Bravo to this mayor! After an armed (legally concealed) disabled vet addresses the council, one councilman tries to make a motion to ensure armed citizens cannot be in the chambers. The motion is defeated, and the mayor defends the 2nd amendment and makes it clear. The councilman who made the motion walks out.

Store here: http://www.infowars.com/video-mayor-backs-second-amendment-after-councilman-tries-to-eject-armed-veteran/

[URL="http://www.infowars.com/video-mayor-backs-second-amendment-after-councilman-tries-to-eject-armed-veteran/"][video=youtube;kKpLhNiC8zg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kKpLhNiC8zg[/video][/URL]

Common sense prevailed. Nice.

I'm all for people exercising whatever rights they wish, but do we need to slap eachother on the back and go nuts every time someone does something like this? I'd much rather slap people on the back for protecting the rights of those less fortunate, giving to the poor, and other things that actually make a difference. I understand the big debate that's going on but some people are treating guns like they are some disenfranchised group of sentient beings. A little perspective here.....

Mooney44Cards;1373579 wrote:I'm all for people exercising whatever rights they wish, but do we need to slap eachother on the back and go nuts every time someone does something like this? I'd much rather slap people on the back for protecting the rights of those less fortunate, giving to the poor, and other things that actually make a difference. I understand the big debate that's going on but some people are treating guns like they are some disenfranchised group of sentient beings. A little perspective here.....

We're protecting the Constitution, brother. And when there's a bunch of bastards who are trying to limit those rights, it is a big deal.

Mooney44Cards;1373579 wrote:I'm all for people exercising whatever rights they wish, but do we need to slap eachother on the back and go nuts every time someone does something like this? I'd much rather slap people on the back for protecting the rights of those less fortunate, giving to the poor, and other things that actually make a difference. I understand the big debate that's going on but some people are treating guns like they are some disenfranchised group of sentient beings. A little perspective here.....

How often does this happen? This is direct attack on the Constitution, so I think it's a big deal. Like you said, with everything going on right now, ALL of these instances need brought up. Otherwise the anti-gun media will be the only one with a message.

justincredible;1373560 wrote:Common sense prevailed. Nice.

hasbeen;1373585 wrote:We're protecting the Constitution, brother. And when there's a bunch of bastards who are trying to limit those rights, it is a big deal.

WebFire;1373594 wrote:How often does this happen? This is direct attack on the Constitution, so I think it's a big deal. Like you said, with everything going on right now, ALL of these instances need brought up. Otherwise the anti-gun media will be the only one with a message.

Bingo

Mooney44Cards;1373579 wrote:I'm all for people exercising whatever rights they wish, but do we need to slap eachother on the back and go nuts every time someone does something like this? ...

We don't need to but when we do it continues to cement the importance of the rights defined in the constitution. I don't know that "too much" is able to be achieved in this regard.

With the mentality of “What does it matter” everything matters now, more now than ever before. Because our government is out of control, lying, corruption, deception, politician have lost touch what America and American, the flagrant disregard for the Constitution. Until politician like the council men are gone and people like this Mayor who represents the people prevails everyone must push for the protection of the America Constitution, Freedom and Liberty and end this attach on what makes America Great Nation. This is not about guns it about protection of our rights and the limitation of government perception that they run this country. WE THE PEOPLE
not WE THE POLITIONIAN

This particular story aside, I am so tired of the pro gun people equating their struggle to the future of America. Yes the second ammendment exists. I personally believe the writers of the ammendment had nothing in mind like what we're debating today - that they wanted an armed militia available in in the days before a federally armed military. I think the second ammendment is antiquated - just like the parts of the original document that claimed blacks were worth less than an entire person. Societies evolve. Oour country's infatuation with guns is unbelievable.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1373770 wrote:that they wanted an armed militia available in in the days before a federally armed military.

