Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

A message from Ruger

Posted by   + Show Post

Gun rights are under attack!

At Ruger, our motto is "Arms Makers for Responsible Citizens." It is not just a slogan; it is genuine recognition that millions of law-abiding citizens use our firearms safely and responsibly every day. We are mechanics, doctors, teachers, police officers, firemen, nurses, factory workers, and every other occupation you can name. We are a vast and too-often silent majority... and our rights are under attack.


This is what I see when I log into my Ellett Brothers site.


by on Jan. 27, 2013 at 7:01 PM
Replies (21-30):
Carpy
by Platinum Member on Jan. 28, 2013 at 6:47 AM
2 moms liked this

The militia was to be made up of THE PEOPLE.  

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

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.


So who, prey tell would regulate the average everyday people that own guns that are NOT in a militia?

The argument made here would indicate only members of a well regulated militia should have guns...

The fact that you cannot purchase machine guns where you once could...shows there is no issue at ALL with regulating guns.

Ruger is using the stupidity and fear of so many to push their product.Your gun rights aren't at risk

Quoting Carpy:

And you lack an understanding of what the term meant.

This can explain it better than me.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm



sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Jan. 28, 2013 at 7:01 AM
Are you really pretended not belonging to a militia means you are part of a militia? Then who is regulating it?

This nonexistent militia of the people with no regulations?


Quoting Carpy:

The militia was to be made up of THE PEOPLE.  

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

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.


So who, prey tell would regulate the average everyday people that own guns that are NOT in a militia?

The argument made here would indicate only members of a well regulated militia should have guns...

The fact that you cannot purchase machine guns where you once could...shows there is no issue at ALL with regulating guns.

Ruger is using the stupidity and fear of so many to push their product.Your gun rights aren't at risk

Quoting Carpy:

And you lack an understanding of what the term meant.

This can explain it better than me.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm



Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Carpy
by Platinum Member on Jan. 28, 2013 at 7:26 AM
2 moms liked this

Honestly, that reply is so stupid, I am having trouble wrapping my mind around a response.

I am not "pretended"anything.  The people maintain the right to form a militia, which is why the right to bear arms must remain intact.

The "militia" is "regulated" by "PEOPLE" with the right to keep and bear arms.


The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

Are you really pretended not belonging to a militia means you are part of a militia? Then who is regulating it?

This nonexistent militia of the people with no regulations?


Quoting Carpy:

The militia was to be made up of THE PEOPLE.  

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

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.


So who, prey tell would regulate the average everyday people that own guns that are NOT in a militia?

The argument made here would indicate only members of a well regulated militia should have guns...

The fact that you cannot purchase machine guns where you once could...shows there is no issue at ALL with regulating guns.

Ruger is using the stupidity and fear of so many to push their product.Your gun rights aren't at risk

Quoting Carpy:

And you lack an understanding of what the term meant.

This can explain it better than me.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm




sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Jan. 28, 2013 at 7:37 AM
But majority have not formed said militia

And I know it's hard for you to wrap your mind around even the most simple concepts, you don't have to state it

It seems you are making the argument that the only people that can own a gun must be in a militia or form one...


Quoting Carpy:

Honestly, that reply is so stupid, I am having trouble wrapping my mind around a response.

I am not "pretended"anything.  The people maintain the right to form a militia, which is why the right to bear arms must remain intact.

The "militia" is "regulated" by "PEOPLE" with the right to keep and bear arms.


The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

Are you really pretended not belonging to a militia means you are part of a militia? Then who is regulating it?



This nonexistent militia of the people with no regulations?




Quoting Carpy:

The militia was to be made up of THE PEOPLE.  

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

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.


So who, prey tell would regulate the average everyday people that own guns that are NOT in a militia?

The argument made here would indicate only members of a well regulated militia should have guns...

The fact that you cannot purchase machine guns where you once could...shows there is no issue at ALL with regulating guns.

Ruger is using the stupidity and fear of so many to push their product.Your gun rights aren't at risk

Quoting Carpy:

And you lack an understanding of what the term meant.

