White House response to my letter on 2nd Amendment

Gentlemen,

I see no "shit storm" here. Just a difference of opinions.

I remember, as a kid in 1961, being able to buy a gun through the mail from Klein's Sporting Goods. (This was a hunting buddy of Jack O'Connor, and had their mail order store in Texas.) All you had to do was sign the clip-out form that you were over 18 years of age, send in your money order for $19.95, and in a week you would have your 6.5 Carcano, Model 91/38. If you really were "shittin' in the high cotton", and added an extra $5.00 bill with your order, they would throw in the scope that was originally on this fine piece of Italian craftsmanship.

I remember in 1980, that I could walk in a sporting goods store, purchase a handgun, and not have to wait for 3-7 days for a background check.

I remember when, in August of 2001, when I could go to the airport and not have to take off my belt, shoes, jock strap, pull the battery out of my computer, and wait in line for 45 minutes to get checked in, and then have the privilege of being able to buy a $3.00 bottle of water.

All this is just the COST of living in a country in which really stupid people do really stupid things. I will agree with all of you that guns are not the killers, but rather STUPIDITY is what the problem is, BUT without these changes, I believe we would be in a real "SHIT STORM". and not many of us, regardless of how many guns, and high capacity clips we owned, would not survive.

This is a lot more than just my 2 cents!

Art
 
Little by little our rights guaranteed byu the Constitution are being taken away. I own 3 guns, 2 shotguns and a Ruger 10/22. What is being proposed does not personally affect me at all. However, the Constuitution which this country was built upon is the Constitution. I will keep saying this for as long as I live - the 2nd amendment is the only one that says "shall not be infringed". Period.

Also, why do you think it is the 2nd amendment (first one after Free Speech) and not the 10th amendment?.

Do not let these small "common sense" and "reasonable" solutions fool you. The agenda is much bigger. Start small and inocuous and go from there.

Get involved and get involved now.

Mark W


Mark,

If you lived here in New Yorkistan with the passing of the NY Safe Act your Ruger 10/22 can be considered an asault weapon. Add a thumb hole stock or any of the many other options available and it becomes a nasty asault rifle.
 
I don't want to start a Sh!t storm here but I agree with Ronald Reagan...


I own guns, I hunt, and I have no problem waiting to get a new gun. I will say it, it is just common sense. That is my opinion.

Dave,

I agree with you on many accounts...

I agree you are starting a shit storm (and that is fine)

I agree citizens do not need "machine gun" type weapons...including semi autos

I agree I too have no problem with a waiting period...

I was once a resident of Illinois, at 14 or 15 I had my own FOID card, I couldn't purchase guns because of my age, but I needed it to hunt alone (otherwise I had to be in the company of a card carrying adult). At least at that time, the wait to have your FOID issued was your waiting period. Once you had a card, you were free to purchase. As a law abiding citizen, gun owner, what is the big fear of having a card? If you think it makes it easier for the government to find the guns and take your guns, here is a news flash...they already know you have them!

Just my 2 cents

Chuck
PS keep it clean

I'll agree with a few things but NO semi-autos isn't one of them. Since I hunt waterfowl and the regulations say I have to limit my gun to 3 shells I'll agree with that. Since my son decided he wanted an AR15 for plinking and has training, a FOID card and is a responsible adult I'll stand by his decision to excerise his 2nd amendment rights. Being a resident of Illinois most of my life (a couple of times removed and returned) I've dealt with the FOID card. When you live with it, it's really not an issue. I've been in situations where I've needed two forms of ID. With my picture on my drivers license as well as my FOID card I'm covered. I've always had a waiting period. I didn't have a card when I lived in Missouri but when I bought my wifes 870 there was a waiting period for a background check. I didn't have a card in Arkansas but when my wife bought my 30-30 there was a waiting period for a background check. The problem with the FOID card is 500 homicides with a gun in Chicago in 2011. I can count on my fingers how many homicides in the rest of the state in that period of time. What did that FOID card do but provide the government with a list of law abiding citizens? Not one homicide was commited by a citizen with a FOID card that I'm aware of. Now everyone is up in arms over registering and maybe finger prints saying it's an invasion of privacy. I'll agree it is. I'll agree I gave up my privacy the first time I logged into the internet. I'll agree I gave up my privacy when I bought a cell phone. I'll agree I'll give up my privacy when I'm finger printed for the CCP because it's required by law. And I'll agree that I'd like to see more background checks even thought it's not going to stop the kid that kills his mother, or father, or uncle or neighbor to steal their firearms to commit the atrocities that have been going on thought out history. AND the Soviet AK-47 are fully automatics that were outlawed in 1934. I'll agree we don't need fully automatics outside of the military but with the right FFL license you can have one. Since that's the law and I'm a law abiding citizen I must agree. I'll agree to disagree but there will be change and I'll agree change can be hard.
 
That video is pretty misleading for a couple of reasons.
#1. His listing of the fear agenda being promoted by the media and politicians. Sorry but the NRA has been promoting that fear agenda for years. They are payed to promote it.
#2. He compares England to America and makes a statistical statements about "Violent Crimes" and insinuates but doesn't tell you the stats for gun violence. Apples to oranges.
Here is a chart listing England/Whales having a .07 percent homicide by gun per 100,000
the United states? 2.97 homicides by gun per 100,000
#3. He rails against politicians and media, but his stats aren't exactly applicable to the issue that those people have been associated with.

I have taken enough statistics classes to know how to make numbers work for or against an argument. Your video is as biased as the statement about a "liberal bs spin"

Chuck J.
I agree. with everything you said.
PS, healthy debate is good, and if healthy debate leads to a sh!tstorm, I will self remove myself. I just feel that a lot of posts have been made on here pushing one side of an issue. I understand that this is a hunting forum but I think more has to go into the thought process regarding protecting ourselves and those around us.

Dutch,
Here is a good read that refutes your statements about the 2nd amendment protecting us from our government. Several founding fathers making statements to the contrary... Samuel Adams states "Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."
http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/02/founding-fathers-did-not-intend-2nd-amendment-protect-us-citizens-their-government
or this one
http://www.indystar.com/article/20130213/OPINION13/302140303/Pierre-Atlas-2nd-Amendment-isn-t-about-protection-from-tyrannical-government


 
Chuck J.

PS, healthy debate is good, and if healthy debate leads to a sh!tstorm, I will self remove myself. I just feel that a lot of posts have been made on here pushing one side of an issue. I understand that this is a hunting forum but I think more has to go into the thought process regarding protecting ourselves and those around us.

Dave, a one sided debate is at best soapboxing, at worst a pile on...your post met the standards that duckboats has always upheld, opinions, no matter how controversial, are allowed, especially when they are sincere and well thought...my agreement with you (as a person, not a moderator) is coincidental. For as many loud voices I hear here shouting the NRA chants, there are many more that have a nore moderate view on the whole "gun control situation"

Best
Chuck
 
I'll agree with a few things but NO semi-autos isn't one of them.

Ed, I didn't say ban all semi autos, if you look closer I said "machine gun" type weapons...including semi autos I'm not a lawyer (THANK GOD, if I were I'd have to find the nearest gunstore, wait the waiting period, and off myself) so I probably could have taken the time and about 47 pages to describe in further detail just the type of gun I was refering to. Frankly aside from capacity (which isn't important in my book), the AR-15 type guns in my opinion are crap. I see no good purpose for them. In most instances I'd rather have I'd rather have more punch per round than a 223, and if I were going for varmits (one of the legitamite uses Chris lists), there are more accurate bolt action platforms and longer flatter shooting 22ish sized rounds than the 223. Home defense? Give me a break! There are far better choices than an AR15 type weapon for that.

Chuck
 
Chuck, as I sat here confused and upset about why I voiced my opinion and feeling like there was something wrong in doing so, or wrong in pointing out other sides of statistics etc. I started reading another one of Al Hansen's amazing stories. I was in the middle of it completely void of my upset and uneasy feelings when my email pinged another alert to an update on duckboats.net I again felt uneasy but decided to wait to the end of the story to check the alert and quickly got lost in Al's story again.

I just checked here and saw your post. I would like to thank you for refreshing me I was feeling like I was upsetting the apple cart (a feeling I don't find enjoyment in). I know that from my background I see things differently than some people on this board do. Not that I am right, I just have a slightly different perspective. I appreciate your candor, and if I am out of line please tell me. I enjoy this board, and while I had been busy with life for the past 6 or so years, I missed the participation in this board.
 
I'll agree with a few things but NO semi-autos isn't one of them.

Ed, I didn't say ban all semi autos, if you look closer I said "machine gun" type weapons...including semi autos I'm not a lawyer (THANK GOD, if I were I'd have to find the nearest gunstore, wait the waiting period, and off myself) so I probably could have taken the time and about 47 pages to describe in further detail just the type of gun I was refering to. Frankly aside from capacity (which isn't important in my book), the AR-15 type guns in my opinion are crap. I see no good purpose for them. In most instances I'd rather have I'd rather have more punch per round than a 223, and if I were going for varmits (one of the legitamite uses Chris lists), there are more accurate bolt action platforms and longer flatter shooting 22ish sized rounds than the 223. Home defense? Give me a break! There are far better choices than an AR15 type weapon for that.

Chuck


Chuck,

While I share some of your views and respect your opinon. I have always asked myself why someone would want or need to own an AR. For many people that answer can be very clear for others not so clear. Is it due to their cool factor or something else? All of my guns are used for hunting and or taget shooting so I just didn't get it. When I started to talk to friends that are AR shooters I learned a bit more. They are fun to build, cheap to shoot, parts are available to build a custom gun and the list goes on and on. These guns have been demonized by the public and elected officials. They are nothing short of a glorified plinking gun in my mind. They don't have a good round for hunting big game and even with all the calibers that are available I still find it falls short of a good hunting round.

When talk of restrictions for ownership of these rifles was on the horizon I decided to build one for myself. My reasons were many, and I felt like I was going against my own way of thinking. For me, it was a decision that was influenced by something a wise old man told me many years ago. I asked him "what's the best gun to own?". I was a bit surprised at the answer. It was not a simple this or that but I was told point blank, the same rifle that our troops carry because you want something that shoots the same cartrige as they use. His reason being, if there was ever a ground war fought on US soil that may be the only ammo you will likely be able to get after a short period of fighting.

Never having had an interest in an AR I found myself building the very gun I had said I would never own, why? Because I beleive in the Constitution and Bill of rights and that conversation that took place so long ago with a wise old man. Now, I'm not saying it's a great gun or even close to one but I will not have someone telling me that it's ok to own it today but not tomorrow. As far as a home defence gun, no way. I have others I would grab first but as a urban warfare weapon? Yes, I can see that.
I hope never to have to use it for that and hope it stays a plinking and varmint gun forever. Unfortunately, it is now a gun that can not be passed down in our family and it will meet it's demise when the state takes it away from my family when I pass. That is another issue that bothers me. I would like my kids to be able to get all my guns when I pass but now that will not happen. At present it looks like the state will also include my Ruger 10/22 in their definition of "Asualt guns".

What most people just do not get is that we need better gun control but it is not the legal gun owner that is the problem. We need mental health care reform, doctors that can work with families if there is a concern about someones mental health and most of all, we need to enforce the laws already on the books. Lets face it, criminals don't care about all this crap. They will do what they are going to do regardless of what the laws are. I think it is crazy to tell me I can lawfully load 10 rounds in a mag when I shoot paper at the range but I can only load 7 rounds to protect myself and family while at home or anywhere else. Do they think the criminal breaking into my house will abide by the same laws? Of course not.
I feel for everyone that has lost a loved one to gun violance but all these new laws will do nothnig to stop the Adam Lanza's of the world.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
People like you scare me more than the hardcore liberals.
Maybe you arent old enough to remember the "saturday night special" hysteria of the 70's . The assault rifle ban is the same game with a different tack.
If they win this one, next year it will be "sniper rifles", then "riot guns"
Your hunting shotgun is only a hacksaw blade away from being a far more dangerous, easily concealed, shortrange weapon that any ak clone or black rifle..
And just wait till the press finds out about the "black powder" loophole.

As soon as you give yourself the right to decide what another man "needs" , you have given other men the right to decide what is best for you.
 
DBrunger,
I was responding to your post in particular.
Your willingness to accept that the assault rifle ban is just commonsense because you dont like them does scare me.

To me it looks like evidence that the people who desire total confiscation of firearms have moved the ball forward just a little more..
 
DBrunger,
I was responding to your post in particular.
Your willingness to accept that the assault rifle ban is just commonsense because you dont like them does scare me.

To me it looks like evidence that the people who desire total confiscation of firearms have moved the ball forward just a little more..


Mike

If life has taught me anything, all or nothing situations rarely work out for the good of either side. Life is full of compromise.

Chuck
 
His reason being, if there was ever a ground war fought on US soil that may be the only ammo you will likely be able to get after a short period of fighting.

John

I don't know if you caught my comment that I didn't elobrate on in Ed L's handgun choice thread, but that is the same reason I'd take a 380, 9mm or 45acp for a handgun. In a survival situation, there are more of the 223 than other rifle cartridges stashed away in the gun vault of all the gun toting psychos from coast to coast. But why not get this "universal" round in a hunting style rifle that wouldn't raise red flags? Just like wearing camo in public, strapping a dead deer to the hood of your car or a long list of other "common" practices that the anti hunters scoff at, why not act "civilized" and have a gun that though just as deadly and chambered for a universal round, doesn't "look so dangerous" to the untrained eye.

Just food for thought,

Chuck
 
Compromise is possible with honest men.
Thats kind of the point I was trying to make with the "saturday night special" panic of the 60's and 70's.
To many of the people pushing this agenda the "assault rifle" ban is just a tool
Made more effective by the tradgedy at sandy hook.

If they win this issue they will be back next week with another.
Thats not compromise.in my opinion. They are not being honest with the goal.

I
 
#1 You see the NRA as selling fear. My children all went to NRA hunter safety courses. There is no other organization that I know of that has done as much for gun safety on a national level.
#2 You missed the point of the comparison of America to England. Violent crime happens with or without
the presence of guns.
#3 What exactly did you get out of the FBI's crime study? Did you do any research there?

You seem unsure about the 2nd amendment and it's purpose,I can help you there.
Here's some reading matter for you.I think you recognise the authors.

On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322) "The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789) "The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.) "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950]) "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]) "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169) "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]) "...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380) "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244) "the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.) "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888)) "...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888)) "...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.) "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.) "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in 'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym 'A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1) "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829) "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426) "The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87) "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..) "The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386) "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646) "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836) "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8) "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)) "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967]) "The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894]) "...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,) "Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]) "No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])
 
Respectfully, upon what other rights shall we compromise, then?

Freedom of the press? The press has caused violence, turmoil, and discontent in this country through both ignorance and deception. Proponents of new gun laws reason that if ONE life is saved, the law is worthwhile. Can we apply this test to other rights as well?

Freedom of speech?

Due process of law prior to depriving someone of life, liberty or property? We have already determined that we can "compromise" on the taking of private property for more than public purpose...especially if the private property stands in the way of very lucrative economic development. How much further should we go?

I know I sound very extreme, but if you are willing to compromise on my right to own firearms, what are you willing to give up in return?


And to step back for a moment, can you tell me how any of the proposed gun legislation would have stopped Newtown?

Waiting period - Adam Lanza killed someone and stole guns legally owned by another. Only affects those who are already willing to obey the law.

10-round mag limit - Carry more magazines. Time for reload/mag swap is reasonably immaterial when shooting unarmed targets incapable of returning fire; only the bulk of additional mags would be a limiting factor.

