# So now that Obama is president........



## Gooseman678 (Nov 17, 2003)

Whats everyone's aspects on whats going to happen with all the gun laws and ammunition bands that he wants to do? Is anyone going to go stock up, buy another pistol, rifle, or shotgun? Or do you think its just something he wants to pass but wont stand a chance? Obviously Obama isn't for the sportsman like we all are on here, but nothing we can do now.


----------



## if it flies it dies1 (Mar 22, 2008)

im digging a deep hole and putting my semi automatics in it.


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

if it flies it dies said:


> im digging a deep hole and putting my semi automatics in it. f#^k Obama


IMO I just believe we should support our president no matter what. Let's see how things go and see how he does. It's going to take time, but lets support him.


----------



## if it flies it dies1 (Mar 22, 2008)

sorry guys im just mad because i dont want my hunting rights taken away thats all.


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

What are you talking about? Nobody said your hunting rights are going to be taken away. I follow these politics a fair amount...but I haven't seen anything about Obama wanting to take anything away..can someone fill me in? You really think your shotgun is going to be taken away? I wouldn't worry about it. It's not like we don't have a economy crisis and war going on.


----------



## RiverRob (Jul 24, 2007)

Im not to worried, all i got are bolt actions, a muzzle loader, revolver and a pump. They get the job done. Otherwise its mostly archery for me anyhow. The only gun laws that will change are a strict buying laws, no semi auto assault rifles, no huge mags and thats probaly about it...oh yah and TAXES. If the nastiness hits the fan im not going to be worried if i have a semi auto with 30 round clips. Its all going to be nuclear or biological and we'll either be toast or heading for the hills.


----------



## Gooseman678 (Nov 17, 2003)

or to canada


----------



## WingedShooter7 (Oct 28, 2005)

I'm not exactly looking forward to the increase on Ammo prices :******:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

bretts said:


> What are you talking about? Nobody said your hunting rights are going to be taken away. I follow these politics a fair amount...but I haven't seen anything about Obama wanting to take anything away..can someone fill me in? You really think your shotgun is going to be taken away? I wouldn't worry about it. It's not like we don't have a economy crisis and war going on.


You've apparently not looked at his voting record in his home state as senator. He is NOT a gun owners friend. A 500% sales tax on ammunition??!! Supported a ban on semi-automatic weapons, that includes common hunting shotguns and such. Come on. Tell me thats not going to affect your hunting.


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

He is NOT king or emperor that can rule by decree. All this sky is falling talk is just talk. There are 535 other people that the constitution insures that no agenda by one person(President) will rule the land. Also that little document called the constitution with all the amendments will nueter hi, like a mutt


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

F350 said:


> He is NOT king or emperor that can rule by decree. All this sky is falling talk is just talk. There are 535 other people that the constitution insures that no agenda by one person(President) will rule the land. Also that little document called the constitution with all the amendments will nueter hi, like a mutt


However, the democrats also have the congress. That means a tag team of Obama, Pelosi, and Reed. I hope the second amendment can withstand that group.
I know those in agriculture often vote liberal because for some reason they think they will get a better farm bill. I know they were angry because McCain didn't like the current farm bill. Because he didn't like it didn't mean he wouldn't support a better one. Also, as far as agriculture goes I think farmers are in trouble with the upcoming administration. I think the focus will be on inner-city and farmers are going to be the last thing on Obama's mind. If you farm I would prepare for being left out in the cold.


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

You guys with your ideas that this president will take your guns and your hunting rights need to lay off the conspiracy theories. :eyeroll:

I'm already so sick and tired of the ones ready to push the panic button and go into hiding with their guns.

Really, get over it, run for Congress or move to Canada - where I'm sure you'll have far more liberties than you do here. :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Lvn2Hnt said:


> You guys with your ideas that this president will take your guns and your hunting rights need to lay off the conspiracy theories. :eyeroll:
> 
> I'm already so sick and tired of the ones ready to push the panic button and go into hiding with their guns.
> 
> Really, get over it, run for Congress or move to Canada - where I'm sure you'll have far more liberties than you do here. :eyeroll:


That is simply media cool aid you have had poured down your throat. I'm not asking that you take pro gun people's word for it. Simply look at Obama's record. The last "assault rifle" ban said no sales or transfer. Does that mean I can't leave an AR15 to one of my son's when I get old? I would guess it does. Do you want to make a bet right now that we will see the old "assault rifle ban" renewed, or a new more strict one take it's place. I'm not a gambler, but this is a no brainer. 
Lvn2Hunt, have you looked at Obama's record? You have a strong opinion, where did you get it? If your so sick and tired of it what are you doing in the middle of it? You can drink all the anti-gun, anti NRA cool-aid that you want, but you shouldn't be angry with people who don't want to share a glass with you. As far as calling it a conspiracy theory, that's right out of Hillary's play book, and the common line used by the media. If your really going to chastise people for their concern try to be more original. If not it looks purely partisan. Your choice of course.

Run for congress or get over it? I think it's every citizens responsibility to contact their congressmen or women, and alert their fellow citizens when something isn't going right. Your suggesting, "be still, let the poison work". That isn't the way a republic works. You could take your own advise you know. Which party ticket will you be running on?


