Get Ready For Gun Control

[1010]

I read on another forum Dicks and Walmart have pulled the AR anything..

Edit..

Looks like its just the bushmaster

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... f=business

[MrGoodtime]

this might not be the appropriate thread for this response, but while we are discussing the impending likelihood of unwelcomed gun control and the congressional erosion of the 2nd amendment, who will be the ones that actually put "cold,dead hands" into action. I tell clients all the time that the only rights we have are the ones we are willing to fight for. How bad do you want to exercise the right to purchase, possess, own and use the types of firearms that are likely to be outlawed?

Is anyone willing to chance keeping the banned weapons locked away in a safe, hoping the goverment won't find out about it, and if found to be in possession, are you willing to serve jail time or pay hefty fines and penalties for possession, perhaps eliminating your right to vote on the lawmakers who are entrusted with the respnsiblity of representing the country's citizen?

Is anyone willing to shed blood or take the life of the government agents who knock on the door to confiscate your weapons? I can't say that I am at that point in my life where I would rather take a bullet, or kill another person so that I can own or possess

while the right to own and bear arms is constitutional, the second amendment can be repealed just like prohibition. not likely, but possible. I do not believe guns are the problem and will not vote for someone who wishes to place more restrictions on gun ownership. i am becoming more and more concerned that my political views are not shared by more than half the voting population in what has been known as the greatest country in the world. kinda makes you wonder how far you're willing to go to protect a right that has been around since the beginning of our country.

Myself , close family members and many friend are all willing to shed blood for our rights, nothing against you or any one else, but people who are not willing to stand and fight are what they ( goverment ) are counting on to make it easy for them to accomplish what they want to do. As long a people fear the goverment they will continue to do as they please, but when they ( goverment ) start to fear the people , then and only then will thing change !

It's easy to say that now. I don't know what weapons you have. But for the sake of friendly discussion, are you willing to kill the officers of your own government that come to your home to confiscate your Ar-15 or tactical 870 or m-16 or what have you? If so, are you really ready to checkout when the swat teams converge on your house like ruby ridge? I'm afraid that our government has grown so big and panders so much to the corporate interests that it will never again fear its constituents.

I'm not neing an a-h*** when i say that no one will know what guns i do or dont have , because i buy NIB from 2nd or 3rd party so there is no paper trail to me , and anyone who knows me will tell u i say what i mean and mean what i say, and if it comes to the gov. comeing knocking on doors to take away guns i will have no prob. defending what is mine.. because it will no longer be MY gov. doing it. i'm not some nut job, i'm very well educated , but i Will NOT become one of the sheepeople that the gov. wolves prey upon.

[MrGoodtime]

Myself , close family members and many friend are all willing to shed blood for our rights, nothing against you or any one else, but people who are not willing to stand and fight are what they ( goverment ) are counting on to make it easy for them to accomplish what they want to do. As long a people fear the goverment they will continue to do as they please, but when they ( goverment ) start to fear the people , then and only then will thing change !

It's easy to day that now. I don't know what weapons you have. But for the sake of friendly discussion, are you willing to kill the officers of you own government that come to your home to confiscate you Ar-15 or tactical 870 or m-16 or what have you? If so, are you really ready to checkout when the sway teams converge on your house like ruby ridge? I'm afraid that our government has grown so big and panders so much to the corporate interests that it will never again fear it's constituents.[/quote]


I agree, as I said earlier the "pry them from my cold dead hands" charge sounds awesome when you're beating your chest on the internet or to your buddies around camp but I'd be willing to bet 90% of those making that statemnt would be the first to we their pants when faced with the possibility of having to actually live or die to make that statement true.
I pray none of us ever have to make that decision.[/quote]

I also pray i am never forced to prove what i will do

[quack_a_tack]

I agree it will be the beginning of slippery slope. First assault type rifles, when they push that, pistols will be next. Then he'll that was easy lets take there semi-auto shotguns, because there is 1% of owners who will use them to kill someone. I think it's bull $#!+ and the government trying to roll over on the American public. I own guns but not a single gun in my home with the exception of my 40 cal is intended for anything but hunting and target plinking. I do not own an AR type rifle and have no intention to purchase one. I have no use for them and at this time in my life do not have the extra income to buy the gun or enough ammo to enjoy one that i dont NEED. I have no problem with people that do. I also think its somewhat a crazy thought to arm everyone. I know several people who would be more dangerous trying to intervien in criminal acts than the criminals committing them. Just my $.02.

[tica-tica]

Need has nothing to do with it. People buy sports cars all the time with way more horsepower than needed to do the speed limit of 65.

Sportscars don't kill 27 people on a friday morning.

No, but a person driving one can certainly drive it straight down the sidewalk and kill that many if not more.

You're right, the car can't kill people anymore than a gun can.

This actually happened several years ago in California. An elderly woman drove her car thru a crowded street market killing many people. I can remember reading a liberal article on the ordeal and it was blaming, yep THE CAR. Not one mention about the person behind the wheel. UNBELIEVABLE.

[Deltamud77]

Like so many other issues in which the federal government steps into, this is a state issue. The irony is that CT has some of the most strick gun laws in the nation. You cannot stop crazy and you cannot defend against stupid. At least we all have front row seats for the demise of the great nation this world has ever known.

[fireplug]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/st ... officials/

Here is the answer I have been preaching for stopping attacks in our schools. The answer for stopping attacks in public would be similar.
Well armed and trained civilians willing to step up and stop murder from happening.

I pray our legislature follows suit with Texas on making sure this becomes part of Ms's school safety platform as well.

Especially since just this week in Grenada a middle school student brought a loaded handgun to school. No one hurt but
if this kid had been crazy like the ones that have been in the news, then it could have been ugly.

[hntrpat1]

Let teachers carry CC at school. I don't like the fact that I'm just sitting here waiting to be a statistic.

[1010]

I'm with you fireplug.. He (7th grader) planned on useing it on his x girlfriend.. its been kept quiet somewhat by the school..

[fireplug]

This Texas school is already doing it. Their AG is on board with it and most likely their Legislatures will be as well. We need to
learn their program and get our officials on board with it as well. The teachers volunteer for it and are trained. It's not known
which ones are the "Guardians" to anyone but the principal. Sounds like a good idea all around. At first I was all for having
trained security gaurds, but if you have willing teachers that accept the fact that they may have to shoot to kill to save kids lives,
then I'm 100% behind it.

[Deltamud77]

Cheaper Than Dirt has suspended gun sales and the WH announced support for assault weapons ban today.

[wildturkey]

I saw a report out today(on CNN) that they found the bushmaster rifle in the guys car. So a ban on assault rifles would not have stopped him. But the liberals do not care, they are going to still use this to push their agenda.

What this guy did was really sick. He shot them point blank one by one. How do I know this....
There are no wounded. They transported 2 of them to the hospital that were pronouced soon after arrival. Even if he took the bushmaster in killed principle and went into class room and sprayed it with bullets. He may hit everyone in room, no way he could kill them all.

So what is the magic answer to matadors question.(Why does average Joe need an assault style weapon?)
Amendment II
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.

[Deltamud77]

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.

To overcome the liberal agenda and arguments, however, you must be able to define the meaning of arms. When the amendment was written, it meant muskets in all likelihood, not HK416s and the like. If you extrapolate out, what does this all mean? Should a citizen be able to own, without license, a fully automatic weapon...since the military has them?

Should a citizen be able to own stinger missiles or RPGs? What about an F-18 with armament capability?

We all know that the 2nd Amendment is not designed to protect hunting rights, but instead to protect the people from the government as well as from each other.

Where should the line be drawn and what was the original intent and should we evolve past the original intent based on modern technology could not have been contemplated when the 2nd Amendment was instituted? These are the tough arguments that pro-gun advocates must contemplate and be able to defend. Frankly, if we are being honest, they are really good questions and I am not sure there are really good answers.

The best answer resides in the premise that the "horse is out of the barn". There are too many guns and too many bad guys that would not obey the laws so the populous, at the very least, should be able to continue as it is currently, unimpeded. It is similar to the nuclear disarmament discussion between the US and Russia..."you give up yours first". However, in a way, this argument does not address constitutional intent, or even whether it is relevant on the issue anymore.

[farmerc83]

You ask what if we were called to testify before Congress.....I'd give them the national stat for the # of convicted felons that were re-arrested for possessing a firearm. Hopefully, but doubtfully, they'd be smart enough to connect the dots and we could go about our business.

[farmerc83]

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.

To overcome the liberal agenda and arguments, however, you must be able to define the meaning of arms. When the amendment was written, it meant muskets in all likelihood, not HK416s and the like. If you extrapolate out, what does this all mean? Should a citizen be able to own, without license, a fully automatic weapon...since the military has them?

-Muskets were about the deadliest thing produced at the time, save a cannon, which I don't think was illegal to own, either.
-There wasn't any gap in the arms capability of a citizen compared to a Continental soldier.
-It didn't say anything like "citizens can only have smoothbore barrels less than 20 inches in length".

So as I see it, their intent wasn't limit weapons based on the weapon's capability. Their intent was, however, to limit the govt based on the population's right to possess such weapons.