Well, Obama just laid it out

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, we can post on here all day long about this issue, but we need to make sure that we are e-mail/calling/writing our representatives to let them know our feelings. I e-mailed John McCain and Raul Grijalva (not that I think there is any way that he would support anything less than a total ban on guns) last night. I also e-mailed Boehner and McConnell. Even though they do not represent me, they are the leaders of the republican party, and hopefully they can have some pull with getting the rest of the party members to vote against any type of gun control legislation.

I encourage everybody else to start contacting your representatives ASAP to let them know your opinions on this matter.
 
What is a military style weapon?

Our military has used revolvers, semi-auto pistols, M1 Garands, bolt actions, single shots, muzzle loaders.
Click to expand...


Exactly... he's choosing his words very carefully because he knows such generic terminology can cover a very broad spectrum of firearms. Bureaucrats are a crafty lot.
 
Frankly. I see this debate as a fight to the end. Its about the totality of firearm rights. imcluding all the various types of firearms. If we loose semi-autos such as AR's and the like, thats one spoke broke out of the wheel, and then another, an so on.

Im tired of hearing hunters say how this doesnt apply to them. Well, it does, in more ways then one... Too man hunters feel they are way to safe, but hunting is protected by the second amendment.
 
Last edited:
'Military style' political maneuvering.

Most firearms were military style, going back hundreds of years. The most popular civilian firearms have typically been military firearms since the industrial revolution.
Whether they were a single action revolvers, like the Navy and Army so named after the service, or lever action carbines and rifles.
The .45-70 was a military cartridge fired in military weapons, and was named the "Government" for a reason.

Many of the most popular bolt actions in the last half century have been surplus rifles of nations that upgraded during and after WW2.

The K98 Masuer becoming one of the world's most prolific hunting rifles.

Garands became desirable, m1 carbines were popular, and then the population caught up to wanting the AR-15s by the 90s.


That is why 'military style' is such a slick use of words, it is known it will be recieved as meaning one thing by many, but can actually mean as much as what they want it to mean without having to actually define it.
While at the same time trying to appeal to the citizens 'don't need the type of guns used in war' mentality.
It is slick politican speak.

Nevermind that the 2nd actually protects those arms suitable for military use the most as that was the entire intent.
 
You got that right. The anti-gunners want ALL guns to be banned, but they know that they cannot get their goal all at once. First, they start with "assault weapons." Next will be hunting rifles, and so on until all are banned. Well, thank God we have a Heller-supported Second Amendment.
 
So.. if he's wanting to ban military style rifles, what about ACTUAL military rifles?

I'm growing concerned over my 91/30, VKT, K31, 30/40 Krag, 1933 Spanish Mauser, 1903 Springfield, etc.

I mean if he's after "Military-Style" rifles, I should be worried right? He didn't specify a TIME frame they came from.

{read this post as dripping with sarcasm, please.}
 
If he is after military style rifles, no one is safe. After all, the military used single shot falling block, bolt action, internal mag semi auto, and detachable mag fed semi and full auto. Then there is none safe. Want to argue sniper rifles too? They want them all.
 
strategy

I believe we know theirs. Let's discuss ours. As bad as the CT shooting was it is still a rare event compared to the typical and frequent gun crimes. I don't think anyone keeps a gun at home for protection in case a crazed lunatic decides to drop in. Here's my point, if everyone is genuinely concerned with minimizing gun deaths, as they are taking them away from law abiding citizens, let's really crack down on anyone who uses a gun of any type while committing a crime. I vote for a 30 year minimum sentence to be served in full. Can we wrap this in with the inevitable assault weapons ban or does this destroy your voting pool Mr President?
 
USgunguy said:
I don't think anyone keeps a gun at home for protection in case a crazed lunatic decides to drop in.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself, dude.

Within reach of where I'm sitting right now I have three assault rifles, two handguns.

Why?

Just over a month ago one of my neighbors was robbed at gunpoint by FIVE armed intruders.

FIVE.

They weren't caught.
 
USgunguy, the majority of the fine folks on this forum tend to keep firearms QUITE handy, as guns in a safe are no threat to anyone, including home invaders - ever tried to spin a combination while someone is hammering in your front door? Me either. :)

But prisons are full of mentally ill people.
Click to expand...
let's put this in perspective with some actual numbers, shall we? Arizona prison population according to the numbers from November 2012,
Total population, 40,064.
Inmates requiring ongoing mental health services, 9,487, almost 24%, or it could be saying almost 1 out of every 4. This includes those taking Welbutrin for depression similar to people on the street, to those criminally insane in lock down mental health wards such as Baker Ward and Browning Mental Health Watch Pods. I've seen and dealt with both sides of that coin.
Yes, we need better mental health care - we're NOT qualified to do it, and having them dumped on us doesn't help them, just society as we keep them away from your families, but long term? 96% of all inmates are eventually released...
 