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman, 99% of the time, I am in total agreement with you on most of the topics, this is one, however that I do not. Also, let me apologize for coming off like I was chastising - not my intent, just blowing off some steam and admittedly, not in the best manner.

I have not drank the media cool-aid, it is more so the anti-Obama fanatics that have been drinking the concoction.



> If your so sick and tired of it what are you doing in the middle of it?


I have no idea. LOL Honestly. I just can't surrender myself to believe that the great people of this nation would let congress take that much control over their lives.



> As far as calling it a conspiracy theory, that's right out of Hillary's play book, and the common line used by the media. If your really going to chastise people for their concern try to be more original.


That, I have no idea about, truly, I do not and have not listened to enough of the BS to know who said what. Again, I basing my opinions purely on the belief that this nation will not lay down and let one entity take them over.



> I think it's every citizens responsibility to contact their congressmen or women, and alert their fellow citizens when something isn't going right. Your suggesting, "be still, let the poison work". That isn't the way a republic works. You could take your own advise you know. Which party ticket will you be running on?


You're right and wrong here. I agree fully that it is every citizen's responsibility to take action. My mistake, though was not including that in my litany of options, for that, I do apologize because you are totally right. That stated, I have no intent on running on a ticket, but try to be very involved in the legislature both in North Dakota and Minnesota both personally and through my job.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Lvn2Hnt, blowing of steam, now I understand. 

Me too. Those darn anti-gun people just don't give up. There are all the laws we need on the books already, the answser is to enforce them, not just make more laws that they are also unwilling to enforce. It's odd, but I think they will fully enforce them on the innocent, but they are soft hearted on the criminals.

I can see through your reasonable response, and your kind PM that your a reasonable person. In the future when all of us fellow deer hunters have more time we will have to dig into the congressional record and look at the anti-gun votes. I don't just take NRA's word for it I would like it verified from a second source.

I think it was Biden who wrote the last "assault rifle ban". They really are not assault rifles so that even bothers me that we all have drank that cool -aid and readily accept the terminology.

Anyway, I'm retired, but I got sucked into a job for a couple of days at the local sport shop.

Later.


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

barebackjack said:


> bretts said:
> 
> 
> > What are you talking about? Nobody said your hunting rights are going to be taken away. I follow these politics a fair amount...but I haven't seen anything about Obama wanting to take anything away..can someone fill me in? You really think your shotgun is going to be taken away? I wouldn't worry about it. It's not like we don't have a economy crisis and war going on.
> ...


Well, personally, no it won't affect my hunting, unless he takes away my mathews. But for real, he's not taking your guns away. Im sure there will be more strict laws on owning some type of guns.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Well, personally, no it won't affect my hunting, unless he takes away my mathews.


You would not believe how many times I have had that idea proposed to me seriously. No kidding. I have heard it every year as long as I can remember the anti-gun movement. I also keep hearing: "they won't bother my muzzle loader". Seriously next to the anti-gun crowd complacency is our greatest enemy. 
I'm not picking on your post bretts, and I didn't take the first part serious. You just brought up a very good point.
I would guess that when Obama gets around to his anti-gun propensity will depend on his priorities. Anyone have any idea what that will be. Also, he run an outstanding campaign if you like him or not. Evidently he is capable of multi- tasking.


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

Plainsman, there are WAY more issues that need attention a farm bill or inner city issues, both which must pass by both rural and urban lawmakers.This financial meltdown is not even close to being over.
As far as your jab at the farm bill, go ahead kill it and the food stamps and school lunch that comprise 70% of the funding. Kill it I say with the crp that so many hunters are crying about. Kill the csp that is conservation and envioromentally sustainable. When you get smart enough as you get older, you will realize more to lose than to gain by as you say we being "left out in the cold". Also your statements are quite laughable with Dorgan and Conrad there with the way they view farm bill funding.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

You guys are frickin' ridiculous.

Why don't you wait until there is something concrete to worry about before marching around saying the sky is falling? How about everyone shuts up about anything until there is an actual bill proposed? Doesn't that sound like the rational thing to do?

With the economy, Iraq, and all the other problems facing our country do you really think the first agenda of this administration is going to be gun control?

Furthermore, say some legislation is passed that you don't like. You can simply not obey it. Look at gun registration in Canada. It didn't work. People simply chose not to obey the law.

If you really get pizzed at something the government is trying to do, practice your second amendment rights and organize a militia and march on Washington. The government is supposed to fear it's people, the people aren't supposed to fear the government.

You might think that sounds crazy, but that is why our forefathers put the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights. Sadly, most of you who pretend to support the 2nd amendment have forgotten that.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Matt Jones said:


> You guys are frickin' ridiculous.
> 
> Why don't you wait until there is something concrete to worry about before marching around saying the sky is falling? How about everyone shuts up about anything until there is an actual bill proposed? Doesn't that sound like the rational thing to do?
> 
> ...


Sometimes its better to be proactive rather than reactive.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

bretts said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> > bretts said:
> ...


Really bretts? You dont hunt coyotes with a rifle? Pheasants with a shotgun? Deer with a rifle or muzzleloader?
What kind of shotgun you own? Semi-auto? Guess what, could very well be on the chopping block someday with this guy. What kind of bullets you put through your .22-250? Ballistic tips? Hmmm, "exploding" bullets theyll call em, than theyll tax you 500% on em or take em away.

I know you better than that bud. I cant believe you support this guy.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

barebackjack said:


> Sometimes its better to be proactive rather than reactive.


It's gun owners like you that would make our founding fathers puke if they were around to see what supporters of the 2nd amendment have become...just a bunch of backyard shooters and hunters.

Gun control is a non-issue. All of you need to realize that. Don't listen to the pussys at the NRA and buy into the fear mongering they have pushed. We, the people, hold all the cards.

The only way the government will ever get your guns is if YOU let them have them. There is absolutely nothing to worry about...unless you're spineless enough to fear the government.

I'm so sick of hearing all you pansies whine about gun control. You aren't even smart enough to see that there is nothing they can do. The only way they can do anything is if you let them. The NRA has brainwashed you into thinking there is something to fear.

Let's say the government banned all guns. Don't you think they'd quickly reconsider if 5 million gun owners marched into Washington? There's more of us than there are of them. They Fear Us. They aren't going to mess with us. So quit acting like a bunch of cowards.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Matt Jones said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes its better to be proactive rather than reactive.
> ...


   

You arent posse comitatus are you?

The NRA may have brainwashed some. But comments like "there is nothing they can do" makes me think YOUVE been brainwashed.

Example-They ban lets say AR style weapons. I refuse to give mine up, or get in a shootout with ATF, I get killed, or I go to jail. Now, are 5 million gun owners going to march on washington because a "black menacing looking gun" got banned. HIGHLY doubtful. Are 5 million gun owners going to march on washington if they pass an astronomical sales tax on ammo, or semi-auto weapons, or whatever, HIGHLY doubtful. People like you will say, "we dont need them anyway" and "your all brainwashed, this is all they want". :eyeroll:

Also, can you imagine what may happen if 5 million armed men marched into washington? That could get ugly. Perhaps a repeat of McArthur subdueing the WWI vets.

Give them an inch, and theyll eventually make it the mile. Its kind of scary that your promoting sitting back and doing nothing, waiting till they want to take something away, than using an act of aggression to get it back. Makes alot more sense to at least attempt delegation before aggression.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

barebackjack said:


> Example-They ban lets say AR style weapons. I refuse to give mine up, or get in a shootout with ATF, I get killed, or I go to jail. Now, are 5 million gun owners going to march on washington because a "black menacing looking gun" got banned. HIGHLY doubtful. Are 5 million gun owners going to march on washington if they pass an astronomical sales tax on ammo, or semi-auto weapons, or whatever, HIGHLY doubtful. People like you will say, "we dont need them anyway" and "your all brainwashed, this is all they want". :eyeroll:


Do you honestly think they're going to go door to door killing people who won't give up their guns? If they ever try registration (which they won't in our lifetime) it will go just like Canada...they're going to be a lot of guns that suddenly 'dissapear.' Then they'll walk away from your door and that'll be that.

The bottom line is that you guys are freaking out. There has been nothing even proposed yet.

You guys are banking everything off of some whacky votes in a state legislature. Hell, in ND they passed a spring canada goose season before realizing they didn't have the authority to do it.

Moral of the story, don't get your panties in a bunch over nothing. If you guys want to freak out once a bill hits the floor, that I could understand.

But it's not going to happen. They have much bigger things to worry about.

And if shyte ever does hit the fan...we always have other options. :wink:


----------



## LSSP (Apr 11, 2004)

Matt Jones - you say

"Furthermore, say some legislation is passed that you don't like. You can simply not obey it."

You mean like taxes or raising tuition ( I see you are a 'college student') Just don't pay it.

"I'm so sick of hearing all you pansies whine about gun control. You aren't even smart enough to see that there is nothing they can do."

I probably have boots older than you and I know fools talk when I hear it and your's is as good as it gets. How about those pansies in AUSTRALIA. There was no way, until - new leader, new legislators and one crazy sob that killed 35 people. They held 'public meetings', asked for 'input' and then voted (remember - you can't vote someone out until the NEXT election),
here's the law - note class C firearms - but it could never happen.

[edit] Current Australian firearm laws
The possession and use of firearms in Australia is governed by state laws which were partly aligned by the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (see below). Anyone wishing to buy, own, or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and be over the age of 18, although there are exceptions. In Queensland, unlicensed individuals may use firearms legally if the proper forms are filled out beforehand. Minors, with parental consent, can use, but not legally own, firearms under a minors' licence. Applicants for a firearms licence who wish to own a firearm must have a secure safe storage unit for their firearm/s. For category A, B and C firearms, this unit must either be bolted to the structure of a permanent building or have a weight over 150 kilograms. If the storage units is used for storing category D, H and R firearms, however, it must be bolted to a permanent building.

For every firearm, a purchaser must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit for each person has a mandatory 28 day delay before it is issued. In some states, such as Queensland, this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class, whilst in others, such as New South Wales, it is not. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defence is not accepted as a reason for issuing a licence.

Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states (eg QLD and NSW) allow an owner to store or borrow another owner's firearm of the same category; others (eg WA) do not.

[edit] Firearms categories
Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories with different levels of control. The categories are:

Category A: rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, paintball guns, and airsoft/soft air rifles (depending on State). 
Category B: centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. 
Category C: semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. (Restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and professional sporting shooters can own working Category C firearms) 
Category D: semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action/semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds (Category D Firearms are restricted to occupational shooters [1].) 
Category H: handguns including air pistols, deactivated handguns and firearms not exceeding 65 cm in total length. Target shooters can acquire handguns of .38" calibre or less.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Whats that LSSP? The average Joe sportsman in Australia cant own a semi-automatic shotgun?

Never happen here??? :eyeroll:

Thats what ive been trying to say to the naysayers. Its not so far fetched to loose that type of weapon. Say goodbye to that benelli or beretta you spent big money on. Turn a blind eye to long and before you know it youll be selling grandads old A5 back to the govt for pennies on the dollar, if your lucky.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I agree the economy is more important, but it will hardly occupy all of their time. That and saying it can't happen is the most naive statement I have heard from gun owners. 
Apathy is our second greatest enemy. People who think nothing can happen are our greatest enemy. They are more dangerous than the anti-gun people because we know what to expect from them.
Pansies, wimps, and the other rhetoric and your still wrong. Terribly wrong. Sit on your behind if you want, but discouraging others from being proactive is realy poor. 
Just ignore the law. The first who do will be made an example of. Remember Ruby Ridge? Remember Waco? Shot between the eyes or 20 years in prison, neither appeal to me. Get real.


----------



## Doogie (Feb 23, 2007)

Randy Weaver was a white supremacist that was selling illegal sawed off shotguns that dident show up for his court date and David Koresh was cult leader with a stockpile of illegal machine guns. Neither of those men where John Q Gunowner that dident want to give his firearms up. They start that and they will have a lot of hacked off people on their hands. Not just one or two kooks.

the ATF going to take on the majorty of the population of the western and southern states?? I am sure its not just going to be North Dakotans that are going to be hacked when they outlaw guns. Montana already stated that the right to bear arms is a condition of statehood with the United States, and is not afraid to secede. Other states have the same in their contract of Statehood.


----------



## jmillercustoms (Dec 11, 2007)

... I think that it will be interesting to see what happens, i was happy to see that Obama did not win South Dakota either....or any state directly south of us all the way to mexico! his running mate Joe BIden is the one to be aware of, he has introduced a ton of anti-gun legislation than anybody else in his time one of them would have banned almost all centerfire ammunition :eyeroll: I hope things dont get to that point in this country, I honestly dont think they will but then we (as americans i guess :roll just voted in the first black president


----------



## fargodawg (Sep 20, 2005)

Matt Jones said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes its better to be proactive rather than reactive.
> ...


really? I would love to see you march into DC, gun in hand, make sure you wave to the cameras as you are dealt with... do you understand the process?.. anti gun president...free ride for anti gun supreme court justices..decide to "interperate" the 2nd amendment as written...good bye guns.

relax a bit and educate yourself before you name call

is there still a CCW class at sportsmans in Fgo, so I dont have to read the forum to look for schedule after they called me uneducated (twice)for voting McCain. I would rather have Eddy say it.

look at what transpired today (6th) with a congressional meeting about converting all 401ks to the social security program so we can all have the money that some have worked for.

I'd rather have McCain than B.O.

have a nice day Matt :beer:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Brainwashed pansies, pussys, cowards and backyard shooters and hunters.

Where have you become a hero Jones and in who's life?? You may want to loosen the liberal ratchet strap around your melon, it is pinching off all common rationality and sensibility. What a waste.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Big O may not instigate new regulation but he certainly is not going to oppose it that is our biggest threat. There are already plenty in congress who are willing to bring such bills to the floor. Word is that the dems have had a new and improved assault weapons bill on the shelf for some time waiting for the election to bring it out. Given the economic status of this country it would make sense that they would piggyback it on to an economic package to boost it's chances of passage.

While a large tax is possible I'm not sure that it might be constitutional. Since it has been determined that gun ownership is a constitutional right that means it is applicable to all. Men, women, blacks, whites, rich , _poor_ and etc. No one can be discriminated against. Please note the italicised word above. A high tax would place an undue burden on the poor and many others limiting or denying them oportunity to fully exercise that right. We have no taxes on our other rights. Speech is not taxed , assembly is not taxed, legal representation is not taxed (the govt will provide if you can't afford) just as a few examples. The government has placed restrictions on some of our right provided they do not interfer with a reasonable exercise of those rights. A high gun tax could be construed as an unreasonable restriction and impedement to the exercise of the second amendment. Wouldn't taxing firearms as a way to regulate them set a precidence for taxing our other rights????


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good grief Doogie I was making no comparison with the people at Ruby Ridge or Waco. That's ridiculous. I was making the comparison in how the ATF will work. You guys make the worst assumptions you can to win an argument. How do we carry on debate if all you think about is win and not learn. You may be surprised that learning is winning.

I notice that the other side of the debate is resorting to distortion and bad language. Now I'm convinced. :eyeroll:


----------



## Doogie (Feb 23, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> ......Just ignore the law. The first who do will be made an example of. Remember Ruby Ridge? Remember Waco? Shot between the eyes or 20 years in prison, neither appeal to me. Get real.


where were you not comparing Ruby Ridge and Waco to someone not giving up their guns when they come for them? sounds like that to me. In the ATFs eyes John Q Gunowner is just as extreme as those two when it comes to confiscating their guns, they technically would be Illegal firearms at that point


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

4CurlRedleg said:


> Where have you become a hero Jones and in who's life??


I don't see where I insuated I was a hero. I just said I wasn't spineless enough to fear the government. If registration ever happens (which it won't in my lifetime) and the 'man' shows up asking me how many guns I own and wants to know the serial numbers...I'll respond "What guns?"

That's what happened in Canada, and why gun registration won't work here. Confiscation can't happen without registration. It might happen down the road but the culture of our country is so vastly different than Australia and Britain that I think you guys are severly putting the cart before the horse in thinking it's even possible within our generation.



4CurlRedleg said:


> You may want to loosen the liberal ratchet strap around your melon, it is pinching off all common rationality and sensibility. What a waste.


If what I said was liberal I'd hate see what it takes to be a conservative. 

Look, I realize what I posted was over the top. I apologize if I offended anyone. After 2 days of hearing all this paranoia over gun control I lost it. I honestly don't see it happening. Worst case scenario is if Obama is elected to a 2nd term we might see an assault weapons ban (a la Clinton). The democrats are just like the republicans...they want to win elections. I don't think they're dumb enough to handicap themselves by pushing gun control legislation at this point in time.

Then again I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened. Afterall, I did vote for Bush thinking he'd make a good president. :lol:


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

If you don't think that they aren't going to try it, you are rediculous. I guarantee that another Brady Bill, but worse, is going to get attached to an economic stimulus plan or something of that nature. So every liberal anti gun wacko in congress can go out wailing in the streets about how the republicans don't want to help anyone, if they don't vote for it.

It couldn't happen in England, but it did.

It couldn't happen in Australia, but it did.

It couldn't happen in Canada, but it did.

It is those reasons that the un-reasonable NRA exists. You can't give politicians an inch, because they will be back for more in 5 minutes. And thats for all of you out there that says well they don't want my guns. Not yet they don't, but as soon as they get the others where do you think it is going to go. And when was the last time anyone saw any reasonable legislation?

As for gun registration, it's already here, unless you haven't purchased a gun lately. They just have to pull up the list. As for the un-registered guns, they will get around to that later.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

SDBF,



> If you don't think that they aren't going to try it, you are rediculous. I guarantee that another Brady Bill, but worse, is going to get attached to an economic stimulus plan or something of that nature. So every liberal anti gun wacko in congress can go out wailing in the streets about how the republicans don't want to help anyone, if they don't vote for it.


That's exactly how it will happen. Anyone knows that how congress works. If you don't realize that You haven't watched the system work. uke:


----------



## bjertness07 (Jan 4, 2005)

i think you guys are jumping the gun alittle bit. pun intended.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I'm shocked at what I'm seeing in this thread! 

Matt Jones, you may be a nice guy (kid), but you are to gun owners what abortion clinic bombers are to Christians. For the first time in my life I may have found someone I do NOT want to be a NRA member!

I was glad to see others stepped up to rebut your ridiculous, head-in-the-sand comments...but I'm posting here to explain why you cannot simply "ignore" a registration scheme.

I'm in Obama's home state. And just for your own education, hop onto IL Gov's website and read about the 2 bills already through committee that will totally ban any semi-auto of .50 or larger...with no exception for shotguns. So you think .410 1100's are pricey now ???????

We have no registration in IL, but we do have a registration of gun OWNERS. It's called FOID. Look it up, too. I know a few people with attitudes similar to your's who opted to ignore the law and never applied for the card, but there are several problems with that. First and foremost is that they are now in violation of state law, and subject to arrest as soon as any local law enforcement official becomes aware they possess a firearm without a FOID. They cannot buy ammunition...even through the mail. They cannot shoot, or teach their children to shoot unless they want to risk being checked by law enforcement. They cannot hunt because game wardens want to see an FOID as much as the proper licenses, etc., etc.

I suppose they could march on Springfield while their ammo supply still holds out...but good luck with that! :wink:

Do you know anyone in California? Ask them how it's going by just refusing to register their AR's....if they still have them, I mean. :wink:

Just as one here mentioned of being sickened by all the sky is falling talk, as he called it...well I'm just as sickened, but for the opposite reason. I'm sickened by this incredibly selfish logic that as long as they don't take my ML, or my bow, or my pump shotgun, or whatever else it is that you think you could get by with...well it's OK with you.

Do you remember what they taught you in school about "united we stand, divided we fall" ? This subject isn't what they had in mind, but it certainly applies! After they get your neighbor's assault rifle, and my 1100, who do you expect to give a sh#t when they come for your pump shotgun?

Will it happen? We just elected a president who would like for it to. He is on the record explaining how the Constitution is an outdated inconvenience.

I don't advocate or promote the sky is falling take on this. Nor is any of the other regular posters here. But if I may take the liberty of appearing to speak for them now, what we are suggesting is that ALL of us keep our eyes and ears open, and NEVER hesitate to ask questions. And KEEP asking questions until you get an answer. An answer that makes sense.

I'm sure many people in CA had the same false security that they could never take guns in America. Just as many in Breat Britain and Australia also felt their government would never attempt to disarm them. But we see now it didn't work out too well for them. And we also see that after the fact, when all the "sky is falling" whackos over there have tired of saying "I told you so", that it is pretty near impossible to undo the damage done. I know in England it's continued to get so bad that now homeowners are imprisoned if they use a single shot firearm to defend their home from an armed intruder.

