Yes, they do want to take your guns

[Deltaboy1984]

Yes they want to take what we got and restrict what we can buy. I had a retired Marine who said I am pro 2nd Amendment as anyone BUT I don't believe anybody needs an AR, AK, or a Thompson for any logical reason. I was at a Business Lunch so I let it ride.

 

[ohbythebay]

Castile..yes

I wanted to start a poll here on THR (but cant see the function)

So I want to ask first - how many members belong to THR ? (not part of the poll)

Those members should answer this simple question

Have you written to your elected officials this week in response to gun control statements?

If the answer is no, then get moving. An email here and there does nothing. 1000's of the same emails going to many different politicians gets actions.

I used the handy NRA tool that automatically looks up the whole chain for me from local on up to the president. I send one letter and BOOM ...they all get it.

BUt we can't rail and say we are united if no action is taken. Heck, start a post here on THR with the form letter and email addr of every congressman, senator, etc. and let us copy into our own email and send.

THAT will get attention. The letter should also include a DEMAND that Obama retract his statements about gun control and Australia as he is in breech of his oath to uphold, defend and protect the constitution

 

[ohbythebay]

Deltaboy...

Ask him why he needs his BMW or SUV...won't a KIA do just fine ?

 

[vito]

This is an excellent thread, but unfortunately, as with everything else on this forum, it is "preaching to the choir". The anti-gun crowd (which might include some who actually only want to limit guns, not ban or confiscate them) endlessly complain about the "fanatics" or the "NRA gun nuts" who resist every "reasonable" restriction on guns. I have tried, on many occasions, to educate some of these emotional gun fearers that those leading the gun control movement see total confiscation of privately owned firearms as their true goal, and that letting them move toward that goal incrementally is not in the interest of anyone concerned with liberty and individual gun rights.

Accepting the premise that a small additional restriction, say, a more costly and time consuming background check, or the banning of only a few scary looking guns is "reasonable" or a worthwhile compromise to try to secure some type of peace with the anti-gunners is foolish and self defeating. It is like trying to negotiate with the old Communists of the former Soviet Union. Even the slightest concession to their side led to a new starting point for continued negotiations. It just allowed the ball to be moved a bit closer to their goalpost without guaranteeing anything for us.

The latest efforts I have seen, with recent widely circulated Facebook and Twitter items, is by the Bloomberg based group posing as NRA members and gun rights supporters who now see the light, since Newtown or other incidents, and are now supporting "common sense" or "reasonable" gun control efforts. Beware and be suspicious of anyone who says they are only looking for reasonable accommodation with those who seek to take away our guns.

 

[lee1000]

You nailed it

 

[Midwest]

From either Dec 2012 or Jan 2013, the NRAILA page discussing Feinstein's proposal for putting a whole class of certain rifles under the NFA and then forfeiting those rifles to the government when the owner dies.

Here she is talking about having rifles being forfeiting to the government. Oh and also notice her remarks regarding an earlier attempt to take your firearms at the bottom .


http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/stop-the-gun-ban.aspx


"According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein's website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of "assault weapon" that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein's new bill are as follows:"


"Prohibits the transfer of "assault weapons." Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein's new bill, "assault weapons" would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government."


© 2014 National Rifle Association of America. Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Rd. Fairfax, VA 22030 1800-392-8683(VOTE)

.