Well said NCJT,
it is about time that someone has a good plan with some reason to it. so what if we have to do the foot work, someone with reasonable amount of intelligence must lead the charge my vote is for us not them...
 
Is it my imagination, or are there an unusual number of new low-post-count folks coming here to stir stuff up and attempt to cast doubt on folks. Lame attempts, I'll admit, but one other guy immediately jumped in and started talking about which compromises "we" should be willing to accept in order to preserve some of what rights we have left.
 
well folks try this on. Obama's goals are not to just be president of U.S.A. There are a few things he could do on his way to being head of U.N. which would be head of the world. Gun control is one of them. And another is bring us down economically to some of the U.N freeloaders countries. We would be more manageable then . These things just to mention a few could be done alot easier as head of the U.S than head of the world. Have I lost my marbles or does that make sense?
 
...head of U.N. which would be head of the world
Click to expand...
Uhhh....head of the UN is head of the world??? I don't know whether to laugh, or cry...and then laugh!

I thought that was where we sent retired heads of failed states to wile away their impotent last years. Head of the world? Oh, yeah that's rich!
 
so what is being said here? if you have a low post counts you have no viable opinion and can not comment on a ongoing discussion concerning our rights as free Americans ? or is there some hidden agenda that I can not see on this site ????
 
so what is being said here? if you have a low post counts you have no viable opinion and can not comment on a ongoing discussion concerning our rights as free Americans ? or is there some hidden agenda that I can not see on this site ????
Click to expand...

Say...wut? :confused:

If you or anyone else has an opinion, you or they may freely express it. If it doesn't really hold up to a deeper exploration of fact or reason, someone else is welcomed to politely point out where the flaws in that opinion are, so that all of us can develop a deeper, better understanding of the issues.

Having "an opinion" is fine. Having an informed opinion is better. Having an informed opinion that you can support with examples and logic so that others may come to view things more clearly is better still!

Don't post an opinion here (or anywhere) if you are so invested in it that you cannot accept that it may be incorrect. Don't post your opinion if it is so treasured that you cannot see it battered around a little to see if it holds up to scrutiny. Don't post your opinion if you will become uncomfortable if others do not share it. And don't post it if you aren't willing to present your reasons for believing it -- and your reasons for believing the things you present as supporting evidence, etc.

This isn't the back wall of a 7-11 where we ask folks to scrawl whatever comes to mind. This is a dedicated, rather intense discussion forum where you need to bring your "A" game. And your "big boy pants" (i.e.: a thick skin). :)
 
Sam, I believe he was responding to a comment about people with low post counts coming here to troll or stir up trouble. Trick hasn't done either. There are some low post people here who have stirred the pot but the unusual thing is that they have been members for more than a week, some for years. That being said, every opinion here has the merit it earns thru the measures you mentioned in your post. Just because we have an opinion doesn't make it the right one or the only one. These boards exist because opinions differ and we all see things thru different eyes and lights. What fun would it be if every post, after an original post, was "+1".
 
thank you for the clarification and the comment was not meant to be derogatory just for my personal information . and it was not meant to offend anyone .. as for being invested in a opinion it is mine and mine alone whether you agree or disagree it makes no difference to me and certainly not worth loosing sleep over ..
Trick....
 
Noobs!

Lol j/k.

but I'm seriously tired of all this gun buying hysteria. I wish it would stop so I can finally buy my normal supply of ammo again :D
 
^ ditto, to bad don't really see that happening though.

ps: also the wacko in Webster, NY just gave the antis some fuel for the AWB ect.
 
Last edited:
You got that right. The anti-gunners want ALL guns to be banned, but they know that they cannot get their goal all at once. First, they start with "assault weapons." Next will be hunting rifles, and so on until all are banned.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't think it's about guns at all...it's about control...period. Sure the low-level puppets, pundits and anti-gun voices will all demagogue guns, but it's more about control of the law-abiding citizens. Given the "fast and furious" blunder and that criminals will always get access to firearms just shows their ignorance. They can't control criminals; they just don't listen or obey laws and regulations. But for the law-abiding citizen, they can threaten compliance and control and get it..."we" have too much to lose. It's not "gun-control" that is the goal...it's "liberty control"; what we really need is "government control" as history has shown the most destruction and death of citizens has been at the hands of governments. The extreme liberal’s dream of utopia is the absolute control of a compliant and pacified citizen population where an elite few decide the rules yet are not bound by the same. Individual ownership of guns is a threat to their utopian society.

ROCK6
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Can anyone confirm this Rumor? New AWB coming soon. Not what you think.
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
444
4
L
  • Locked
Obama on guns.
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
scout26
S
T
  • Locked
What guns did the 1998 Executive Order ban?
Replies
1
Views
471
jefnvk
J
D
  • Locked
Will I lose my AR-15?
Replies
11
Views
782
Robert
Robert
L
  • Locked
Barack Obama
Replies
20
Views
984
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top