No more concession threads!

... and bear arms, too... but the point is well made- apologizing needlessly allows the divide and conquor approach. i don't want a thompson subgun... but i'm not turning my back on another man's 2A rights, because those are MY 2A rights, too.

I can't believe I've seen this many "Well...maybe I really DON'T need an AR, or 11 round mags, and maybe we should just let the anti's take everything from us" threads.

I'm really glad you don't feel the need to own these types of things, but I certainly enjoy the liberty to make my own decision on that for myself.

Also, please stop saying, "these guns aren't Machine guns", whereby you're implying that machine guns are somehow illicit weapons. They're not. You have a constitutional right to those too.

Click to expand...

Saying that an AR is not a machine gun doesn't imply that machine guns are illegal. It is simply stating the fact that an AR is not a machine gun.

The anti's make no distinction, and their claims are that anyone can just run down to the local gun store, plunk down cash, and buy an assault rifle. By informing them (and other people reading the commentary, blogs, whatever) we make the distinction they failed to, pointing out that a real machine gun is registered, regulated, taxed, ridiculously expensive and takes months to acquire. Basically, we help others who don't know get a grip on reality and make the rabid antis spouting this nonsense look like buffoons.

MachIVshooter said:

Saying that an AR is not a machine gun doesn't imply that machine guns are illegal. It is simply stating the fact that an AR is not a machine gun.

The anti's make no distinction, and their claims are that anyone can just run down to the local gun store, plunk down cash, and buy an assault rifle. By informing them (and other people reading the commentary, blogs, whatever) we make the distinction they failed to, pointing out that a real machine gun is registered, regulated, taxed, ridiculously expensive and takes months to acquire. Basically, we help others who don't know get a grip on reality and make the rabid antis spouting this nonsense look like buffoons.

Click to expand...

Mach IV Shooter, You are right. They are gradually nipping at the whole, like a parahna (or however you spell it). The anti's will take away the right to own and defend yourself for the sake (in their eyes) for the greater good. They believe if disarmed, there will be no more violence. Nice exercise out of a book but it doesn't aply to the real world where there are evil peole who only care for themselves. As for me, I would ratehr have a firearm and not need it than to need one and not have it. To give up one aspect (20 round mag, limit number of bullets, primers etc one can buy), erodes our base.
Everyone, we must stay as a united front against these lotus eating fools and hold the line.
Just my 2 cents. Sorry about being long winded.

The media, and liberal politicians wants us to think the country wants, and needs more gun control. We have too much already. The general public does NOT support more gun control. I think people are realizing more, and more the government can't protect us, and is also not our "friend".

I agree, enough already.

You all get it but you don't GET IT

this is incremental

CALL THEM ON THE END GOAL
and then ask why they aim so low

get one, then work on the next
and soon only criminals are left with guns

YEAH.....

Here I thought that I'd missed a bunch of threads about funnel cakes & other fair food. Dang, I must be hungry. I do agree with the OP though.

I will concede that funnelcakes are tasty. (Yes, I KNOW it's a slippery slope...)

The only compromise I want to see is if they "compromise" back to the point where the sales, ownership, transfer and carrying of arms is no longer.. what's the word I'm looking for... oh, yeah.. "infringed."

Yeah, that's it, "infringed."

Terry, 230RN

Conceding any level of control to any level of government is seen by that government as an opening to ask for more control.

Concede nothing to school yard bully.

Gather a bunch of friends and take back the concessions already granted.

Vote.

You think concession THREADS are bad...

I've had more than one conversation with 'dyed-in-the-wool gun nuts' who plainly itemize the guns/accessories that they would be willing to see prohibited because it wouldn't affect them. Fud mentality.

Roger that.

Exactly! Thanks for the thread, Prince Yamato!

Good thread.

I don't particularly want an AK right now, but I wan't my right to buy one (and ammunition for it) protected in the future.

On "This Week" some on the Round Table discussion mentioned "reasonable gun control". A short time later Joe Klein suggested a $1,000 tax on each bullet. There's really nothing to discuss with people like that.

No more concession threads!

Click to expand...

Oh, ok. I was going to announce that I'm selling hotdogs and lemonade on the corner of 5th and Walnut.

I don't guess I'll announce it now.

<The only compromise I want to see is if they "compromise" back to the point where the sales, ownership, transfer and carrying of arms is no longer.. what's the word I'm looking for... oh, yeah.. "infringed.">

Indeed it is!

I'll concede.
Roll back state and federal firearms laws to 1933 standards and they can go ahead and roll back "homeland security" to the same levels, saving billions. We'll manage.

The AR 15 isn't a machine gun. I don't think people are defending an attempt to ban machine guns, they are irrotated because these morons don't know the difference and won't listen.

Just as with Britain and France we have reached the age of appeasement. With the election of Romney and the hard left turn of the Supreme Court significant gun restriction will begin after the new President is sworn it.

I have to wonder if some of the apologist mentality stems from there being so many "politically immature" gun owners right now. What I mean is that a lot of new shooters (and particular "black rifle" and handgun owners) have joined the ranks in just the last eight years. That's a significant timeframe because it's been that long since we've had a nationwide gun ban that's serious affected the availability of certain firearms, magazines, etc. (the NFA notwithstanding). Though I was much younger then, I can remember feeling the loss of my gun rights after 1994 when certain firearms gradually disappeared from dealer's racks and mags above 10 rounds became vastly more expensive and harder to acquire. Simply put, the years between 1994 and 2004 taught me a valuable lesson about appreciating one's rights. This lesson, however, has perhaps not been learned by newer gun owners, and they may not appreciate how dangerous their recent apologetics and concessions may be to all of us.

^ I was born just before the AWB; not even a full year. It was signed 167 days after I was born and enacted 336 days after my birth. If it had lasted, there would have been an entire generation of gun owners who never knew that freedom. And that is a horrifying thought. I don't want to lose a freedom a second time, and I don't want my future children to lose their Constitutional rights.