This can explain it better than me.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm




Posted on CafeMom Mobile
TCgirlatheart
by TC on Jan. 28, 2013 at 7:42 AM
1 mom liked this
"Quick! Buy our guns!$$$$!"
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Jan. 28, 2013 at 7:59 AM
Their marks are easy! Lol

Quoting TCgirlatheart:

"Quick! Buy our guns!$$$$!"
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
TCgirlatheart
by TC on Jan. 28, 2013 at 8:18 AM
I don't think the gun companies are inventing anything to boost sales. They might, however be using it as a great marketing tool.
Thank you for the information.


Quoting The-Raven:

 




Quoting TCgirlatheart:

"Quick! Buy our guns!$$$$!"



 If you're unlike your back-slapping friend there, and actually care about facts, it might interest you to know that many suppliers and manufacturers of firearms, magazines, and ammunition aren't even taking new orders anymore, because they have such a massive backlog of unfilled orders. 

It really tortures logic to claim that today's debate is being sparked by firearms businesses trying to sell more merchandise when they already have such high demand that they cannot even take new orders.

It's kind of hard to pretend you respect the rights of others when you invent "facts" in a ridiculous and illogical effort to disparage them for trying to protect their own rights.


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Erinelizz
by Bronze Member on Jan. 28, 2013 at 9:06 AM
What are you attempting to say here? That "democrats" or "liberals" commit more crimes in this country? Please, show me the unbiased research on this, because when I look at the crime statistics, I do not see anything to support your claim.

Here is what I do see: I see that the south and the Midwest have higher per capita crime rates than the west and the northeast. I also see that about 93% of the prison population are men, and 60% of the prison population are white. If I liked to make sweeping generalizations about groups of people based on stereotypes about white, southern men, I certainly could. Fortunately, I'm not like that, and I recognize that most people who live their lives by breaking the law and hurting others are probably not interested in politics and likely don't even vote. But again, if you have unbiased information to support your claim, I'd really like to see it.


Quoting The-Raven:

 




Quoting sweet-a-kins:

More insults because you can't win ok merit

Same script, different cast



Quoting The-Raven:


 



 



Quoting sweet-a-kins:



You could, but that would mean being honest...



 



Remember the Bush Jr. years, @[108038612554992:274:Americans Against the Tea Party]? 

Found on the @[240984512605919:274:Teanderthal Party] FB page.



Quoting The-Raven:



 



 



Quoting mikiemom:



stir up the fear hate and anger for sales. Go get em - hope you can live with the karma you are reaping.



 



 There's not a word they wrote that's at all inaccurate. 

The vast majority of gun owners are responsible, law-abiding people.  I wish I could make the same generalization about Liberals. 








 



 Obviously, you're as ridiculously ignorant about the demographics of crime as you are every subject I've seen you comment on.


If  you knew anything about the democraphics of crime you'd realize that it was a statement of reality.  Read the FBI's Uniform Report on Crime in the US.  Learn something...for a change. 


 

Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Carpy
by Platinum Member on Jan. 28, 2013 at 9:37 AM
I never implied any such thing. But I can see how your feeble mind would interpret such.
Quoting sweet-a-kins:

But majority have not formed said militia



And I know it's hard for you to wrap your mind around even the most simple concepts, you don't have to state it



It seems you are making the argument that the only people that can own a gun must be in a militia or form one...


Quoting Carpy:

Honestly, that reply is so stupid, I am having trouble wrapping my mind around a response.

I am not "pretended"anything.  The people maintain the right to form a militia, which is why the right to bear arms must remain intact.

The "militia" is "regulated" by "PEOPLE" with the right to keep and bear arms.


The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

Are you really pretended not belonging to a militia means you are part of a militia? Then who is regulating it?





This nonexistent militia of the people with no regulations?








Quoting Carpy:

The militia was to be made up of THE PEOPLE.  

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

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.


So who, prey tell would regulate the average everyday people that own guns that are NOT in a militia?

The argument made here would indicate only members of a well regulated militia should have guns...

The fact that you cannot purchase machine guns where you once could...shows there is no issue at ALL with regulating guns.

Ruger is using the stupidity and fear of so many to push their product.Your gun rights aren't at risk

Quoting Carpy:

And you lack an understanding of what the term meant.

This can explain it better than me.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm




Posted on CafeMom Mobile
JoshRachelsMAMA
by JRM on Jan. 28, 2013 at 9:39 AM
2 moms liked this
Oh shut up.

Quoting mikiemom:

stir up the fear hate and anger for sales. Go get em - hope you can live with the karma you are reaping.

Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN