Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Kentucky bans cities from banning firearms

page: 6
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   
In Kentucky it doesn't matter if you're a democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, you have guns. It's not a political thing here, it's a way of life.

Now if they want to take guns away from the gang members and thugs up in the Northern states, I don't care of they do or not, but they aren't going to touch the guns of rural America. The two parties down here will come together to ensure that.

Most of the claims floating around are seriously flawed. This isn't a "Democrats are trying to take our guns" situation at all and most of the stories floating around are twisted and turned. The US Constitution gives us the right to bear arms, we're going to bear arms. Liberals and conservatives alike. At the same time, the laws that do exist need to be enforced and there need to be stiff penalties for people who commit crimes using firearms. It doesn't mean we should take the firearms away from everybody, it means that we need to punish the people who misuse them. There's a big difference. That punishment needs to be stiffer to prevent people from misuing them so freely.

Owning a gun is a right as well as a responsibility. If some idiot out there doesn't live up to the responsibility, they need to suffer the consequences and it needs to be the the maximum consequence that can result. That will prevent others from doing the same and protect the rights of the people who use their firearms correctly. Don't punish the people who are doing it right, punish the ones who are doing it wrong.




posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


And state sheriffs have the ability to detain, and arrest federal agents trying to enforce unConstitutional laws...


Oregon sheriff: 'Unconstitutional' gun control laws won't be enforced


By Ed Payne and Ric Ward, CNN

updated 5:08 PM EST, Wed January 16, 2013

(CNN) -- An Oregon sheriff says he will not enforce any federal regulation that President Barack Obama lays out in his package of gun control proposals Wednesday.

Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller joins several other public officials across the nation who have decided to square off with the White House even before it outlines what its plans are for expanded measures.

Mueller sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden this week saying he won't enforce any federal regulation "offending the constitutional rights of my citizens." He won't permit federal officers to come to his county to enforce such laws either, he said.

Mueller's defiant stand exploded into a groundswell of support. His letter -- posted on the department's Facebook page -- earned more than 59,000 likes and shares -- and was growing by the minute.

Over the weekend, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky, said that he too would disobey any directive from the administration. He told residents in a town hall meeting that the sheriff has more power than the federal government.
...

www.cnn.com...

Arrest every Federal agent who tries to enforce any of Obama's/leftwing/RINOs' unConstitutional laws...




posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


I've been looking for another place to call home after retiring in New york State next year....

I think I found it...



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Obama and his administration CLAIMED they were not going to try to enforce any laws to restrict firearms, and look at what they are doing...

These people are not only liars, but I also find it extremely strange that so many shootings have happened recently right after Obama was going to sign an agreement with the UN for "gun-control" but he didn't get enough backing from Senators... Not even a week passed right after the ATTEMPT by Obama, his administration and the UN to try to enforce their gun-control policies and suddenly we get all these heart-breaking massacres... Coincidence?... I doubt it, I don't believe in coincidences. And of course before that was also the "fast and furious" scandal as the Obama administration tried another tactic to go after our second amendment RIGHT...
edit on 20-1-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
That's cool
KY has some awesome bourbon tours and tasting events
Much more of it then in TN as well




posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by gemineye
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


At least in the part of Kentucky that I'm in, there are not very many people who oppose gun rights and probably wouldn't admit to it if they did.


Before I got through that whole sentence, I was reading the first part, and immediately thought the same, as you pointed at the end there. The poor few saps that do oppose aren't going to admit it around there LOL



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


Proud to be a Kentuckian


2nd



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by newsoul
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


Proud to be a Kentuckian


2nd


Kentucky State Motto "United We Stand, Divided We Fall"

edit on 20-1-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by candlelight
 


aside from class three weapons i belive any one can make any gun they wish with no limit on the number or type (assuming they are legal).the trouble begins when you want to SELL said fire arm. as far as i could find its legal to make your own guns assuming they dont violate any federal laws and are not sold

some states have laws that prohibit such things like california and oregon for example

also some other laws come into play if manufacturing an "assult weapon" where as you must use a set amount or built it entirely out of united states made gun parts/componets


A7) Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle? [Back] With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a nonlicensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from making a semiautomatic assault weapon or assembling a nonsporting semiautomatic rifle or nonsporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machinegun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a federal or state agency. [18 U. S. C. 922( o), (r), (v), and 923, 27 CFR 178.39, 178.40, 178.41 and 179.105] Translation: It IS legal for an individual build a post ban compliant firearm from any combination of parts that could legally be assembled into a legal commercially available firearm by a manufacturer or importer. This includes designs based on the AR15, AK, FAL, 1911 and others that are not protected by patent rights.
www.savvysurvivor.com... so yeah make them all you want just dont sell them or if you do do it legally



Ummm....Thats right, make all the weapons you want and just GIVE them away, no sale, no foul. Christmas is coming baby, and I have a birthday before that...

YouSir



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
The supreme court already did this a couple years ago.

Kentucky is late...

edit on 20-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
The supreme court already did this a couple years ago.

Kentucky is late...

edit on 20-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)


I love it when people know not, what they are talking about.Without a source listed.I have to assume you are talking about D.C and( Distric of Columiba vs Heller ) which was fought at the Constitutional level not the state level.

If not please give a source to your Hmmp, Comment



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I can only be thankful that there are policy makers that still listen to The people. When states are brave enough to stand up for our rights, the Feds have no choice but to take heed. Just as Kentucky is showing the rest of the country the course of action needed to preserve human rights, the US has a responsibility to overcome tyranny and show the rest of the world that it can be achieved.

Warm 'n fuzzies over here



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 



McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


dont own one myself but

YAY KENTUCKY

i guess there are states with real politicians left



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I think my signature applies very well on the topic of gun control.

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.
Plato



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 


I would say that that maybe a new amendment needs to be made, to give the people back control of their health and wellbeing back. As great as the forefathers were, I don't think they even had an inkling, that greedy drug pushers and "insurance" companies would be in charge of the health of the nation at some point.

I bet you would have been challenged to a dual for even uttering the term "nationalized healthcare"
edit on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:22:56 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 



McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.


en.wikipedia.org...





McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states


Again thank you for proving my point.You said Kentucky was late.That the Supreme Court had all ready done it.I said you were wrong.As in the case you yet again cited.The Supreme Court ruled on a Constitutional issue.Kentucky has made a ruling on a State issue.

Kentucky is leading the pack at the State level.

Now I ask you a question.Do you know the differance,between a STATE issue and A CONSTITUTIONAL issue?
edit on 20-1-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by M4truth
 


"Evil prevails when good men fail to act" Edmund Burke



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Well in light of the idiotic laws they are passing in NY I ordered enough powder to keep me reloading for the next 15 years. I think I will be stocking up on certain items at the next gunshow..

The laws are simply unconstitutional. If I had the money I would buy one of these.



That pic is courtesy of seabag.
edit on 20-1-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Well in light of the idiotic laws they are passing in NY I ordered enough powder to keep me reloading for the next 15 years. I think I will be stocking up on certain items at the next gunshow..

The laws are simply unconstitutional. If I had the money I would buy one of these.



That pic is courtesy of seabag.
edit on 20-1-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


Maybe we could go half and half?









 
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join