Page 1 of 2

What? No gun control thread yet??

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:22 pm
by P-Dogg
It's been more than 24 hours since Obama outlined his gun control proposals, and not one thread about the second amendment?

In case you forgot:

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.

For the last two centuries, we've had the second part down pat(...right to keep and bear arms....), now we are working on the first part again (A well regulated...). Is everyone too busy writing their congressman, or does everyone think that it is OK to limit things that were invented after the amendment was passed? You know, things like armor-piercing ammo, or 30-round clips (heck -- breech-loaders for that matter). Recall that when our founding fathers penned the 2nd amendment, Joe the plumber had a single-shot muzzle-loaded musket.

Let's stick to comments about the plans of our elected officials. No unfair comments about the NRAs iPhone shooting app targeted at 4 year-olds which came out a month after Newtown, please. They've since said it is only for older kids. ... 35393.html

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:30 pm
by Stripermann2
"Let's stick to comments about the plans of our elected officials."

Okay, it's simple...F'em!!! :x

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:51 pm
by prowlersfish
I think the left wants to disarm us .

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:52 pm
by P-Dogg
quote]Okay, it's simple...F'em[/quote]

Well, the good thing is, we get a chance every November. Your're talking about "Firing" them, right?[

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:53 pm
by alexander38
well I've been checking what's on the docket for the Va. State House and Thank God the Right has both of them and the Governor, So far looks like we'll make it thru. Plus our State Constitution as gun rights in it, Unlike NY,NJ, and Maryland y'all are at the will of the asshat's you put in office.

O and in NY they picked 7 rounds for a reason, ever seen a 7 round Mag ? for a semi-auto pistol ? I've not. I have a Colt 1911 and a hi-point 45 (MY play gun) and a Saiga 308 7.62x51 plus the wife has a sig 9mm in the night stand and all hold 9 rounds or more...The Saiga came with a 8 round. So you guys up north better start selling those mags on E-bay....

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:54 pm
by P-Dogg
quote]Okay, it's simple...F'em

Well, that'll teach me to not preview!

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:54 pm
by prowlersfish
prowlersfish wrote:I think the left wants to disarm us .

I forgot to add they already think the first amendment is just for them .

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:55 pm
by alexander38
[quote="prowlersfish"]I think the left wants to disarm us .[/quote]

Really... :wink: He said he wouldn't... :P

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:39 pm
by alexander38
If you're anti gun or at least not upset by the SAFE act please read this post. Reposted with permission from :

Hey guys, I was speaking with a non gun owner the other day, and it struck me how she just didn't get why an assault weapons ban is such a big deal. Thought about it for a bit, and typed this up. Please tell me what you think, and feel free to spread it around if you think it will make a difference. Thanks.

Imagine that you’re a law abiding, sensible, responsible citizen (as I’m sure you are anyway). You own a nice car that you take care of, and have a significant amount of money invested in. You use your vehicle every day for lawful purposes, and you could not imagine life without it. You try to never break traffic laws, and you never drive while intoxicated. In fact, you’ve gone out of your way to ensure that if you’re going to be at a party or a bar where you may be drinking, you get a ride, carpool, or even take a cab ( at additional expense to yourself) to comply with the law. In every way you are a model citizen, and you have never made the mistake of drinking and getting behind the wheel.
One day, a man who is having marriage problems goes to a bar, drinks too much, and tries to drive himself home. On the way, he runs a red light and hits a minivan with a young family of five inside, on the way to their vacation home not too far away. No one survives the accident, including the drunk driver. The accident is highly publicized, with political leaders and the media calling for stricter laws to prevent this sort of thing in the future. The debate rages on for weeks, with each side becoming more and more vocal.
A few weeks later after you drive home from work, you turn on the news. The headline of the day is that the state legislature has passed a comprehensive new ban on drunk driving, even though it has already been banned for twenty years. The new law is much more restrictive, and according to the media, will save lives at only the cost of a few inconveniences.
The new law requires all cars manufactured to come with a built in blood alcohol content interlock, to ensure that the operator is sober before starting the car. In addition, all newly manufactured vehicles may not have fuel tanks over five gallons in size, and may not be capable of exceeding 55 miles per hour. This of course is to both reduce the severity of potential future incidents, and to reduce the ability of intoxicated drivers to flee from the police. The police and government of course do not have to abide by these arbitrary limits, and the politicians who passed this ban have specially licensed chauffeurs allowed to own performance vehicles with high capacity fuel tanks. The last portion of the ban on vehicles specifies a list of features that a vehicle may not have. These include traction control, spoilers, air scoops, dual exhausts, and eight cylinder engines.

