TheConnection Walls
28 walls

     Main Page
The Lobby
     Blessings
     Coffee Klatch
     Comments
Suggestions
     Computers
&Tech Issues
     Dogs, Cats
& Critters
     Events
     Faith
     Gardening &
Landscaping
     Health & Diet
     Household Hints
     Jokes
     Movies & Reviews
     Music
     Nostalgia
     Pet Peeves
     Photography
     Politics
   The Range
2nd Amendment
   
    Reload Wall
    Admin Photos
    Members Photos

    Login
 

     Recipes
     The Road
Automobilia
     Shopper's Beware
Caveat Emptor
     Sports
     Suggested Reading
     Suggested Viewing/Listening
     Travel
     Veterans' Page
& Militaria
     Weird
But True

Members Photos
3 out of 193
see all

   

   

   






The Range
2nd Amendment




   Ole buzzard  Now it seems the Governor Cuomo in New York has a non-compliance problem on his hands. They're estimating that over 90% of owners of so-called "assault weapons" have not registered.

To the law-abiding gun owners of New York: Good Show!!!
Yesterday at 15:14 EST .

   2 people like this.




   Rollingcow  I noticed that we have actual green grass in our back yard and they say we'll be in the 60's this weekend! Time to head to and outdoor range, I'm so sick of shooting inside.
Mrs. Cow
March 27 at 04:48 EST .

   6 people like this.



   Ole buzzard  Good idea. I need to get some rifle time in, too. The indoor range I go to will not let me fire my .30-30 there.
March 27 at 12:32 EST .

  3 people like this.



   Ole buzzard  The Georgia Department of Natural Resources offers a range pass that allows me to take a carload of people to any range at any Wildlife Management Area in Georgia for only $35.00 per year.
March 29 at 15:04 EST .

  3 people like this.



   Safetydude  Hey,
Have any of y'all tried this 'Bump Fire' AR stock ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U6tORrO
DJE
April 4 at 22:01 EST .

  3 people like this.





   Ole buzzard  Nothing new in the last week about the situation in Connecticut, but it seems like the New Jersey legislature is working on a bill regarding "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines". I'll have to find the article again, but one person giving testimony was a gun range owner who has $50,000 in inventory and range equipment that would be instantly illegal. He wanted to know who was going to compensate him for that loss. He also said that he would not comply, and surmised that upwards of one million New Jerseyites also would not comply.

Why do these politicians keep passing these bills that only set the stage for confrontation? Can't they see the predictable outcomes of their actions? Are they REALLY representing the will of their constituents, or trying to advance their own agendas?
March 23 at 18:53 EST .

   7 people like this.




   Ole buzzard  Well, this is not good. Seems CT Governor Malloy is going to stand by his law. He has basically told gun owners "Your side lost. Get over it." Sounds like the anointed one talking to McCain during the health care meeting.

http://intellihub.com/ct-governor-daniel-malloy-gun-owners-s
ide-lost-get/
March 16 at 08:15 EST .

   8 people like this.



   Ole buzzard  After re-watching this video, I was struck by Malloy's condescending attitude throughout.
March 16 at 19:13 EST .

  4 people like this.





   Ole buzzard  It appears that cooler heads are prevailing in Connecticut. Officer Peterson (who wanted to "kick doors in" ) has been threatened and provided with guards. The Branford Police are in contact with the individuals against whom Peterson made his threats and are working to defuse the situation. Those acting in favor of the Second Amendment appear to have the moral high ground and to be winning in the arena of ideas. Let's wish them well.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/threats-connecticut-police
-escalate-following-connecticut-cops-gun-confiscation-commen
ts-pro-gun-veteran-asked-help-cool-things/
March 12 at 20:19 EST .

   14 people like this.



   Ole buzzard  Further developments: All but two of the state's county sheriffs have said that they will not enforce, or allow enforcement of, Bill 13-3. Sounds like a big chunk of the law enforcement community is on the Pro 2A side here.
March 14 at 20:20 EST .

  5 people like this.





   Ole buzzard  The situation in Connecticut is coming together. Hopefully, the politicians won't get froggy and jump into something everybody will live to regret. The Connecticut Peace Officers' Association will be publishing an open letter to the legislature, signed initially by 250 peace officers, advising that they will not enforce an unconstitutional law. In Branford, an officer there who told a citizen that he looked forward to getting the order to kick his door in has been placed on unpaid leave. Sounds like those who would be in the line of fire are saying "Let's hold up and think this through before we do anything stupid." Something the politicians should have done before they passed the stupid law.
March 11 at 07:08 EST .

   11 people like this.




   Safetydude  TIsher.

I had to put this in front of your post 'cos you can't post a picture in the 'comment' section.

There are a lot of us out here...

Maybe maybe Big Sis was right to fear veterans.

   February 27 at 20:10 EST .

   20 people like this.




   Tlsher  Anyone else find it interesting that the Second Amendment is the ONLY right that we're willing to accept restrictions on?

Make a suggestion that someone not be allowed to drop a crucifix upside down in a vat of urine because it's offensive and the ACLU is all over you for "suppressing their right to free speech."

Make a suggestion that abortion be prohibited after a certain time period, you'll hear the feminists shouting that you're interfering with their "right" to an abortion (still not seeing that one in my copy of the Constitution! ).

Demand that an Islamic woman have her face photographed for a state issued ID, and you'll hear cries of "religious intolerance."

Insist that everyone show photographic ID in order to vote in order to prevent the rampant vote fraud we've seen as of late, and somehow you're "suppressing the minority vote" in violation of the Civil Rights act.

Yet, when it comes to firearms and the Second Amendment, most of us (clearly not all of us by these posts ) sit silently by as one restriction after another is put upon us in the name of "safety".

Freedom is a precious thing. Most don't really know they have it until they no longer do. With respect to the Second Amendment, those in elected office know that it is the cornerstone of freedom as the exercise of the right was one of the things that allowed a bunch of colonists to overthrow the world's best army. Its mere existence reminds elected officials that the citizenry retains the right to change the method of their government at any time should they overstep their bounds. This mere fact is exactly why the Founding Fathers installed it in the Bill of Rights right after the basic rights of speech, assembly, religion, press, and redress. When it's lost, all the other rights and freedoms we enjoy exist solely at the pleasure of our rulers because at that point there is no longer a recourse we would have to reestablish our rights. Sticks and stones are great, however, I don't know about you. I'm pretty sure I can't throw a rock at 3100 fps!

Of course, there's also the self defense aspect of the right. No other right helps preserve that which the Declaration of Independece so eloquently put into words: "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." President Monroe once said, "The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals." Why, then, must we ASK permission from the state to obtain the tools necessary to defend ourselves and our families?

The civil disobedience in CT may very well launch the next revolution. The question for all of us is: How far are you willing to go for your freedoms?
   February 26 at 21:51 EST .

   14 people like this.



   Ole buzzard  Tisher, the leftists know that once the 2nd is gone, the rest will fall like dominoes, because we will have no recourse. That's why the attacks continue, why they keep pounding away at it. I'm afraid that the final confrontation is coming soon, and that it won't be pretty.
February 27 at 21:58 EST .

  17 people like this.





   Tlsher  Anyone else find it interesting that the Second Amendment is the ONLY right that we're willing to accept restrictions on?

Make a suggestion that someone not be allowed to drop a crucifix upside down in a vat of urine because it's offensive and the ACLU is all over you for "suppressing their right to free speech."

Make a suggestion that abortion be prohibited after a certain time period, you'll hear the feminists shouting that you're interfering with their "right" to an abortion (still not seeing that one in my copy of the Constitution! ).

Demand that an Islamic woman have her face photographed for a state issued ID, and you'll hear cries of "religious intolerance."

Insist that everyone show photographic ID in order to vote in order to prevent the rampant vote fraud we've seen as of late, and somehow you're "suppressing the minority vote" in violation of the Civil Rights act.

Yet, when it comes to firearms and the Second Amendment, most of us (clearly not all of us by these posts ) sit silently by as one restriction after another is put upon us in the name of "safety".

Freedom is a precious thing. Most don't really know they have it until they no longer do. With respect to the Second Amendment, those in elected office know that it is the cornerstone of freedom as the exercise of the right was one of the things that allowed a bunch of colonists to overthrow the world's best army. Its mere existence reminds elected officials that the citizenry retains the right to change the method of their government at any time should they overstep their bounds. This mere fact is exactly why the Founding Fathers installed it in the Bill of Rights right after the basic rights of speech, assembly, religion, press, and redress. When it's lost, all the other rights and freedoms we enjoy exist solely at the pleasure of our rulers because at that point there is no longer a recourse we would have to reestablish our rights. Sticks and stones are great, however, I don't know about you. I'm pretty sure I can't throw a rock at 3100 fps!

Of course, there's also the self defense aspect of the right. No other right helps preserve that which the Declaration of Independece so eloquently put into words: "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." President Monroe once said, "The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals." Why, then, must we ASK permission from the state to obtain the tools necessary to defend ourselves and our families?

The civil disobedience in CT may very well launch the next revolution. The question for all of us is: How far are you willing to go for your freedoms?
February 26 at 21:13 EST .

   13 people like this.




   Ole buzzard  Here is more information on the acts of civil disobedience in Connecticut. It appears that the state fully intends to press ahead with the enforced confiscation. Is this the excuse for declaring martial law that Obama has been looking for?

http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/tyranny-in-connecticut/
February 25 at 15:06 EST .

   15 people like this.



   Ole buzzard  I forgot to copy the link, but it looks like Governor Malloy is going to go ahead and order the enforcement of this law. If he does, I'm afraid that he is only going to get the kind of gun violence this law was supposed to prevent.
March 2 at 08:15 EST .

  17 people like this.



     Next Page