They wanted an armed militia INSTEAD of a federal standing army. I can respect you have a different opinion and I understand times have changed, but I choose to not stand by and watch them take away my rights.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1373770 wrote:This particular story aside, I am so tired of the pro gun people equating their struggle to the future of America. Yes the second ammendment exists. I personally believe the writers of the ammendment had nothing in mind like what we're debating today - that they wanted an armed militia available in in the days before a federally armed military. I think the second ammendment is antiquated - just like the parts of the original document that claimed blacks were worth less than an entire person. Societies evolve. Oour country's infatuation with guns is unbelievable.

The future struggle is having rights taking away. It didn't start with guns, and it won't end there. If you can't see it, you're part of the problem. And if you read quotes from the guys that helped write the Constitution, you'd know they absolutely wanted citizens to be armed, and not just to have an "army" like you are suggesting.

I'm so tired of people who can't see what a big deal taking away our rights is.

WebFire;1373780 wrote:I'm so tired of people who can't see what a big deal taking away our rights is.

This is happening right now. I don't just mean the second ammendment. I mean the "patriot" act and being able to hold a US citizen indefinitely without trial.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1373770 wrote:I personally believe the writers of the ammendment had nothing in mind like what we're debating today - that they wanted an armed militia available in in the days before a federally armed military.

Well you personally believe wrong. We can read what they wrote to know what they meant. The founders didn't have hunting in mind or even defending your home in mind. They included the second amendment because we are born with the unalienable right to our life, liberty, and property, and the right to defend those as necessary, whether it's from a robber trying to steal your property, or a government trying to steal your liberty. They knew that an unarmed population was at the mercy of the government. That's also why a standing army was prohibited, so that it couldn't be used to stomp on the throats of the people.

It's not like I am making this up, this is what the country was founded on, but some people just amaze me with their ignorance of this and they just blindly follow what they are told by their Leaders and the TV and their school teachers.

WebFire;1373780 wrote: I'm so tired of people who can't see what a big deal taking away our rights is.

It's beginning to really disgust me. Some people only know what their TV tells them, so they can be excused. But when it's been explained to you countless times, you either don't care, or you are happy to surrender your life to your government, which either way is sickening.

Reps for FatHobbit, WebFire, and Cleveland Buck.

Here is the list of the more than 150 guns Senator Feinstein wants to ban.



http://www.therightscoop.com/heres-the-list-of-guns-dianne-feinstein-wants-to-ban/

majorspark;1373834 wrote:Here is the list of the more than 150 guns Senator Feinstein wants to ban.



http://www.therightscoop.com/heres-the-list-of-guns-dianne-feinstein-wants-to-ban/

The last time they tried to ban guns by name, didn't the gun manufacturers just change the name?

FatHobbit;1373837 wrote:The last time they tried to ban guns by name, didn't the gun manufacturers just change the name?

I believe thats just a list of current guns that fit the criteria of what is banned in the bill. So changing the name would not do any good. This link has more than just the page listing names of guns.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/politics/feinstein-bill-details/index.html

FrankenFeinstein is out of her mind. Any politician who votes for that should be deported.

Practically none of these are common criminal guns. They're just ones that look scary to her.

I disagree with almost everything Obama is about, but he's not a nutjob. Some of these others, though - I would not want to live among the idiots that elected them.

And when did the ideal of a strong women come to mean "batshit crazy"?

TedSheckler;1373909 wrote:Practically none of these are common criminal guns. They're just ones that look scary to her.

Right, but the scariness of a gun is directly related to its lethality. Pistol grips alone will double the damage done by a rifle.

justincredible;1374000 wrote:Right, but the scariness of a gun is directly related to its lethality. Pistol grips alone will double the damage done by a rifle.

Triple if the gun is all black.

WebFire;1374027 wrote:Triple if the gun is all black.

Quadruple if held by a black or a Mexican in a bandana?

TedSheckler;1373909 wrote:Practically none of these are common criminal guns. They're just ones that look scary to her.

The target is not criminals.