RobertNashville

I am not arguing about whether the person who is the subject of the story broke the law...perhaps I didn't say it clearly enough but let me say it again just to be clear; I understand that NYC (and other places have these laws) and I agree that as long as they exist, this man as do the rest of us have an obligation to obey them and if we don't obey them, we should be willing to accept the consequences. What I was trying to discuss was your statement where you said... Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your intent and if so then I apologize but but if I'm not then I call Bovine Scatology on your assertion that we should "support" such laws. We should not "support" laws that are wrong and/or unconstitutional...yes we must obey them while they exist but support them??? Absolutely not. What we SHOULD do is to take whatever actions we can to get such idiotic, unconstitutional laws eradicated. This not a matter of whether we "like" a law or not...this is about basic right and wrong and it's WRONG for any government to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms as so directly and eloquently stated in the Constitution. My alluding to religion is not at all "off topic" for the point I was trying to make...if NYC had laws against Christianity (or the exercise of any religion) the entire country would be up in arms and appropriately so because such laws would be an affront to one of our most basic rights as human beings...laws that infringe our second amendment rights should receive just as much outrage...just as much condemnation as any laws that infringe on our right to practice our religion (or practice no religion for that matter). That so many, even among firearms enthusiasts seem to not care is a sad thing.

That's exactly what I was going to say but you said it better! I'm not going to go into red alert if I see someone openly carrying with a firearm in a holster...if he dresses like Rambo and is carrying a AR I'm going to be very wary of what his intentions are. I have met this moron...funny thing is, he seemed very, very normal at the time; at least until he opened his mouth. My distaste for him is based on how dangerous he is to OUR rights.

Mr. Hass, For what it’s worth, I think it was a mistake for the show to not let you in as a reporter with you photographer…any reason I could give for the decision of the show staff would be pure speculation on my part so I’ll just let that be. However, I did want to comment (assuming you are still reading the thread!). I can’t speak for everyone but for me, the very term “gun show loophole†is a misnomer…a term used to garner a desired emotional response. Most of us who support second amendment rights are well acquainted with this tactic because those who want more and more restrictions on those rights use emotional arguments almost exclusively. They do so because they can’t win arguments based on facts. More to the point, calling the ability of two private parties to buy/sell a weapon without the necessity of a “background check†presupposes that the background system actually accomplishes anything; I would submit that it does not. This “loophole†bypasses a worthless law that is itself nothing but the result of an emotional appeal…a law passed to appease those with an irrational fear of firearms. I would submit to you that “background checks†do not and cannot keep criminals from obtaining firearms…as such, private sales that don’t go through the background check system are not more or less dangerous to the public safety than sales that do go through the background check system. I will agree that the law does have one positive affect, it creates employment for many government workers; beyond that all it accomplishes is making it more difficult and costly for (i.e. infringes on) law abiding citizens as they try to exercise a right that is not supposed to be infringed. Supposedly, the background system is supposed to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals…criminals who have been convicted of serious crimes. Even assuming that criminals get, or at least attempt to get most of their firearms through legitimate means, one has to wonder why convicted felons who cannot legally possess a firearm are free to walk the streets…shouldn’t they be in jail???

This problem isn't really a "Ron Paul" issue...I suspect that compared to most in congress (especially Democrats) he probably is a penny pincher...the problem is that not more than a handful of Congressmen have a clue when it comes to actually saving money or any concept of what things really cost or how most of the country live. It's precisely why theses people aren't supposed to be there for 10, or 20 or 30+ years!

Maybe it escaped your notice but we aren't talking about bullfrogs. If you are fine capitulating to unconstitutional laws I suppose that's your right although I cant' help but wonder what trampling of the Constitution isn't okay with you.

I profoundly disagree. While we should obey existing laws we most certainly should NOT support laws, local or otherwise, that are clearly unconstitutional - rather, we should do all in our power to resist them and have them overturned/rescinded. If NYC passed a law that outlawed Christianity I would certainly hope that no one would "support" such idiocy and if we wouldn't support a law that flies in the face of the first amendment why the hell should we ever support a law that eviscerates the second amendment?

So how do you reconcile that in the face of him turning down major opportunities to be on TV and radio for free? To be blunt, I don't think RP gets ignored or shunned by the media at all. I think he gets just as much air time as anyone else and I think examples like this (him turning down a major debate/free TV air time) supports my perception.

Really? How can you say the medial is ignoring him when he doesn't participate in a debate that has national (and FREE) TV coverage???

Could, maybe, a couple of you Ron Paul supporters stop the rhetoric for just a moment and explain WHY he didn't participate in the Debate last Saturday???

I think I disagree with how you are defining "conservative" or at least those you call conservatives aren't, as I see it. We never have and never will get the "perfect" candidate and if we accept that as true, then a choice has to be made...in my always humble opinion, a true "conservative" will then vote based on what he/she truly believes is best for the country. In other words, they aren't going to sit out an election completely or vote for a candidate (third party, etc) that they know cannot win just because their candidate didn't get the nomination (or didn't run at all). That said, I'd really prefer to try and keep the thread on track if possible because I still don't understand RP's decision to not participate last Saturday!

Hello all! Some of you know that this past Christmas I gave a commander sized 1911 to my 13 year old nephew. Well, my 11 year old niece seems to want a firearm as well and she's already hinted at a "youth" 22 bolt action with a pink stock. Now, I'm not opposed to buying a pink stock but I'm wondering what my options might be here...she is a small girl and I seriously doubt that any "standard" sized rifle is going to work for her. At the same time, I hate to buy something for her that she very likely will "grow out of" in just a couple of years or so. Any thoughts, advice, etc about what my options might be here would be appreciated!

The only thing "wrong with the right" is that there aren't enough of them in position to exert power.

Okay...it's happened again, a major debate/forum for Republican candidates held last Saturday by Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul is completely ignored...oh, never mind, Ron Paul didn't participate!!! Obviously I'm being a bit sarcastic with this thread but seriously; almost every time I've heard an RP supporter call into a talk show or post on forums (like this one); a major complaint from these supporters is that RP doesn't get a fair shake in terms of coverage by the media yet this is but one example (there are others; at least one national Radio show he's refused invitation to be on) where he has had the chance to get major, FREE coverage and he declines. What's up with that? Did he have a big schedule conflict that predated Huckabee's invitation? Even if he did, does it make sense to ignore free TV time on the most watched cable network? I've watched the two Huckabee organized events and I think there are the best, most fairly conducted events I've seen in a long time but even if they weren't, if I were running for a national office I'd take every free offer of coverage I could so that I could get my message out.

Well of course your FIRST mistake was going to Walmart; but we can discuss that at another time CONGRATULATIONS on exercising good situational awareness and common sense and almost certainly avoiding what could have easily been a very bad situation.

Try (with my time and my money) to elect conservatives to Congress so that the Federal government might actually take action in an area when they should take action for a change. And every time I contribute to the NRALAC I'm going to raise this issue so maybe they'll get off their fat asses and help put some pressure on. Beyond, I'm going to continue to do what I do locally...keep myself and my money out of areas (states, cities, businesses) where my second amendment rights aren't respected. For example, the last time I did Route 66 I purposely avoided Illinois and ended my trip before the California line.

I consider myself pretty well versed in laws of the states I travel in and I review them every time I'm getting ready to travel...I KNOW I would never knowingly and purposely take a gun into, as in this case, NYC, but I didn't know that by following TSA regulations and that even by having a flight diverted to NYC, that I would be risking being charged as a violent felon...if you knew that already then I guess you are just smarter than me.

Although you didn't ask me I'm going to offer my $0.02 anyway. I think anyone can be defeated. That said, if they are really well entrenched and well funded then maybe one's time AND money should be spent on races in other states where the outlook isn't so doubtful...if good conservatives can elect enough true conservatives to the Senate then Senators like Corker or Alexander will wither 1) go along with the conservatives so as not to look too out of step, OR 2) become somewhat irrelevant no matter how they vote. Going along with that is having enough conservatives in the House so that a slim majority of liberals/Dems/etc. in the Senate can't just block everything.

Thanks for the recommendation...I just ordered it from Amazon.

I value your service; no doubt you have a unique perspective on Iran, but I can't support Ron Paul for the nomination. Ron Paul is an appeaser...as a (layman) student of history; I have an appreciation for just how misguided and dangerous appeasement is. As a veteran and one who still serves, I have an appreciation for just how dangerous nuclear weapons are in the hands of a radical Islamic-based government headed by a madman..if Iran gets them developed with a workable delivery system they will use them...if they use them we will have a world-wide recession unlike anything the world or this country has ever seen; likely followed by a world war unlike anything ever see before. Whether through Israel or directly, the U.S. (indeed the world) cannot let Iran get the bomb...whatever it takes. I would vote for RP in a general election because 1. he isn't Obummer and 2) he is right on most issues....I cannot support him in a primary.

I'm a bit stunned that some folks seem so willing to just lay down and say "please sir can I have another". NYC is NOT the center of the universe (although I think Mayor Blooming idiot thinks that the earth's axis runs through his ass hole)...I suppose if NYC declares that we can't "think certain thoughts" if our plane happens to land in NYC; that would be okay with some folks as well???

How do you research your flight being diverted to a location you had absolutely no intention of going to??? Certainly anyone planning to travel to a location has a responsibility to know the laws of that location but it would appear that because of the radical (dare I saw unconstitutional) anti-gun laws of a few locations, anyone wanting to travel with a firearm 89 apparently can't risk flying...I guess I'll never be able to do that hunt in Alaska i always wanted to do; not with my own guns anyway.

All very true except one does not always have the luxury of choices of mode of transportation - family emergency, job duties, etc...there simply are occasions when a person has to get from one place to another in a finite amount of time the require something other than driving there. I used to love to fly but I try to avoid it at all costs today both because of the gestapo TSA as well as because of issues noted in this thread such as being diverted...I truly do believe in "states rights" but one of the actual benefits of having a federal government is to avoid issues like this and I would submit that interstate commerce/transportation (of goods AND people) is an are where the federal government has a societal duty and responsibility to be involved in so that travel laws, restrictions, etc. are uniform from state to state. A person shouldn't have to risk being charged as a violent felon simply because his flight happens to land (especially if unscheduled) in one airport vs another one...if you are truly a felon then you are a felon but "where" you happen to be standing at the moment shouldn't be the determinant.

I'm going and I'm bringing my Kimber Eclipse Custom II 10MM to sell...will be there Saturday afternoon after my car club's lunch meeting.

+1

I'm not sure it's that no one understand the Marxists/socialists issue...perhaps it's just that the candidates are mostly talking about what is (or at least what they believe) are the most important topics/issues to most people at the moment???