'expense'. I wonder if the kind feeling hearts haven't lumped the folks fleeing the ukraine in the same category. Hmmm, is there an ideological policy that's partnering the russians and iranians. How about dem chinese eh, playing naval war games a bit close to Canada, scratch that Alaska, for the first time ever.

Interesting, we should just leave the bad wherever we see it. But, we have a duty to our feelings. If that's so, can I call on you to be a bit more tolerant?

Great post craigd.

But you might as well ask rats to stop being rats, and weasels to stop being weasels.

Once again, you have exposed the hypocrisy of the Liberal Left agenda driven anti-gunner King Brown.

Once again, it will make no difference in his behavior, the "dimensions of (his) character" or his "culpability".

For King and his ilk, the ends justify the means.

People in civil society agree to disagree every day. It's human nature not to agree with everyone on everything. Jim's post was despicable. It had nothing to do with free speech. It was hate speech. Look it up.

All of us appreciate the arts, some more of one kind than others. I tolerate the fine, religious and blasphemous arts because I'm not sure of their purpose when artists can't explain it themselves. It also depends where it's exhibited.

As a liberal activist and organizer, I work to engage others who aspire to build communities that are respectful, without aggression or violence, cooperative, sensitive to the disadvantaged, as you do.

You hold your president to account at election time as a citizen's duty, as I will the performance of our prime minister on Oct. 16 without racism and surpassing violence roiling my responsibilities.

This thread itself is an illuminating example of the American psyche, of the polarization of an aggressive bourgeois ego with no higher aim than imitation of the rich, slipping away from its sacred exceptionalism.

Yes, Jim, I support the action. It had nothing to do with gun laws. The doctor followed the law. Last year the patient was charged with killing a cat, luring it from a porch in the middle of the night. He had emotional problems.

Last month he told his psychiatrist he wanted to get a gun to kill 10 to 20 people and then kill himself. The doctor told him she would contact the police regarding his threats, at which point he left her office in an agitated state.

I'm as much as you are against knee-jerk laws. The guy had a record, was seeing a doctor for emotional problems, was suspended once from medical school, had licensed firearms and 2,000 rounds of ammunition.

The doctor's action was appropriate.

Are you so sure the 'terrible twins' can explain themselves, sure enough to the point of activating your 'duty'? Shouldn't it depend on where they exhibit, say for example in a place for misfiring, or on a stump at a mainstream art gallery?

Why can't we hold the 'terrible twins' to account at election time too? If there's no election process to be had, maybe the solution is to hold elections here? Say every four years to validate entry into misfires, but fair warning, if elected, no hate speech about topics you don't like. Sound reasonable?

Maybe not, but don't you think purposeful soft peddling and ignoring of some hate speech is illuminating about the left, and Canadian culture in general? If you're able to tolerate some vile 'art' because it's art, can't it be supposed that the reasonable would tolerate speech they don't feel like tolerating? I know it's not so, but just a thought.

" Ed shows us how illiterate he is by contending that I called Dave a rat when any idiot could see that it was you who I called the squealing lying "

now it is dodging and weaving...

we all know what it said...

typical behavior from an anti gun subversive mole...

it has no honor...

Yes Ed, we all know what I said. But since you are too stupid to comprehend, here it is again. I was just going to submit the one line where I called King a squealing little rat, but why not repeat my post in its' entirety so everyone can see how dishonest you trolls are:



From day one, after King whined about what Jim said about the anti-gunner George Soros, I maintained that was his opinion... a First Amendment Right not subject to interrogation by Mounties or the Thought Police.

Jim did not exhort or otherwise encourage any reader of Misfires to seek out Soros for assassination. We are entitled to our opinion in this country, and Jim's opinion was quite harmless. That is more than can be said of the Black Lives Matters Race Hustlers and George Soros funded protesters who have managed to incite several actual incidents where innocent police officers were executed. Killed. Murdered. Shot like dogs and left to die, now with orphaned children and grieving families. "Pigs in blankets".

King Brown has yet to say one critical word about that. And he still calls the extreme anti-gunner and Nazi collaborator Soros "a distinguished American Jew".

King Brown squealed like a little rat to Dave Weber about Jim... probably hoping to get his so-called "Terrible Twin" censured or banished. Dave W. did neither, and did not even delete Jim's words. So much for that grave matter. King even stooped so low as to selectively edit his quotation of Jim's original post on the matter... intentionally leaving out the IMO qualifier--- In My Opinion. Then King lied and claimed that post had been deleted. It is still there. I did not say it was Jim's opinion... Jim did that himself. I merely repeatedly reminded the mentally disturbed and obsessive squealing rat King Brown of that. King is grasping for any small straw he can. Pathetic.

Keep flailing King. I'm sure you are convincing a lot of people as you continue to denigrate the NRA, celebrate Liberal Democrat infringements upon the 2nd Amendment as proof that it is not worth the paper it is printed on, and continue to support and defend the most extreme anti-gunners on the planet.

You say I haven't supplied proof that you are anti-gun. I have... repeatedly, even though you are in denial. But it really isn't necessary when you supply so much proof yourself.

Knowledge of a specific intent to commit a crime is an exception to the "privilege" rules. If my client tells me he intends to rob the Bank of America on Ashley Street at 10:00 next Tuesday it is not a violation of client privilege to call a cop...Geo

P.S.: Maybe not quite as simple as I posted but close enough for government work.

P.P.S.: Do i have to? Not if i want to be an accessory before the fact.

Note how the atheist King Brown can excuse hate and disrespect for Christianity by excusing the so-called protected speech of artists that depict Christ and his mother Mary in perverted dung and urine quenched "art", but he cannot stomach the thought of Jim's protected speech opinion about an extreme Liberal Left Socialist anti-gunner.

King says he does not know what the artists were attempting to convey, yet he dishonestly twists Jim's words into exhortations of assassination of the anti-gunner Soros, who King refers to as a prominent American Jew. King still refuses to explain why Dave W. would tolerate incitements to murder on his website. King knows that he is a lying squealing rat who was hoping to get Jim banished.



This Thread is nothing of the kind King. This Thread is a one-stop showcase of your anti-2nd Amendment proclivities, and a window into the mind of a pathological lying anti-gun sociopath. Please try to stay on topic and quit attempting to dance away from the subject.

da keet, dodgin an weavin...tryin to change da sub ject...jes lik da low down dema crat weasel dat he is...

lik porn, ah don know what hit his, but ah knows it when ah sees hit...same as wid ah dema crat...

betcha der is mo dan one o dem dema crat anti gon moles lurkin here...

King something like 172 people were killed in the quebec biker war in several Canadian provinces,talk about people knocked over like king pins 1994 2009 only 22 murders were charged.you need to look at the violence in your own back yard .it was basicly ignored because the perpetrators were bikers, until an 11 year old boy was killed by shrapnel.your Utopian view of Canada is bull shit.the bikers and criminals are still operating just underground.stop making your stupid anti american remarks.we have the first amendment here free speech.

Hey Ed, why don't you reproduce the line where you allege that I referred to Dave W. as a rat?

Why doesn't your anti-gun pal King Brown want to tell us why he thinks Dave W. would tolerate Jim calling for us to murder anybody?

Why don't you want to stay on topic? The topic is the anti-gun words and rhetoric of King Brown. Why are you and King and Jagermeister trying to veer away from that?

uh, you da rodent here...

King must be losing his mind the remark above was nothing but funny. a 1960s rant i actually laughed out loud.thanks for the laugh king.

That is a very different situation than was implied by your original post where you equated it with Jim's offering an opinion. Yes, in that situation the person should have been reported. Unfortunately in our liberal society this is not done, resulting in the Gabby Giffords and Sandy Hook and many more shootings, all of which were preventable.

mc

re King's post #417521 @ 2:17pm. I didn't think it was possible to out gay dal ever, but I believe King has done it. The estrogen is just oozing off the page. He's got the terrible twins right; he doesn't realize he is half of it.



_______________
You never know just how you look through other people's eyes.
Gibby Haynes

good one, mc.

Was that a reply to this,



...or an attempt to dance away from it you fraud?

Yes, the biker gangs went at each other hammer and tongs. Yes, there wasn't much sympathy, if any, for them. That was 20 years ago, their ringleaders now in prison or dead; they're now in manageable proportions. We're blessed in that crime in Canada hasn't become a racial issue.

The dance continues, eh?

Note how the atheist King Brown can excuse hate and disrespect for Christianity by excusing the so-called protected speech of artists that depict Christ and his mother Mary in perverted dung and urine quenched "art", but he cannot stomach the thought of Jim's protected speech opinion about an extreme Liberal Left Socialist anti-gunner.

King says he does not know what the artists were attempting to convey, yet he dishonestly twists Jim's words into exhortations of assassination of the anti-gunner Soros, who King refers to as a prominent American Jew. King still refuses to explain why Dave W. would tolerate incitements to murder on his website. King knows that he is a lying squealing rat who was hoping to get Jim banished.



This Thread is nothing of the kind King. This Thread is a one-stop showcase of your anti-2nd Amendment proclivities, and a window into the mind of a pathological lying anti-gun sociopath. Please try to stay on topic and quit attempting to dance away from the subject.

I believe under Canadian law---and I suspect similarly in the US---that a hospital or physician is required to contact the police if a person seeks medical assistance for a knife or bullet wound. I do know of a grandfather reported to police when he arrived at a hospital after accidentally shooting his grandson in the leg.

Are you sure? I see a 'we and they' all strung together. Worst still, the 'they' sounds like a minority. Maybe they wouldn't be so violent if there wasn't so much prejudice against them. Well that and they were brought up in the Canadian educational system, so can you blame 'em?

Could be, but are we really looking at the obvious stuff, or progress.

I do know that under ocare, minors are grilled by their 'pediatricians' about if there're any guns in the house. Flags are also raised when certain diagnosis's are made in the VA system. Neat stuff eh how big bro reaches in and slowly develops a 'new normal' database against joe average. But hey, don't ask, we still have a bit to go till the next election.

You say a bunch of stuff that just sounds like horse chit. I'm gonna try it out for myself. If you were shooting yourself, where would you try for just a minor flesh wound. You know the kind where you can walk or limp away from the interrogation room and post up pics on social media?

started in 1994 it went on till 2009 King very few were convicted,no evidence.no rats

it hasn't become racial because of the make up of your country 2.9 percent are black with a country 1/10th of the U.S. population makes your statement suspect and another dig at the United States.you make a statement and at the end always an adhoc attack on the U.S.i don't get it.is this just sudo intellectual tripe.really

Big bro slowly reaching in? I couldn't believe Americans accepted the Patriot Act without saying boo, Craig. I mentioned it several times here but not a member was exercised by it.

Exorcism? We've been going about it all wrong. Does it work on secular progressives?

In a nut shell, the Patriot Act profiles the bad guys, b.hussein profiles the good guys.

Black magic works on everyone, not only secular progressives. We talk of freedom and justice, level playing fields all the time. Given a chance to put it into practise, the unwashed prefer for president a billionaire boor of my-way-or-the-highway. Remember when the man with the biggest car always won the election? Remember how we poked fingers when the successful candidate in darkest Africa always talked loudest and drove a big white Cadillac? Exorcism, black magic!

Chalk up another King Brown lie. The Patriot Act has been criticized numerous times here. Just last week, I mentioned my belief that when Iran gets Nukes and uses them, the result will be another over-reaction like the Patriot Act, and the ultimate blame for it will be the Neville Chamberlain-like Kerry, Obama, and all the Libtards who support them.

But how about starting a new thread with your lies King. This one is about your anti-gun beliefs.

Members will note, from Wikipedia, of an action 14 years ago, when I posted of American complacency over intrusive security over-reaction, not something last week:

"The USA PATRIOT Act is an Act of Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. Its title is a ten-letter backronym (USA PATRIOT) that stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001".

Yup, we don't have a large percentage of blacks, although up here, in Toronto, they account for a hugely disproportionate amount of the gun crimes. We managed to wholesale import the criminal culture from Jamaica. Good old multiculturalism. Good old liberals. Thanks for that, fellas!

In the meantime we are doing our best to create our own homegrown racial divide. In 1996 natives represented 2.6 percent of Canada's population. It's now 5%. Increasingly they migrate to large cities, particularly in western Canada. And the cities they go to constantly vie for the title of murder capital of Canada. Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Regina, Edmonton, and a host of smaller ones have to try to deal with the plague of Indian gangs, doing their best to replicate the criminality of the latino gangs of SoCal.

King, you are often too smug about Canada, too proud of our past. The Undiscovered Country of Canada's future will likely be marred by ever increasing amounts of race based violence and criminality. And I put the blame for that future on the indiscriminate vote buying efforts of the Liberal Party of Canada and their immigration policies and politically correct and functionally destructive policies towards Native Canadians.

The Liberal Party was the dominate national political force in the post war era until 2006 and our Liberal Prime Ministers Mackenzie King, Louis St Laurent, Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien enacted legislation that encouraged and presided over a remarkable shift in what it meant to be Canadian.

The ideal Canadian of today is PC, dependent on the government to regulate most aspects of his life, mealy mouthed on world issues with pretenses of being important on the world stage. Little I can find to be proud of in the attributes of the modern Liberal and NDP voting Canadian.