“Well” you think, “This won’t affect me. I already own my vehicle, and I’m not planning on buying one for at least a couple of years.” You’re wrong. The lawmakers have thought of that too. All cars built before the law was enacted are required to have an interlock installed, at owner expense. The interlock must be inspected and registered with the state, and recertified every five years, with a fee each time. This applies to all vehicles, regardless of the owner’s driving history, and the fact that you’ve gone out of your way and spent extra money in the past to comply with the existing laws. Vehicles currently owned are also not allowed to be sold within the state. When you decide to dispose of your current vehicle, you must sell to an out of state buyer, or surrender it to state police to be destroyed, without compensation. You also may not give it to your child for their first vehicle. Your high capacity fuel tank is now banned. Even though the tank was the standard capacity when the vehicle was manufactured, if it now holds more than five gallons you must register it with the state. High capacity fuel tanks may no longer be filled with more than five gallons. If you are caught with more than five gallons of fuel in your tank, you face a misdemeanor charge. Fuel is also highly controlled under the new law. You no longer may go down to your local station and fill up anonymously. You now have to go to a government controlled fuel station, submit to a blood alcohol content test, and pay a fee every time you fuel your vehicle. In addition, every fuel sale is reported to the government. Any fuel purchases over five gallons are considered unusual, and may be investigated by the state government. Also, because this law went into effect today while you were at work, you were unknowingly in violation, because you had a full tank at the beginning of the day.
After you hear all this on the news, you think that they must have made a mistake. You, a responsible, taxpaying, law abiding driver, are being treated like a common criminal. You’ve gone out of your way to comply with the former DWI laws, but now they’re treating you as a scapegoat.

Welcome to the world of being a gun owner

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:24 am
by Stripermann2
Gee, another truth comes out...Under this administration, there have been more cover-ups than in recent years. And yet, the sheeple just jump on the band wagon. Pathetic.

"NBC Admitted: No ‘Assault Rifle’ Used in Newtown Shooting" ... -shooting/

Also pathetic, is how our great Messiah will use pawns (read children) for his back-drop when announcing HIS agenda and outlining limiting certain weapons, ammo and rewriting our 2nd amendment?

Good guys don't kill good people... Bad guys kill good people!

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:50 am
by prowlersfish
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:59 pm
by guglielmo6160
they can do whatever they want, when ever they want, I am not giving up anything, legal or not,
good luck trying to disarm Florida, That will be the day when I hand over my guns because of a so called law
not going to happen. Republican,, Democrat
I think Im going to come up with my own party and call it the CS party. (Common Sense Party) but Im sure I wont have to many members

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:26 pm
by Stripermann2


Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:48 pm
by Hart
prowlersfish wrote:I think the left wants to disarm us .
What the hell are they going to disarm us WITH, Paul..............?

Quit worrying about the left. We are an armed United States. We always HAVE been an armed United States, and we always WILL be an armed United States. That's a fact that won't change.

You know, even Ronald Reagan was behind an assault weapons ban once upon a time. Not that I'm necessarily voicing agreement - I own over 20 firearms, both long arms and hand guns (with two more on order; do you have ANY idea how hard it is to get even common semi-auto models right now, of just about any make?!??!) as well as a Bushmaster ORC AR-15. An assault weapons ban certainly isn't the only answer, but I can't say that I, in good conscience, really buy into this new characterization of assault weapons as "modern sporting rifles". IMO, that's just lipstick on a pig that doesn't pass the red-faced test. You can paint it any color you like, but until relatively recenlty, you only saw those firearms in the military with a few exceptions. They were anamolies. And as far as the trio of 30-round magazines I have for my Bushy, I can't legally use any of them for hunting, because Michigan's hunting laws limit magazine/barrel capacities at 10 rounds (might be 10+1 in the pipe, I'm not entirely sure; point being, magazine can only hold 10 for hunting purposes). Would I be out of luck if they limited those to 10 rounds? No, but the two handguns I have on order both come with 15 and 12-round magazines, so I might have an issue there (though I could certainly use a 10-rounder in both).

I'm curious to see how NY's new gun control law pans out. Knee-jerk legislation is never thought out in a clear manner, and I'm interested to see what sticks, how they implement it, and what affect (if any) it will have. There's alot of dopey stuff in it that's just.....boneheaded. However, I am not one of those who consider any and all manner of sensible gun control to be either boneheaded or an infringement of the 2nd. The Heller decision clearly provides for gun control legislation to be enacted. It's a matter of sensibility. Unfortunately, the first out of the blocks doesn't look too sensible in several respects.

However, this incessant "they're coming to take our guns" stuff..............c'mon. I've been listening to it for 30 years, and not only have I NOT lost any arms......I've added several to my collection.

Take a breath, relax. No one is coming to take our guns. Why? Because WE have them outgunned! :lol:

Re: What? No gun control thread yet??

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 5:30 am
by alexander38
Hart while I agree with you on your pionts, You have to admitt if the Left could take them they would. :arrow: