[Clutch Cargo]

A commander in chief giving authority to world governments would not...do well.

[janice6]

The new load from DU has arrived.

[WheelGunFan]

The courts and those of us here have different meaning for "infringed"

The way Obama will do it is just like Obamacare.

1) He will use the Fed's right to tax the crap out of everything. Go after black powder and primers and tax the crap out of them doubling or more the cost of bullets

2) Next, he will simply have another tax on guns at point of sales or simply tax the crap out of accessories.

3) He can charge another tax to states using NICS, forcing states to raise fees on firearm purchases

4) Use the EPA (or try again) to regulate lead in bullets thus raising the price of bullets by making it an environmental issue. WA has already done this for hunting it will just be expanded.

None of this is considering infringing on 2a rights.

Lastly, they will make press for liberal SCOTUS appointments to "defend obortion" but it will be a back door to load the SCOTUS such that the next fight (possible Maryland) will further limit gun rights

The government has the unlimited ability to make things more difficult and more expensive and none of these will fit the legal definition of infringing our rights -- because, they have the right tax and the right to make process difficult.

Don't believe me, see what it takes to get a gun in D.C. or an out of state permit in MA.

Yes, he will not take 2a away and will not try, he will just make it more expensive

[WheelGunFan]

Originally Posted by BADOS

Well, I guess it's time to speak my piece and it won't be pretty.

There will not be any change in the second amendment if Obama is re elected. That being said, if I remember correctly, the second amendment came about while muskets were fashionable. It's time to reassess the law. Our average citizens don't need assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines and you don't need an AK47 to go hunting. These weapons are dangerous in the hands of other than Military or Police. Also, for those people who think a revolutions is coming, I want what your'e drinking.

Even if we all agree with you and obviously we do not, here is your problem.

What do you want them to take away next? If we say, sure, take away all the AW. They say great, then guess what, then they will want something else to take away, and they will want more until we are reduced to nothing anyone will want. The Brady Campaign does not simply disband and walk away. -- see the UK for reference.

In this country we have lost all ability to compromise or be logical. The left fights with emotions and no facts so you cannot have a logical reasoned argument. If there was a way reasonable people could come together and make sure the line would move no further -- Oh, wait -- we have that, its call the Bill of Rights and Constitution. The anti-gun crowd wants one and one thing -- ban all guns. Their idea of "reasonable" is to have no guns.

BUT, the issue is you fall for the "good king" syndrom. While "THIS" guy may be a good guy, how do you know the next guy who comes along will also be good -- you don't! There is no way. Look at Mexico, they have the right to bear arms in the constitution -- but nobody can really own a gun -- because you are not even allowed to own a gun store. The people allowed the right to be taken away. Today Obama, tomorrow, the next gun grabber.

This is why we have the bill of rights because our founders knew when they were gone some day in the future, there could be someone who would try and take those rights away. Even Jefferson said that the fight must first be at the ballet box. Even the NRA says far too many gun owners do not vote.

Gun owners have to draw a line. Between Federal laws, state laws, county laws, town laws there are more than enough laws -- it stops here! If the same darn background checks and requirements are ok in my home state, why the hell is it when I go over the border to the next town, county or state all of a sudden, that FBI check is no longer valid? What changed? Did they use a different database? Nope, its how the gun grabbers contain you from carrying across the USA.

Even president Obama said that its not the AK-47s that are shooting up Chicago.

Does anyone need a full auto rifle -- no! But, the people who want it and are responsible should have one. Tell all the people at Knob Creek this past weekend why they cannot have their machine guns. Please explain to me why you cannot be trusted with an assault rifle or machine gun. You want them to take it away from you so tell me why you cannot in your admission cannot be trusted?

One more item, the police should not have these weapons either given the number of times they have shot or killed innocent people and dogs in no knock raids, they have far too much power already they don't need more. When was the last time the police have had to use full auto to clear a room. Oh, the boogymen terrorist are also a sorry excuse for all the military gear they now own. Pre 9/11 they did not have it and did not need it, now? Now, we have SWAT teams in towns in NJ with fewer than 4000 people.

You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to say your opinion sucks! We, the people are the govt and we must tell our representatives enough is enough.

We showed Al Gore the door when he wanted our guns, time to show Obama the door too. In the end, the more we give govt, the more they can and will take away.

[cheapshot]

Originally Posted by CharlieDelta127

You don't know my skill level, or others skill level. Don't put the label of "dangerous" on me, or any other responsible right minded gun owner....

Me either. I'll respect the rights of others as long as they respect mine.

[BADOS]

I understand what you all are saying and respect your view and I also know my view is unpopular here in this forum. However, it's my view. But, that being said, perhaps you are right and I am wrong. Maybe all we need is a better back ground check for all weapons. Some states are more stringent thans others, so perhaps a back ground check that is the same in every state. I just don't want these weapons in the hands of nuts. Does this make sense?

[Jerry]

Originally Posted by BADOS

Well, I guess it's time to speak my piece and it won't be pretty.

There will not be any change in the second amendment if Obama is re elected. That being said, if I remember correctly, the second amendment came about while muskets were fashionable. It's time to reassess the law. Our average citizens don't need assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines and you don't need an AK47 to go hunting. These weapons are dangerous in the hands of other than Military or Police. Also, for those people who think a revolutions is coming, I want what your'e drinking.

The Second Amendment wasn't/isn't about hunting. Surprise right? The Second Amendment is about The People having the ability to defend themselves against a standing army in the case the government turns tyrannical. I know it's a hard truth for GRABBERS to admit to but the truth none the less. It's as necessary today, if not more so, then it was then.

You want the laws reassess? I fully agree. There is only ONE law necessary when it comes to firearms. It is illegal to commit a VIOLENT "CRIME" using a firearm.

[jakebrake]

Originally Posted by janice6

The new load from DU has arrived.

was just thinking that.

[Jerry]

Originally Posted by BADOS

I understand what you all are saying and respect your view and I also know my view is unpopular here in this forum. However, it's my view. But, that being said, perhaps you are right and I am wrong. Maybe all we need is a better back ground check for all weapons. Some states are more stringent thans others, so perhaps a back ground check that is the same in every state. I just don't want these weapons in the hands of nuts. Does this make sense?

What you need to realize is that guns don't equal crime or violence. Crime and violence have always and will always be with us. You also need an education. The places with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violence including gun violence. Places with the most lenient gun control have lower crime, including violent crime rates. Don't take my word for it do some non bias research. Start by reading John Lots Jr. More Guns Less Crime. Take a look at the violent crime rates in Komyfornia and Shatcago and the like.

[wiscmike]

Originally Posted by Jerry

The Second Amendment wasn't/isn't about hunting. Surprise right? The Second Amendment is about The People having the ability to defend themselves against a standing army in the case the government turns tyrannical. I know it's a hard truth for GRABBERS to admit to but the truth none the less. It's as necessary today, if not more so, then it was then.

You want the laws reassess? I fully agree. There is only ONE law necessary when it comes to firearms. It is illegal to commit a VIOLENT "CRIME" using a firearm.

As we all remember in school the 3 branches of government, these are supposed to be checks & balances. But if you control the Executive and Judicial branches you control our delicate government. One more supreme court appointment will seal the deal for years to come maybe even decades.
Obama is QUOTED as saying he feels the Constitution had deep flaws then he took an oath to uphold it, what do you believe. He keeps talking about colonialism, what gives with this guy, maybe you should watch the movie 2016 and find out. I won't comment again but he will strip the 2nd amendment in the next 4 years through the two branches. You think I made this up here is the link, in his own voice yes, it is not fake. Nothing but the facts.

Barack Obama Constitution quote IN CONTEXT! - YouTube

Barack Obama Constitution quote IN CONTEXT! - YouTube

[digilo]

Originally Posted by BADOS

Well, I guess it's time to speak my piece and it won't be pretty.

There will not be any change in the second amendment if Obama is re elected. That being said, if I remember correctly, the second amendment came about while muskets were fashionable. It's time to reassess the law. Our average citizens don't need assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines and you don't need an AK47 to go hunting. These weapons are dangerous in the hands of other than Military or Police. Also, for those people who think a revolutions is coming, I want what your'e drinking.

Ever heard of recreational shooting?

You don't need 500 hp to get to 70 mph, but the Vettes and Mustangs are available with that level of power. And that level of power in the hands of other than Race and Competition drivers is dangerous (hee).

That being said, no, I don't think Obama will do anything to expand gun control. He didn't in his first 4 years.

Originally Posted by BADOS

Maybe all we need is a better back ground check for all weapons. Some states are more stringent thans others, so perhaps a back ground check that is the same in every state. I just don't want these weapons in the hands of nuts. Does this make sense?

No it does not.

Do you get a background check every time you buy a car? Last time I looked, cars kill way more people than guns, so if we want to background check the most dangerous object, it would be cars. I just don't want those dangerous cars in the hands of nuts.

Background check does nothing for gun control. Criminals can get guns any number of ways, while all it really does is inconvenience the average good guy. I hate waiting on a BG check to see if I'm going to pass or be delayed, and nothing is more galling than having to wait on something you've just bought and is right there in front of you.

But lets background check all dangerous things, because we don't want them in the hands of nuts, now do we?

knives
cars
rope
chains
ball gags
duct tape
pepper spray
drano
oven cleaner
swimming pools
TVs

I mean, how much of a nanny state do you want? Drones overhead watching to see if an unregistered gun with a mag that holds too many bullets of illegal hollow-points might be wielded by a nut?

[wiscmike]

<>

There is a great and logical reason why he has not expanded gun control in his first and hopefully only 4 years. If he had he would be losing probably 45 out of 50 states right now.

The 2nd amendment is not about hunting rights. read it. I get tired of hearing the liberals say well you don't go hunting with a pistol. What does that have to do with the 2nd amendment I ask them, and they shut up.

[engineer151515]

Originally Posted by BADOS

Well, I guess it's time to speak my piece and it won't be pretty.

There will not be any change in the second amendment if Obama is re elected. That being said, if I remember correctly, the second amendment came about while muskets were fashionable. It's time to reassess the law. Our average citizens don't need assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines and you don't need an AK47 to go hunting. These weapons are dangerous in the hands of other than Military or Police. Also, for those people who think a revolutions is coming, I want what your'e drinking.

The Second Amendment was designed to protect you from a tyrannical government. You know, the people who will use the police and military against you. Or, conversely, the people you will rush to aid in the event they are overwhelmed in the defense of your liberties. Finally, it is for when police and military are unable to help you. Having been through devastating hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and aftershocks, I can tell you on authority, that sometimes you are totally on your own against looters and gangs looking for an easy score. (I'd include riots in that category too, but I haven't lived through one of those personally)

So, if you are referring to my semi automatic AR15 (s) or my semi automatic Yugo AK47 underfolder with 30 round mags, then yes, I do need it.

BTW - assault rifles are fully automatic weapons which are restricted in access by a Tax Stamp, background check, local approvals and limited supply (registered before 1986). So, in a sense, you already have your wish.

[Skeet732]

I have no patience for this convo any more, sorry, I'm just too old for it. You want my guns, come and get them. Bring some friends and some ammo.

[PVolk]

Originally Posted by WheelGunFan

Does anyone need a full auto rifle -- no! But, the people who want it and are responsible should have one. Tell all the people at Knob Creek this past weekend why they cannot have their machine guns.

Hey, I was there too! Got to shoot a full auto Glock 17 and loved all 6 seconds of it!

[Al Czervik]

Originally Posted by jakebrake

was just thinking that.

Or, some reprobate spillover from the HuffPo and DKos.

[engineer151515]

Originally Posted by BADOS

I understand what you all are saying and respect your view and I also know my view is unpopular here in this forum. However, it's my view. But, that being said, perhaps you are right and I am wrong. Maybe all we need is a better back ground check for all weapons. Some states are more stringent thans others, so perhaps a back ground check that is the same in every state. I just don't want these weapons in the hands of nuts. Does this make sense?

The good news is that you have the right to be as unarmed as you want to be.


Black powder muskets don't even require a background check.


Nobody wants guns in the hands of a lunatic, hence Form 4473.

[rhikdavis]

Originally Posted by janice6

The new load from DU has arrived.

Like termites.

[Providence]

I am for a clear unrestricted reading of the second amendment. There is no mention of restricting certain persons from gun ownership. Guns create a civilized society. Guns restrict a foreign power from invading our country. Guns are a good thing.

As far as Obama is concerned, I am not that concerned that he would mount a legal campaign to restrict the 2nd amendment. He has proven that he doesn't have the ability to do that. I am concerned that he would do it by edict or through a regulatory agency. This has happened time after time. It's the way he does things. "This is too important to wait on congress to act! I must act now to save our children!" And idiots all over the country will blindly follow.

You can't say he hasn't done that, only that he hasn't yet done it to the 2nd amendment. He would have no reason to fear the NRA. They are nothing to him.

[Jerry]

Originally Posted by Providence

I am for a clear unrestricted reading of the second amendment. There is no mention of restricting certain persons from gun ownership. Guns create a civilized society. Guns restrict a foreign power from invading our country. Guns are a good thing.

As far as Obama is concerned, I am not that concerned that he would mount a legal campaign to restrict the 2nd amendment. He has proven that he doesn't have the ability to do that. I am concerned that he would do it by edict or through a regulatory agency. This has happened time after time. It's the way he does things. "This is too important to wait on congress to act! I must act now to save our children!" And idiots all over the country will blindly follow.

You can't say he hasn't done that, only that he hasn't yet done it to the 2nd amendment. He would have no reason to fear the NRA. They are nothing to him.

Oh my god... logic has reared it's ugly head again. What are the morons to do. Oh... lie and spin. Whooo! For a second I thought the Nazy gun nuts might rule the day.

[countrygun]

" But, but, but, didn't the Founders use the term "Militia" to describe a group of guys who got together to go deer hunting each fall???"






Funny the Founders protected the peole from opression by the weapons of their day, some people think we should still use those weapons to protect ourselves from oppression by the weapons of today.


The Founders didn't need an internet, TV or radio, what do they have to do with freedom of speech today?

They should be censored because the Founders were talking about the communication tools of their day.

[SpringerTGO]

Originally Posted by wiscmike

As we all remember in school the 3 branches of government, these are supposed to be checks & balances. But if you control the Executive and Judicial branches you control our delicate government. One more supreme court appointment will seal the deal for years to come maybe even decades.
Obama is QUOTED as saying he feels the Constitution had deep flaws then he took an oath to uphold it, what do you believe. He keeps talking about colonialism, what gives with this guy, maybe you should watch the movie 2016 and find out. I won't comment again but he will strip the 2nd amendment in the next 4 years through the two branches. You think I made this up here is the link, in his own voice yes, it is not fake. Nothing but the facts. Barack Obama Constitution quote IN CONTEXT! - YouTube

Romney has stated that corporations are citizens (in support of "Citizens United") and I have heard Ryan speak out against appointed judges. How will elected judges, backed by endless supplies of corporate funding, protect our rights?

[SpringerTGO]

A couple more little details...
Wasn't the machine gun ban enacted under the late great President Ronald Reagan? Wasn't he a....... Republican?
Wasn't Brady on his staff? It can't be that a Republican President passed anti gun measures, and the most famous anti gun person in this country is a Republican????? Granted Sarah did get her bill passed under President Clinton.

[t4terrific]

Originally Posted by Schlitz

Won't happen.

Sweet! That is comforting.

[Glock26z]

I have my 5,6 shot revolvers and my single stacks 1911's in 9 and .45 acp. since I am disabled,it's hard for me to load a double stack magazine. I sold all my Glocls because of my health and disability.