Are we paranoid? I don't think you can call it paranoid when we have to look no farther than CA or our mother land to see it's already happened.

So get your heads out of the sand and prepare to hold those with the ability to vote our rights away accountable...if that's even possible anymore. But rest assured doing nothing will allow the worst to happen sooner than later.

I personally believe it's time for a PEACEFUL revolution. It's time for ALL gun owners to man up and support the only organization out there who has the clout to protect out 2nd amendment rights.

And Matt, I hope I have shown you the respect you deserve, but anyone who would refer to the NRA as a bunch of pussys...doesn't deserve much.

Dan


----------



## KoneZone (Nov 8, 2008)

I am nervously watching and waiting. It is evident to me that there will be a push to decrease our freedoms regarding firearms. I will pray the to the almighty that Obama will see the light. Hopefully he will govern from the center and not go completely whack on the constitution. If you are of the mindset that the Dem's won't try to severely cut our freedoms around guns then you have not studied history. What better chance have they ever had? There is a pattern and it's going to get worse before it gets better. Elections have consequences and gun users will pay a price. Get ready, talk with your friends and neighbors. Contact your legislators and let them know that the 2nd amendment is important to you. If it's not then do nothing as the ball is already rolling at a high rate of speed.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Csquared said:


> And Matt, I hope I have shown you the respect you deserve, but anyone who would refer to the NRA as a bunch of pussys...doesn't deserve much.


Really? You call me a child and you think that is respectful? I realize I probably stepped on some toes for what I said (hence the apology in my last post), so no offense taken...I might of had it coming. 

What's happened to the NRA? Am I the only one who remembers when they used to have a spine?

I remember an organization that was lead by Charlton Heston hoisting a flintlock and shouting, "They can take our guns when they pry them from our cold dead hands!"

And after Tuesday night they've turned into an organization saying, "They can take our guns...when Obama and the democrats pass legislation and they show up to our homes and we passively hand them over."

If you guys feel so strongly about your rights, why would you give them up so easily?

You can talk all you want about Britain and Australia but the only example we have of federal gun registration in NA is Canada. It didn't work. Why? Because over half the gun owners in the country didn't comply with the law. Mutual non-compliance by the 60-80 million gun owners in this country would mean any gun control laws would fail miserably.

But again, we're getting ahead of ourselves. There aren't any current plans for anything even close to what you guys are talking about. I'll be sure to pull this thread up in 4 years and ask if anyone's had their guns taken by the government. It'll be a good laugh.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Matt, I understand your frustration. I hope you can also understand mine when I hear someone profess a "try to take it" attitude towards a gun ban. That's a battle you will NOT win.

We can't even find 5 million gun owners willing to part with one year's dues. How do you propose to find 5 million willing to part with their life? Or at least life as they know it?

No one will stand for anything anymore, and it's very evident right here on this site. You will accept only your idea of the "good fight". Another will find it unnecessary to participate because he is comfortable knowing he has enough guns and ammo buried that he will never be without a gun. The next guy may simply be happy to hear his 870 isn't included yet. And his next door neighbor may only bowhunt.

No, you are definitely in the minority...if, for no other reason, simply for believing you could get 4,999,999 people to march with you. :wink:

And please fill me in on what I'm missing, but I believe the registration in Canada failed mainly due to costs. And if you prefer to use Canada as the only example, even though California is bound by the same Constitution as the rest of us, how many of your buddies north of the border enjoy handgun ownership?

Or are you one of those who feel they don't matter?

Are you a NRA member?

I assume not.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Let the game begin :sniper:

"Yes We Can . . . Ban Guns"--Obama Announces Gun Ban Agenda Before The Final Vote Count Is In

Friday, November 07, 2008

Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign slogan, "the audacity of hope," should have instead been "the audacity of deceit." After months of telling the American people that he supports the Second Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from the anti-gun lobby--four initiatives designed to ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business:

"Making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent." Perhaps no other firearm issue has been more dishonestly portrayed by gun prohibitionists. Notwithstanding their predictions that the ban's expiration in 2004 would bring about the end of civilization, for the last four years the nation's murder rate has been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun prohibition or gun control reduces crime. Guns that were affected by the ban are used in only a tiny fraction of violent crime-about 35 times as many people are murdered without any sort of firearm (knives, bare hands, etc.), as with "assault weapons." Obama says that "assault weapons" are machine guns that "belong on foreign battlefields," but that is a lie; the guns are only semi-automatic, and they are not used by a military force anywhere on the planet.

"Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment." The amendment--endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police--prohibits the release of federal firearm tracing information to anyone other than a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation. Anti-gun activists oppose the restriction, because it prevents them from obtaining tracing information and using it in frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearm manufacturers. Their lawsuits seek to obtain huge financial judgments against firearm manufacturers when a criminal uses a gun to inflict harm, even though the manufacturers have complied with all applicable laws.

"Closing the gun show loophole." There is no "loophole." Under federal law, a firearm dealer must conduct a background check on anyone to whom he sells a gun, regardless of where the sale takes place. A person who is not a dealer may sell a gun from his personal collection without conducting a check. Gun prohibitionists claim that many criminals obtain guns from gun shows, though the most recent federal survey of convicted felons put the figure at only 0.7 percent. They also claim that non-dealers should be required to conduct checks when selling guns at shows, but the legislation they support goes far beyond imposing that lone requirement. In fact, anti-gun members of Congress voted against that limited measure, holding out for a broader bill intended to drive shows out of business.

"Making guns in this country childproof." "Childproof" is a codeword for a variety of schemes designed to prevent the sale of firearms by imposing impossible or highly expensive design requirements, such as biometric shooter-identification systems. While no one opposes keeping children safe, the fact is that accidental firearm-related deaths among children have decreased 86 percent since 1975, even as the numbers of children and guns have risen dramatically. Today, the chances of a child being killed in a firearm accident are less than one in a million.

Matt you've been drinking way too much Liberal Kool Aid at UND oke:


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

zogman said:


> Matt you've been drinking way too much Liberal Kool Aid at UND oke:


What have I said that is "liberal"? Do you actually understand the difference between liberal and conservative or do you just call someone a liberal like Sean Hannity does when someone says something he doesn't agree with? I'm not advocating gun control. I'm just as against it as anyone else here (maybe even more). The only difference is that I'm not as worked up over it as you guys are. You guys are making it sound like the sky is literally falling and that you better kiss your gun ownership rights goodbye in this county. I simply don't buy it.

If anyone here is drinking the kool-aid it's you...way to cut and paste from the NRA website. Does anyone have this same info, but published from a credible news source? I thought not. 
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4227

Csquared,

I am former NRA member...for several reasons. I own a handgun so that should answer your other question.

As far as marching the capitol, I wasn't advocating that. Although, that is probably what would happen if guns were banned in this country. As with Canada, cost/non-compliance same difference. Essentially the government couldn't afford to keep throwing money down a rathole. They realized that it wouldn't work if people wouldn't comply. As I said in another post, the logistics of enforcing gun contol laws in this country aren't possible.

Alright guys I give up, I'll bite...let's say the new administration's first order of business is implementing strict gun control laws.

What are you recommending? What's the plan? Or do you guys not have a point with this besides informing every gun owner that we're screwed?


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Plan:

Join the NRA as they are the only organization with the lobbying power to do anything about it, as flawed as they are. I was a former member, left for a while as I didn't agree to alot of what they stood for, but found myself having no other option but to join to protect my rights.

This is about the only option as most gun owners won't do anything else.


----------



## Daren99 (Jul 6, 2006)

I don't think there will be some huge ban on all guns. They will start with assault rifles because not alot of people own them, they will move to semi auto handguns because not alot of people own them, then probably semi auto shotguns, and so on... They will whittle away at them until they're gone. I don't own an asault rifle so that one won't affect me and that's exactly what they're counting on. We've all become so selfish and complacent that if it doesn't immediately effect us were ok with it. I don't have a need for an assault rifle but if someone wants one they should have that right. The guy that takes his AR15 out and plinks at targets may not want a semi auto shotgun, but I do. I hope he will support me like I will support him in keeping our guns. I'm not claiming the sky is falling but waiting for it to fall isn't going to help matters, by the time you notice it falling it may just be to late. Complacency is this countrys worst enemy.


----------



## Daren99 (Jul 6, 2006)

Another thing, I want to thank all the gun crazy wackos out there for keeping an eye on what our government does concerning gun legislation. If it wasn't for them 99.9% of the people including myself wouldn't know about most of the stuff the government tries to slide by us because were not paying attention.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

:sniper: Your welcome Darren :wink: At my age I really shoundn't be worried about my gun rights. Just beware that everything Obama said during the campain contridicts his record. :eyeroll: Every politician lies to get elected. :******:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I was beginning to think I wasn't making myself clear, but I must have been because Daren got it...and he nailed it!

And to Matt, my point is what the bearfan just reiterated......

Join AND SUPPORT the NRA, and don't allow anyone to promote the selfish ideal that as long as "they can't get MY gun...I'm fine."

If we can succeed at those two things I'm pretty confident the sky will stay right where it's presently located.

If not, we could notice clouds around our ankles MUCH sooner than later!


----------



## walt501 (Apr 9, 2008)

As a gun owner and life member of the NRA, I believe that we will continue to have our rights harassed until we can no longer have any guns. Politicians will continue to nibble on the fringe of gun ownership, banning a few guns here, raising taxes there, until there is nothing left.

With as much as the NRA has and will continue to do to protect our rights, I personally believe it will not be enough. We have to do more. I was reading an article recently (can't remember where) that gun owners need to take a page from the gay rights movement and become much more personally involved in the fight to protect - and even expand - our gun rights.

That said, I believe that any new gun legislation that is introduce in congress needs to be met with civil disobedience. If we have to all sit down on every street in Washington D.C. and bring the city to a halt to stop new gun bans, then we should welcome that opportunity. If a neighbor doesn't understand why anyone would want a nasty looking semi-auto rifle inappropriately labeled an assault weapon, it is your responsibility to get in their face and and make them understand.

Politicians respond to those with the loudest voice who are willing to commit their personal time and effort to see the cause through no matter what the odds of success.

Patriots of America, what say ye?


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Good post, Walt.

You've explained the SUPPORT part of my post above, but I wonder how many will really have the time to care...while it still matters. There are some like Matt here who will care, apparently, when things affect them personally, but not before it gets to that point. And I think we will all agree that by then it's too late.

The Obama people just showed us what can be done with the well planned, grassroots efforts of like-minded people. I agree with all of your post, but the problem is how to organize a grassroots effort among people who don't even think their gun rights are worth the time it takes to write a check once a year? :roll:

What concerns me most is that I agree with you in that the non-believers will see what it will take to wake them up and make them want to get involved...eventually. History has shown us that's how it works.

But will it be too little, too late?

From one life member to another, thanks for your support! :beer:


----------



## varmit b gone (Jan 31, 2008)

Daren99 said:


> I don't think there will be some huge ban on all guns. They will start with assault rifles because not alot of people own them, they will move to semi auto handguns because not alot of people own them, then probably semi auto shotguns, and so on... They will whittle away at them until they're gone. I don't own an asault rifle so that one won't affect me and that's exactly what they're counting on. We've all become so selfish and complacent that if it doesn't immediately effect us were ok with it. I don't have a need for an assault rifle but if someone wants one they should have that right. The guy that takes his AR15 out and plinks at targets may not want a semi auto shotgun, but I do. I hope he will support me like I will support him in keeping our guns. I'm not claiming the sky is falling but waiting for it to fall isn't going to help matters, by the time you notice it falling it may just be to late. Complacency is this countrys worst enemy.


BINGO! Daren, you hit the nail right on the head. When Palin runs in 2012 you should be her vice :beer:


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

You all better look up "Executive Order" and think what can happen.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think I will move these to the political form. Although all of our fellow hunters should be interested in this some just are not to that point yet. As long as they can hunt this year they don't worry about next year.


----------



## BigFishS (Nov 18, 2008)

I can say "It's not my fault, I didn't vote for him." I do, however, agree with a few of the comments above. #1 he will be our President, we must accept AND respect that. We can't complain until he screws up. If he doesn't . . .GREAT! If he does, well, I didn't vote for him comes to mind!


----------



## deerslayer80 (Mar 27, 2007)

The only people a law like that would hurt is the honest going folks. You know that guns will always be available by private owners and black market dealers for a criminal to get their hands on. What ever happened to the old days when people had thick skin and learned to deal with tough situations. If any constitutional right be taken away or somewhat restricted it should deal with the press, all they do is exploite everything bad in this country.

I just got gas the other day, and I wrote on the back of my debit card to check my ID. They teller told me that she can't ask me to check the ID unless the value of the purchase is over $100. He went on to tell me that a law got passed that states it's an avasion of privacy to check id's. What is this world coming to???


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

So who tells the politicians to work at reducing gun ownership? Is it the cops? Is it the nurses? Who will benefit when we are unarmed?

All these guns are what makes us the sleeping giant, is it the rest of the world that wants us to be defenceless?


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> I just got gas the other day, and I wrote on the back of my debit card to check my ID. They teller told me that she can't ask me to check the ID unless the value of the purchase is over $100. He went on to tell me that a law got passed that states it's an avasion of privacy to check id's. What is this world coming to???


That's BS, 100% BS ! Maybe company policy but they will lose business when all the $99 fraudulent charges show up.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Matt says:



> What's happened to the NRA? Am I the only one who remembers when they used to have a spine?


Matt says:



> If anyone here is drinking the kool-aid it's you...way to cut and paste from the NRA website. Does anyone have this same info, but published from a credible news source? I thought not.
> http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4227


Which is it Matt? Lacking spine with credibility or lacking credibility.

Can you give us an example of the spineless NRA that wasn't caused by McCain-Feingold?

If you want the NRA to have a spine, you have to change it from within and read what they have to say. They had very good websites up concerning Obama's history on the 2nd Amendment, all supported by sourced links.

I think they are still up, go take a look. It's not their fault goofballs didn't listen and voted for Obama or against McCain.

Obama knows this word very well and you should too.

"*Incrementalism*"

_in⋅cre⋅men⋅tal⋅ism
   /ˌɪnkrəˈmɛntlˌɪzəm, ˌɪŋ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-kruh-men-tl-iz-uhm, ing-] Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
*a policy of making changes, esp. social changes, by degrees; gradualism*._

We aren't going to wake up some morning with jack-booted thugs knocking on the door, it will be large capacity magazines, removable magazines, barrel attachments, adjustable stocks, and other things YOU think you can live without, but only those GUN KOOKS ***** about.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

buckseye said:


> So who tells the politicians to work at reducing gun ownership? Is it the cops? Is it the nurses? Who will benefit when we are unarmed?
> 
> All these guns are what makes us the sleeping giant, is it the rest of the world that wants us to be defenceless?


The rest of the world and our liberal politicians. With the means of self defense gone how far around the corner is it to tyranny? It's a shame that people can repeat the phrase "history repeats itself", but don't understand it. We have a younger generation who is going to have to suffer as if they were slaves, then perhaps their children will appreciate what we had, but they will have no way to stand up for it.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Someone has to be paying those politicians off somehow or they wouldn't get out of bed. Many politicians are Lawyers or wanna be lawyers and are out for themselves so it shouldn't be to hard for someone to know who is paying them. Large campaign contributions are a start.


----------