Universal background check - Adam Lanza did not buy the guns. Only serves to prevent private sales or inheritance.

Assault weapon ban - Existing firearms would still be legal, unless you intend to confiscate. Even then, you will only confiscate from those obeying the law and will have to justify the "taking" by the Federal government. We are broke; care to guess how much it would cost to compensate Americans for their "assault weapons"? Further, the percentage of shootings involving rifles is minimal. An assault rifle ban does nothing except possibly change the number of deaths at Newtown, unless Adam Lanza uses a shotgun with buckshot and a pistol.

Far more violence is committed with handguns, but we direct our efforts towards rifles...easier target because they look scary, and even firearm owners are divided based on "need". The first ban produced no results, yet we intend to do it again.
 
Chuck,

I hear you load and clear. I also agree with you about drawing bad attention ie: cammo and deer transport. I never wear camo in public although I have camo t-shirts printed up with my guides service logo on them. I don't like to draw negative attention to myself or my sport of choice.
With all this anti-gun talk going around it almost makes you feel dirty when you mention the word gun. But I believe like others that if we give an inch they will want yard.

I am usually of the mindset that there can always be common ground found between when dealing with rational people but this topic has put all legal gun owners in the same boat. Black gun are bad, they kill people and thats why we need to take them away from people. That does not work for me. All of these new law are doing nothing to stop the real problem. I'm just sick and tired of my rights as a law abiding gun owner being violated. I don't mind giving a little if there is a good reason but this will not stop with Black guns. Next it will be semi-auto rifles then semi-auto shotguns and so on and so forth untill we are left with sling shots. Oh wait, sligs shots are already illegal in my county.

You say "why not act "civilized" and have a gun that though just as deadly and chambered for a universal round, doesn't "look so dangerous" to the untrained eye. That is exactly my point. It is public perception that black guns are bad. If all these anti's knew that a .223 is nothing more than a glorified pea shooter then they would want everything else banned.

The time has come to put both feet firmly down and the line is being drawn. The problem is those drawing the lines are using pensils and will keep changing where the line is drawn.

I do not see a favorable outcome and once we give in they will just take more and more until we are left defenceless.


Chuck, I respect everyone's opinion. They are entitled to thier opinions but I don't have to agree with them and I should not be forced to either.
I will say it again. I was never a fan of Black guns but now I will fight for them out of principal.


I hope Obama and Cuomo are proud, they have turned out to be the greatest gun salesmen of all time. I never though I would own an AR. Thank you governor Cuomo.
 
I'll agree with a few things but NO semi-autos isn't one of them.

Frankly aside from capacity (which isn't important in my book), the AR-15 type guns in my opinion are crap. I see no good purpose for them. In most instances I'd rather have I'd rather have more punch per round than a 223, and if I were going for varmits (one of the legitamite uses Chris lists), there are more accurate bolt action platforms and longer flatter shooting 22ish sized rounds than the 223. Home defense? Give me a break! There are far better choices than an AR15 type weapon for that.

Chuck




Okay, so a scary looking AR15 in .223 is a crap gun and no good for anyone and should be banned? So I assume say a Winchester model 70 in .222 or a Remington model 700 in 22-250 or .243 is okay in your book because they are a gentleman's firearm and NOT scary? Sorry I don't buy your logic. Like you I have (3) 870's, (1) 20ga Savage O/U and (1) 12ga Beretta Semi-auto. I don't have a need for an AR15 based on my type of sport shooting and hunting. Yes I'm considering a handgun but I'll tell you I've shot my sons AR15 and it is a lot of fun to shot and as accurate a shooting gun as any of the above guns I've shot. Part of the appeal is the magnitude of accessories for these guns.

About that handgun, it's my way of compromise. Mark my words one day we will all be finger printed and on a list. It's being talked about today as an addition to filing out the form for a gun purchase. I'm signed up for a CCP class because if I HAVE to be finger printed what better reason than to have the ability to defend myself!
 
Back
Top