And it looks likely it will be from that group that our next elected dictator will be drawn.

We? 'You' get to talk about social justice and redistribution any time you want. Me, I'm on pins-n-needles with all the censorship now a days.

I did ping Dave though about your typo. Awe just kidding, you can log back on. He's a 'soon to be' billionaire. The time requirements of maintaining ones golf game as prez will keep the divide within sight until early '17. Can we come together and sing a round of 'Sanford and Son'.

Members will note that there are no members here. There is no membership requirement to post on threads here, and there are merely voluntary contributions to help keep this site running. How much have you contributed King?

Non-members will also note that I said the Patriot Act has been criticized here many times. It has been discussed many times. King Brown is telling another lie when he claims he has pointed it out to us, and nobody uttered a word of disapproval. My comment last week was simply another in a long series of comments.

But King Brown only sees what he wants to see, and is often in total denial of reality and the truth. I'm not sure if this is due to dimentia, or if King has always been this dishonest. I suspect the latter.

You won't get me to bite on the wooing of the ethnic vote by the Liberals. That role now has been perfected and surpassed by the Conservatives under the consummate leadership of Jason Kenny. It's great either way, James---we need immigrants---and the diversity will be a challenge of our citizenship. My single caveat to your post is its partisanship.

You disappoint in the way you attribute blame solely to the NDP and Liberals, considering the Conservative performance the last seven years, your prophecy of its defeat notwithstanding. Our dictator has been on the wrong side of every issue: jobs, the economy, the military, immigration, the environment etc.

Canadians are proud of their past for good reasons. Our prime minister of an acknowledged one-man government---and I hold him responsible for Canada losing its influence on the world stage, not his party for allowing him to do it---is denounced daily by the Conservative party's reliable election endorser and national newspaper of record, the Globe and Mail.

I don't think we're all that far apart about Stephen Harper.

We might as well sing anything we please, for the time we're allowed to do it. Every single piece of federal government information goes through the Prime Minister's Office in Ottawa. The PMO distributes lies, involves itself in scandalous spin, edits and deletes, fires public servants who criticize public policy.

King, undoing years of liberal "santa clause "leadership takes time conservatives make hard choices, austerity to put the country back on sound footing. your socialist leanings put blame on anything that will not walk in lock step with your out of touch beliefs.we have one canadian who is telling us what is in the news everyday,another canadian blaming changes to put the country on a sound footing for the future.and if you hold one man responsible for your govt failings you don't have much of a govt.we had obomma and the dem house and senate making disastrous decisions for our country.house and senate are back in reps hands now we need to elect a conservative president.

King, I'll respond this evening when I'm safely ensconced on an island in Georgian Bay.

"the national newspaper of record" is on globe and mail masthead.its not an actual fact,and with the internet its importance is more limited.

For a few of those last seven years, you've mentioned all of those points as Canadian attributes, and various shortcomings of the US. Why are they 'problems' in this instant. Does it work expediently to belittle the 'conservative' dictator?

Just a couple weeks back, bo was doing a town hall something or another. Asks a girl near the front, hey what's your name, she's a black person. She says something a bit muffled and he comes back and says, 'weesie'. He says ya I remember her from sanford and son, she says no, but he insists, ya that's from sanford and son, then starts singing, 'we're a mov'in on up'.

The crowd is thinking, hey bozo, that's the jefferson's, but particularly the white folks wouldn't dare ever sing that tune.

King you are a political hack.everything in your statements are liberal blindly supporting what ever feel good spending scheme thank come down the pike.i went on line a read the Globe, the liberal running for office were touting how they were going to throw money at problems spend money on projects.santa clause politics.you might own guns ,but i think you are not pro gun.like the unwashed masses in the liberal party up there .

This sounds like the perfect job for you King. Actually, you might be overqualified for it.

mc, I never voted Liberal in my life. The previous Liberal government turned a huge Conservative deficit into surplus. Our Conservative federal government has run seven deficits in a row. The US spent money and is doing better generally than the Europeans who didn't.

Read my response to James, Craig. I have mentioned the attributes of our generally peaceful and tolerant society many times. I have mentioned my faith in your country more it seems than American members have here. They would have us believe half the country are morons and idiots for not voting Republican. I didn't introduce dictator to the conversation. James and I seemed to agree our election may change one dictator for another.

mc, the Internet does not report on Canadian politics other than distribute what sources anywhere want to say. Our Globe and Mail is your New York Times.