We know you're an expert on lies, Larry. That much is a given and that's known well enough here to disregard anything else you say.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
And once again he skipped the opportunity to provide anything of merit. We are all just clueless and he is the guru.
Of lies? Yep, that's about it.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
It is not the fact that Reagan signed the law that the ATF is using...it is the fact that they are using that law incorrectly. M885 is not AP. It has not been used in a pistol to injure or kill a police officer...so the argument is baseless.
What I posted was the truth, it is illegal for a felon to own a gun. You really don't bother me whatever your name is. I am assuming of course that your post was some sort of threat?
What I posted was the truth, it is illegal for a felon to own a gun. You really don't bother me whatever your name is. I am assuming of course that your post was some sort of threat?
There are exemptions in Federal Law for Police and .MIL who are felons to possess firearms.
"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it." - Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn
It is not the fact that Reagan signed the law that the ATF is using...it is the fact that they are using that law incorrectly. M885 is not AP. It has not been used in a pistol to injure or kill a police officer...so the argument is baseless.
They did an exemption for it. Surely they intended that exemption to be taken away or they wouldn't have put the bill on Reagan's desk and he wouldn't have signed it. Goes hand in hand with his ban on machine guns as POTUS, signing carry bans & waiting periods in to law in CA, and just an all around lifetime of support for firearms safety laws.
"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it." - Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn
No jimmy, it was only an attempt to switch on the lights for you. It really isn't very smart to tread on the edge of slandering a person of whom you know nothing. Unless you consider the endless lies paraded out by very few boys on this site as facts.
There is an old saying among attorneys that: " you can sue a ham sandwich."
So making the implication that someone is a felon is imprudent.
Let's just proffer, for the heck of it, that you did it to the wrong person who had the time, inclination and money to drag your butt into the court system. Win or lose, you would spend a lot of money, get plenty of bad publicity, your employer might take exception to whacko claims and Mr. X (the rich guy) could not only sue you in GA, but also in CA (where the slander was made) and in his home state as well. Then let's suppose he is a minority (hate crime) senior citizen (elder abuse), handicapped or a Vietnam vet. Then it's off to Federal court as well.
Ignorance of the law(s) is no defense, so I repeat tread lightly.
The law is clear and ATF is only doing what the law requires. As for being never used to kill a policeman or any other ordinary citizen, I doubt that claim can be substantiated except by militia neo nazi goons on the internet.
The obvious question is have any of you sages actually read the original law, subsequent case law and the ATF proposal ? The obvious answer is no.
If in fact any of you are such experts on the subject, one would assume you and your credentials would be submitted to ATF during the comment period. Again doubtful any have.
Meanwhile those dealers who have it are gouging the public with no remorse as they have to ditch it before it becomes law. Had they any ethics they would sell it at cost to get rid of it and put more ammo in the hands of law abiding citizens.
Comical how Lawrence is so quick to start spouting off and threatening folks with lawyers, BOLO, posse, etc. Especially when it typically starts with him puffing up his scrawny chicken chest in a sad display of Internet bravado and opening his beotch hole to threaten someone.... only to spin 180° when he has a paranoid delusion that someone takes his sorry pathetic azz seriously and begins imagining that people are out to get him.
Then his trembling fingers can't dial fast enough the local law, sheriff, CIA, FBI, Secret Service, etc.
No jimmy, it was only an attempt to switch on the lights for you. It really isn't very smart to tread on the edge of slandering a person of whom you know nothing. Unless you consider the endless lies paraded out by very few boys on this site as facts.
There is an old saying among attorneys that: " you can sue a ham sandwich."
So making the implication that someone is a felon is imprudent.
Let's just proffer, for the heck of it, that you did it to the wrong person who had the time, inclination and money to drag your butt into the court system. Win or lose, you would spend a lot of money, get plenty of bad publicity, your employer might take exception to whacko claims and Mr. X (the rich guy) could not only sue you in GA, but also in CA (where the slander was made) and in his home state as well. Then let's suppose he is a minority (hate crime) senior citizen (elder abuse), handicapped or a Vietnam vet. Then it's off to Federal court as well.
Ignorance of the law(s) is no defense, so I repeat tread lightly.
The law is clear and ATF is only doing what the law requires. As for being never used to kill a policeman or any other ordinary citizen, I doubt that claim can be substantiated except by militia neo nazi goons on the internet.
The obvious question is have any of you sages actually read the original law, subsequent case law and the ATF proposal ? The obvious answer is no.
If in fact any of you are such experts on the subject, one would assume you and your credentials would be submitted to ATF during the comment period. Again doubtful any have.
Meanwhile those dealers who have it are gouging the public with no remorse as they have to ditch it before it becomes law. Had they any ethics they would sell it at cost to get rid of it and put more ammo in the hands of law abiding citizens.
At Michael Douglas said: " Greed is good."
I support bans on ammunition when Republicans do it. Why do you want all centerfire rifle ammo banned when a democrat is in?
"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it." - Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn
The law is clear and ATF is only doing what the law requires. As for being never used to kill a policeman or any other ordinary citizen, I doubt that claim can be substantiated except by militia neo nazi goons on the internet.
The obvious question is have any of you sages actually read the original law, subsequent case law and the ATF proposal ? The obvious answer is no.
Good to know where you stand on American's gun rights. This should make you upset as a gun owner...plain and simple.
I have sent correspondence to my Congressional Rep. I do not see how or where 'credentials' are needed to express displeasure with yet another governmental overreach on my gun rights.
I don't shoot this ammo nor own an AR pistol. But I would never support an infringement such as this or any others...you, as a gun owner, should not either. I have read the original law, and I have read the definition of AP rounds, also I have read the make-up of the M885 round and how it simply does not fall into this category.
Please cite one case where the round in question has been used to target LEO's in an AR pistol...just one. I am willing to bet you can not.
Here is what Jerry M has to say on the matter...
Lots of opinions on this...but the bottom line is no gun owner, if they appreciate their rights, should ever be on the side of the gun legislation.
Lots of opinions on this...but the bottom line is no gun owner, if they appreciate their rights, should ever be on the side of the gun legislation.
We have never had rights, just privileges.
I oppose anti-gun moves when a democrat is in, but Reagan really wanted this based on the zeal he showed with his signing statement. I think we all support the 1989 & 2005 bans affecting imported semi-auto rifle since they were a Bush Executive Order and a Bush Administrative Rule Change respectively. Heck, we all support NFA 34 & GCA 68 since the NRA worked so hard to get them on the books.
"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it." - Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn
you are a mindless little parrot, spewing the same drivel over and over...
read the Constitution of the United States of America.
"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."
note the word 'right' instead of privilege
They had to put that in there for show. Never meant it to be a hindrance or they would have put a penalty in for violations. Notice that none of the "rules" they made up for themselves have penalties attached for when they violate them, but the pettiest offense you can commit will cost you. Now do you want to tell me who has rights and makes you walk the line?
"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it." - Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn
