Comments on: Welcome Home Soldier…You Can’t Carry A Gun

By: PCD

PCD — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:01:21 +0000

First, the Democrats come for the Vets’ guns, then they’ll come for yours.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:07:06 +0000

It would have to be a pretty desperate, radical situation for something like that to happen. Maybe like the aftermath of a terrorist detonation of a nuke in a major U.S. city. People would be so angered at the enemy, and the failure of the Gov’t to protect America, that anger might boil over into a movement to root out the Boll Weevils in our Gov’t. That’s where the Demokrite leadership is vulnerable.

By: FrmrArtyOffcr

FrmrArtyOffcr — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:54:38 +0000

As I have said before, the Revolutionary War was a rebellion lead by former British army officers. Perhaps the Dems have realized that their actions are beginning to mirror those of the British parliament that lead to the first revolution and they’re angering their own military with those actions.

By: FrmrArtyOffcr

FrmrArtyOffcr — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:51:53 +0000

Actually Robert, I can think of one good reason for the Dems to want to disarm the returning vets. The returning vets have seen how a well armed insurgency can disrupt and or overthrow a government, and the Dems are afraid the vets will realize exactly how badly the Dems have been stabbing them in the back and try to do something about it.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:01:54 +0000

It used to be even the appearance of impropriety was avoided, and such things as you mentioned would be investigated. Now we see practically obvious Quid Pro Quos are so numerous and pervasive they are ignored, while politically-motivated idiotic investigations go after nonsense, like Bush’s firing of those AGs.

Sometimes it seems as though the idiot culture is winning.

By: FrmrArtyOffcr

FrmrArtyOffcr — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 05:23:22 +0000

You’re right Robert. They are anti Constitution and need to be removed from office. Unfortunately, with the gerrymandering that has gone on, about the only way for some of them to leave office will be for them to die. My congressional district was segregated until the early 70s so it’s predominantly black and hispanic. The Republican party didn’t even have a candidate to run for the office in the last election. If our rep isn’t blatantly corrupt, he’s incredibly lucky. How else would you describe someone who’s daughter is given a position over better qualified candidates and at the upper end of the pay range within weeks of the congressman getting the very same community college over a million dollars in government grants?

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 00:49:43 +0000

I think these anti-Constitution gun grabbers are a tremendous threat to the future of America. Therefore, they should be barred from voting or holding any public office until they are deemed cleared by a qualified REAL AMERICAN who upholds their sworn oath to defend the Constitution.

By: Presidential election 2008 |Republicans Vs. Democrats » Welcome Home Soldier:You Can't Carry A Gun

Tue, 25 Dec 2007 21:32:42 +0000

[...] Home Soldier:You Can’t Carry A Gun December 23rd, 2007 FSG wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptTags: Elections,, President, Bush,, [...]

By: snowy egret

snowy egret — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 18:49:23 +0000

Leave it to the demacrap CONgress to vote to disarm our GIs what treason its time for a whole lot of those crooks to lease their grand high office spot and make them all sleep in a cardboard box and let those homeless vets have their homes#:-s=:)

By: FrmrArtyOffcr

FrmrArtyOffcr — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 16:10:28 +0000

While I don’t necessarily agree with the law. The real question is what is going to happen in the Supreme Court this summer. They are poised to hear a case that could almost eliminate virtually every gun law in the country. About the only gun laws that would survive would be ones that deal with the criminal use of a firearm or the possession of firearms by criminals and people adjudicated mentally ill. At the time that the Constitution was written, most soldiers had to provide their own weapon. To be armed with a weapon of military use, was to be called “well regulate”. The word “Militia” at the time was defined as every law abiding able bodied adult male, much as the Swiss inactive reserve is currently. Therefore when the Second Amendment was written, the phrase “well regulated militia” meant every law abiding able bodied adult male armed with a military grade firearm. IF the Supreme Court rules on the case against the Washington DC gun ban, as the District Court of Appeals has done, a LOT of gun laws will be struck down across this country. All the Supreme Court has to do is to uphold the lower court’s ruling. Or they could expand the ruling to include nearly all of the current laws.

Honestly, there are gun laws that work. They are not laws on restricting ownership. They are laws that treat the use of a firearm as an aggravating circumstance. In the mid 80s, Delaware instituted a new law that automatically added 3 years to a criminal’s sentence for using a non-firearm weapon during the commission of a crime, while adding 5 years for the us of a firearm. These additional years were added directly to the front end of the sentence. If a strong arm robbery conviction had a penalty of 3-5 years, with the possibility of parole in 18 months, using a non-firearm weapon meant the sentence went to 6-8 with no parole for 4 1/2 years. The penalty if a firearm was used became 8-10 years with no parole for 6 1/2 years. At that point violent crimes involving firearms dropped dramatically. This was the case for two reasons. Approximately 75% of the violent crime in this country is committed by 25% of the criminals. If we lock away those criminals for extended periods, they are less capable of committing crimes. It also acts as a deterrent to the other 75% of the criminals who are essentially petty criminals who are not looking to end up spending hard time in prison. “Castle Doctrine” laws also work. “Castle Doctrine” laws are based on the old English concept that a man home is his castle and the he has the right to defend it from intruders. “Castle Doctrine” laws permit a law abiding citizen to use lethal force for the defense of self and others while in a location where they are legally allowed to be without fear of criminal prosecution or civil liability. In some states homeowners are actually required to evacuate their own homes rather than defend them against home invaders. Likewise, they are not allowed to use a firearm to defend themselves against an attacker under any circumstances. This has been the case in Australia for the last few years and the violent crime rate has risen dramatically.