# PLEASE READ - CNN GUN POLL



## NHbirdhunter (May 26, 2004)

Ladies and Gentlemen 
Take half a minute to vote as requested at the bottom and forward this to your concerned friends.

To All, 
CNN is trying to do a job on gun owners. They are doing a quick poll asking if the assault weapons ban should be lifted or extended. Since mostly liberals support CNN, the poll is showing a huge loss to our position. So, get this out to everyone you know ASAP to impact the poll. It takes about 30 seconds to link over and vote. Do it right away. The poll wont stay up long. And distribute right away to your friends.

We really need some help on this poll. So far we are losing almost 3 to 1. I think everyone is aware how much mileage the folks at CNN are going to try and get out of this if in fact the results show the majority of people want the AWB extended. Please take a minute to go to the site :sniper: below and cast your vote.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/05/09/ ... index.html


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

this CANNOT be right, we are winning by a nose, last time i checked it was 2/3 in their favor. hot damn these forums really do get something done.

my rational for lifting this: if people are going to use high capacity clips to commit felonies, dont you think they will get them illegally anyway? keeping high capacity clips out of law abiding citizens does nothing.


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

Please vote... We are winning!!!!!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Should the federal ban on assault weapons be...

Lifted 52% 161911 votes

Extended 48% 148730 votes 
Total: 310641 votes


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

you realize its just an opinion poll right? this has no meaning towards the real vote


----------



## NHbirdhunter (May 26, 2004)

Tiger......you are correct in saying that it is just an opinion poll. However, I believe it does have *"MEANING"* relative to the "REAL" vote as you state.

Let's say you were taking a public opinion poll regarding fishing. The poll question was this, _Do you think fish feel pain when caught by conventional fishing hooks, when the hook is removed?_

You question 2 of your most preservationist minded, illinformed friends and they both answer yes to the question.

The next day, the top headline in the news is, _*"100% of the people polled believe fishing should be banned."*_ Sounds swayed doesn't it!
*CNN is not above these tactics*.

When it comes to the "real" vote as you call it, we have no say at all, unless we reply to every one of these foolish polls, _*join the NRA *_and continually write our congressmen and senators in support of letting the
Clinton "Assualt Weapon Ban" sunset.

*Keep up the good fight everyone................THIS DOES AFFECT YOU!*


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

I just have one question,
What type of game is it that you use an assault weapon to shoot.

I am a proud gun owner and believe in the right to bear arms but I do not believe ANYONE besides the military has a reason to buy and own an assault rifle.

I know you are going to say that banning assault rifles would just lead to banning more guns but honestly, there is no reason to have an assault rifle.

cootkiller


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Hey cootkiller....could you give us your definition of an assualt rifle. I'm not trying to argue just trying to understand your take on this. I respect everyones opinion. 8)


----------



## 870 XPRS (Mar 12, 2003)

I agree with cootkiller's statement.


> I do not believe ANYONE besides the military has a reason to buy and own an assault rifle.


I always find it interesting why and how these assault rifles find their way into gun shows. It's ridiculous, you walk by some good old antique stuff and then turn the corner and you got Al-Quaeda wannabe's right there. I don't agree with the ban though, I don't see a problem with people having 50 round clips under their 10/22. THe intent of the ban doesn't actually resolve anything as most of the weapons and people targeted are using illegal weapons anyways.


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

I would refer to anything along the lines of an ak47 or ar15's that are easily made fully automatic. These are not sporting weapons. They are manufactured for one pupose, killing humans.

cootkiller


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

Coot, I agree with you 100%...I do not believe this will lead to more gun control..this one makes sense..what the hell does anyone need an assault weapon for??? Surely nothing positive.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Thanks cootkiller...I'm with ya on fully autmatic weapons, that is why they are and were before the ban illegal. There is nothing to gain from disarming honest people, how about stiffer penalty for those caught with fully automatic weapons. I don't like all honest people being limited in their freedoms because of the actions of a few.


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

I actually agree with Cootkiller  My intial reaction to reading the poll is what the heck do people need with assault rifles. Shotgun for hunting, fine, semi-auto rifle for deer etc. fine, but "assault weapons" should be banned......


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Thats why they attached that wonderful word "assault" to them to give you that quezy feeling. Banning doesn't do anything. I guarantee if I wanted to kill a bunch of people I could do it just as efficiently with the guns I have now. Your only fooling yourself by thinking banning assault weapons does anything.


----------



## Bigdog (Aug 13, 2003)

Problem with an assualt weapon ban is that it depends on the definition of the word. Some would define anything that is capable of holding more than one shell as an assault weapon, others may say any semi-auto is an assault weapon, yet others may see anything with a black plastic stock. You and I may agree on a definition, do you think a gun control advocate would agree? I prefer not to take that risk. No, I don't own any military style weapons, don't intend to buy any, etc.

Fully auto guns have been under license for many years and require an FFL. "Assault" weapons bans are a means of building more control, once it is there it makes it easy to expand. The ban they want to continue has not prevented any crime.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

I cringe when I see guys walking a CRP field or standing along the road at the end of a shelter belt posting for deer and holding an AK or similar. Don't see it very often, but once in a while. Don't think it endears us to the non-hunting public.

But, the hard part is that, mechanically, that AK isn't much different than a BAR or for that matter my SBE. So what is an "assult weapon" that should be banned - how do you characterize and define it so as not to implicate much more socially acceptable sporting arms? Something that "looks really scary"? 'Cause I think that's about the best you could do, and is obviously too subjective to mean anything.

Except for a Nova (which itself looks a little assult-ish), I'll never own a gun that most of us would consider an "assult weapon". But I do own many guns that could get lumped into or drawn into the definition. I'm less worried about the "slippery slope" than I am about coming up with a workable definition that doesn't implicate things not intended to be covered.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

This website gives statistics on all forms of assault from 1973 -2002. For whatever reason we seem to be going in the right direction.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/aslt.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm#Violence


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

When the orginal ban was proposed it included remingtons, weatherby's, rugers, and many other brand name guns that we all own, however these weapons were put on the list so that if anyone had a 50 round clip hanging out of the gun it was now an "assault weapon" if anyone knows of the website were you can veiw the list of "BANNED" guns it will surprise most of you the brand name firearms that are listed. This just a start to taking away our constitutional rights to bear arms. Just ask England, and Austrlia, and few other UK countries what happened when they lost their gun rights they will tell all of you this is how it started. Criminals will always be criminals and they have and will continue to illegally obtain firmearms weather they steal them out of our homes, out of the sporting good stores, or where ever they get them from. Buy a gun safe put it in your home, at least you will feel secure in the fact that you did not, and will not be contributing to the delinquency of the criminals. You will always know that as a responsible gun owner that your guns were not used to hurt or kill an innocent person!! To many of you owning an AR-15, or an SKS 7.42, does not make sense, however these weapons are excellent for shooting praire dogs. or other misc. unwanted varmits. The people who own these guns probably do not have a larage capacity mag as they are not practicle for hunting purposes.


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Sorry about the double post not sure what happened.


----------



## Avman81 (Dec 9, 2002)

Wow, what an issue. Hardly know where to start.

As a sportsman, responsible gun-owner, father, military man, etc., I am sickened by phrases that imply weakness. "Endear us to the public"? What the hell does that mean? As long as the gentleman with the "AK" is holding the firearm in a responsible manner in the course of hunting and is wearing the appropriate clothing, I do not think the public in general are going to confiuse him with criminals who use AKs in the commission of felony crimes such as bank robbing, murder, etc.

I ask one question: Does any gun, whatsoever, endear us as hunters to the public? I would say NO! emphatically. What endears us to the public is that we, as hunters, are morally responsible in the taking (killing) of game, the safety which we conduct ourselves in our sport, our forthrightness and frankness in asking permission to trespass, respect for the landowner who denies access (or allows access) and our sincere thanks to all landowners for their contributions to wildlife.

Now, getting back to the topic of "assault weapons". There are many things wrong with this term, none of which does the sport of hunting any good. The term in fact is designed to incite people, it is directly confrontational and violent. The legal definition includes many firearms that we, as hunters, routinely use if we have them in our legal possession. It also includes many firearms that we, as hunters, DO NOT use and most do not condone. These are fully automatic firearms, which requires the owner to have a federal fireams license (FFL).

As for the poll, yes, it is not scientific. It only posts information on the vote from those who have voted. It can be skewed. Presently, it shows about 54% in favor of letting the ban lapse and 46% in favor of extending.

In my humble opinion, all gun control laws violate the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. The phrase "shall not be infringed" apparently has other interpretations than the plain English. Too bad it is we who have elected the officials who have listened to the mostly the vocal public and only after such tragedies as Columbine and the attempted assassination of President Reagan. We have sat by and allowed, nay encouraged, this freedom guaranteed by the Constitution to be eroded in the name of "public safety" all the while these laws have only encumbered law abiding citizens with more hassles. Criminals will get guns if they want guns, they will use guns to commit crimes, and if this country continues down its present path, criminals will not fear the general public because the "general public" will not have guns!

Wake up people! Take little time on Monday to celebrate Memorial Day; praise a veteran who put his life on the line for the freedoms you are enjoying. I know I will be out there all day, rain or shine.

Avman81, albeit a little disgruntled right now...


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Why does anyone own a car or motorcycle that can exceed 70 mph? Sport hunting began with single-shot black powder. The #1 competition rifle is the AR-15 family of rifles. Just because a firearm can accept a high capacity magazine doesn't mean they all come with them or they must be used in order for it to function. The worst of the liberal gun haters created this law to get their foot wedged in the door for more anti-gun legislation to follow. If you don't think they will come after your so called "hunting guns" you are highly mistaken, thank heavens for the sunset of this garbage.


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

I have guns that I do not hunt with, but own because I just like to shoot them. Shooting alone is a sport as well...not just shooting at animals.

The problem with a lot of gun regulations is that they only infringe on the law-abiding citizen. Another law or regulation is not going to stop someone who has no regard for following the rules in the first place!

:sniper:


----------



## catman (Dec 19, 2002)

Eric:
Good idea lets ban them! Oh by the way why in the world do we need any semi-auto, pump or other multi shot weapons for. Can you not hit them with one shot. Oh what the heck, why own any? We could just check them out at the local police station on the day of the hunt. Maybe charge a $50.00 rental fee for single shot . Heck ya .
(DAM) sorry just woke up, I thought I was in England, or was it Australia, or was it Canada.

Keep all your freedoms: Join the N. R.A

Got to go now and shoot one of mine 6 so called assualt weapons[/b]


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

Alrighty then. I guess I wasn't very clear. I hunt etc. so naturally I don't like to hear about a ban on weapons but in my mind there is a difference between guns. What the hell do people need with uzi's etc? Or maybe have shooting clubs and tighter regulations on those types of guns. I guess I don't follow this as closely since I am not sitting up at worrying about them "taking my guns" or whatever those NRA guys are always screaming. There is just something not right with people having better guns than the police.......oh yeah NRA Forever :strapped:


----------



## snowflake (Apr 2, 2004)

LIKE CATMAN SAID,AUSTRALIA!!!!!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

One thing to keep in mind is that the Second amendment was not about hunting. Our forefathers put it in the Constitution so citizens could own weapons for the express purpose of fighting our own government, if it ever became oppressive. Back in those days hunting rights were not even a topic of discussion they were considered a given. The problem as we all know, is there are some ligitimate gun enthusiasts that want to fool around with military style weapons, and they are unfortunately impossible to tell from the nuts that would do us harm. Its one more example of freedom not being free, it takes responsibility and is full of risk. Do we want to give up more freedom for the supposed security, I say no because a Remington 742 is enough firepower to do a hell of a lot of harm and most hunters would balk at this being a banned weapon. And in case you're interested I would be fine if all hunters were limited to hunting with single shots and longbows I think it would enhance the sport in many ways and we would still have fun. I personally believe way to much technology has crept into our sport to its detriment. But I do prefer that it stay a personal decision for everyone to make individually not for the government.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

"Assult Weapons" What a useless phrase. It was developed to scare the crap out of women and children, and it worked! the knee jerk public that went nuts when someone was killed in a street gang war by an AW demanded retribution and got it! why because someone came up with a two word term to scare people. I do not own an AK or AR but I know people who do. the heavy extended barrel type of an AR10 308 cal is one of the most accurate long guns I have ever fired.

There is a place for them, Right now I am glad our boys have them in Iraq, however, if you are a citizen who owns a full auto version and does not posses a FFL, Sorry but that is very wrong! why would you need it? if you think that all you have to do is point and pull the trigger of a full auto you will hit nothing but the top of the wall and the ceiling.

I am against taking away any gun no matter what! why because if criminals want to get guns they will get them, and until something is done to limit the availability of so called AW's to criminals all of the uproar surrounding AW's will continue.

I may be way off base here but I believe that one of the reasons ND has such a low crime rate is that there are a bunch of people in this state that own guns and we do know how to use them   I really feel sorry for the person who busts into my place in the middle of the night :sniper:

Have a good one!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Mine are all in a gun safe in my basement and I can never find my glasses to open the combination so my plan is to use the fat ******* in his jockey shorts with a cast iron frying pan :lol: :lol: :lol: assault weapon, probaly not deadly but real hard on the eyes  :beer:


----------



## NHbirdhunter (May 26, 2004)

*870 XPRS *may be surprised when he owns an "_assualt weapon_" as of September!!! Wake up people, spend some time and learn how Diane Finestien and her cronnies picked what was and what wasn't an "assualt weapon.

They looked thru a Gun Digest and picked those that looked most "ominous and threatening." These are your/our elected officials doing what's best for thier constituents!!! *YEA RIGHT*.... most of these people have personal agendas and they are not our rights.

The problem with all of us responsible gun owners, be it NEF single shot 22 to 50Cal, we are to complacent and think that it won't affect me.

If we give an inch, we will lose a mile, I GUARANTEE!!!!

The only organization that speaks for the gun owner is the NRA *period.*

Join and get involved or you will have no right to complain when they come for your* 870*.


----------



## NHbirdhunter (May 26, 2004)

For those that want to learn more, go to www.clintongunban.com

It has links to everything anybody wants to know including the list of "ASSAULT WEAPONS" as asked for above.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Chris,
If Eric is your brother please SLAP him into reality. :******: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:


----------



## NHbirdhunter (May 26, 2004)

This is lengthy, but it says it all.

_*If you`re not worthy of owning one type of semi-automatic firearm, what makes you worthy of owning any?*_

_*And if you`re not worthy of one constitutional right, why should you have any?*_

Right now, U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., are seeking to demolish the Second Amendment rights of all Americans by undermining the rights of a few.

McCarthy and company have cleverly packaged their legislation as an "extension" of the semi-automatic gun ban passed by Bill Clinton. But their law isn`t just an extension--it`s a radical expansion.

Just for starters, their law would:
•Outlaw millions of additional firearms, including every
semi-automatic shotgun in America; 
•Begin national gun registration; 
•Set the stage for federal gun bans against any and
every firearm in existence.

_*Not enough Americans are as outraged by this as they should be.*_
Too many gun owners ignore it or abide it. Shotgunners sit back and think their shotguns are safe, rifle owners sit back and think their rifles are safe, handgun owners sit back and think their handguns are safe--while the philosophical foundation of firearm freedom is being undermined for all of us.

_*Legislation Built on Lies*_

If politicians can ban an entire class of firearms for no good reason, then they can ban any and every firearm under equally empty arguments. So let`s take a look at their arguments one more time, to see just how phony they are.

The Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer gun ban has been tested for almost a decade. Not only has it failed to reduce crime--researchers can`t even find any relationship between crime and the guns that were banned. As a National Institute of Justice study noted, "the evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect" on gun homicide rates.

Why hasn`t the ban reduced crime? Because, as that same NIJ study pointed out, "the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders" in the first place!
In fact, according to FBI statistics, rifles of any kind--semi-automatics being just a tiny subset of that group--are used in only about 5 percent of all homicides. _More than 2 1/2 times as many murders are committed using only fists and feet._

Semi-automatic firearms are nothing new. They`ve been around for more than a century. When John Browning patented his famous A-5 shotgun in 1900, he had already been inventing and selling semi-automatic handgun designs to Colt for a decade.
Millions of semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns are used by Americans for hunting, personal protection, recreation and competitive shooting.
In fact, NRA high power rifle competition is the most popular NRA marksmanship discipline, and the three rifles most commonly used in it are the AR-15 and M1A--both banned by the Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer gun ban--and the M1 Garand, which would be outlawed under the Lautenberg-McCarthy bills (S. 1431/H.R. 2038) now before Congress.

The guns banned aren`t machine guns. They don`t "spray fire," as so many newspapers and newscasts claim.

And any semi-automatic that can be readily converted into a machine gun is already classified as such by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms--and thus is also heavily regulated by that same 1934 law.

No, the guns banned by the Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer gun ban of 1994 are like any conventional firearm: They shoot one shot--and one shot only--with each pull of the trigger. They aren`t any more powerful than any other gun, either. The AR-15, for example, fires the .223 Rem. cartridge, which many states prohibit for deer hunting because it`s not powerful enough.

Aside from pistol grips, or bayonet lugs, or flash suppressors or other cosmetic features, the guns that are banned are no different from any other semi-automatic firearm in America. They all function the same.
So if the guns that were banned by the 1994 law aren`t used much in crime, and they aren`t machine guns, and they aren`t readily convertible to machine guns, and they aren`t any more powerful than any other gun, and they aren`t anything new, why did the anti-gun lobby suddenly target them with bans? Because they look like fully-automatic military guns.

*The gun-ban lobby lied, and continues to lie to the American people on that count. This lie is necessary for the gun-ban lobby to achieve its political objective of eventually banning all guns.*

Anti-gun activist Josh Sugarmann admitted this deception when he said in 1988 of semi-automatic firearms, "The weapons` menacing looks, coupled with the public`s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons--anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun--can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

Another reason they target semi-automatics is because they seek to divide gun owners. They want you to think their bans only target the other guy`s guns--and that your guns are safe, so you won`t bother fighting to protect them.

_Don`t be duped. These are not naive, ignorant or misguided people who simply don`t understand firearms. They know exactly what they`re doing, and theirs is a carefully planned, deliberate and sophisticated strategy._

So-called "assault weapons" aren`t their only target. Think about it: After the Brady law passed, did they declare victory and disband? No! After the gun ban of 1994, did they pick up, pack up and go home? No! And you can bet, as sure as the sun comes up tomorrow, that if they succeed in banning more semi-automatic firearms now, before the ink is dry on that law, they`ll be back for more, and more, and more.

As The Washington Post wrote, "No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime.

The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be, if it turns out to be as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control." Or, as Sen. Feinstein admitted, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

Who Cares About Assault Weapons? *You Should*! Maybe you don`t own any of the 200 or more firearm models that were outlawed by the Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer gun ban. Maybe you think you never will want to own one. But you might someday.

That`s what I once thought--until I tried shooting the AR-15. As a small framed woman, I find it difficult to hold many heavier rifles steadily. But the AR-15 is easy to handle. The AR-15`s light weight and light recoil make it ideally suited to a woman shooter.

Indeed, the fully-automatic military version, the M-16, is easier for women in our Armed Forces to handle than its heavier predecessors, the M14 and M1 Garand.
And ergonomic features such as a pistol grip or collapsible stock, while having no bearing on crime, do make firearms far more handy for women and men alike.

And that brings up a key point: Whenever the anti-gun lobby attacks this firearm or that public policy, they do so by claiming that firearms are useless and impotent for defending against crime, and yet maliciously omnipotent for committing crimes.

If a gun works well, they claim that makes it dangerous. If a gun doesn`t work well, they claim that makes it dangerous.
A weapon in the hands of a hijacker, they say, would allow him to take over a plane. Yet a weapon in the hands of a pilot, they say, is useless for defending that plane.

They can`t have it both ways.

If firearms are useless for self-defense, as they claim, then why do police carry them--and with the anti-gun lobby`s blessing? Let`s get to the heart of the matter. These bans aren`t about reducing crime or accidents or improving safety. They talk about hardware and inanimate objects--slabs of wood and plastic and steel--but the bans are really about your right, as a lawful, peaceable citizen, to own and use these firearms.

What if politicians outlawed any car that could be driven faster than 55 miles per hour, simply because you might get into it, and you might decide to violate the law, and you might drive recklessly, and you might get into an accident and you might harm someone? Gun bans operate on that same presumption of guilt. But unlike driving fast cars, bearing arms is a constitutional right.

Gun bans say that you and I aren`t safe enough, sane enough, sober enough, trustworthy enough, or responsible enough to exercise our constitutional rights. We know that`s not true, yet too many of us allow that lie to stand unchallenged.

As gun owners, our most dangerous enemy is apathy within our ranks.

*We must not tolerate it any more.*

When the NRA talks about preserving the right to keep and bear arms, it`s not enough to nod and silently agree. You have to take a stand, you have to speak out--and it`s especially important to do so when it`s not politically popular.

Think of the great struggles for freedom throughout American history. The shot heard `round the world from the foot of Concord Bridge. The abolition of slavery. The fight to give women the right to vote. The civil rights movement that Charlton Heston so nobly helped lead in the early 1960s.

Where would any of those movements be today if people who had nothing to gain and everything to lose didn`t stand up, take a risk, and fight for what`s right? Our freedoms depend on-- and demand--Americans willing to defend them when they`re least in favor. The most important time to stand up for a right is when it has the fewest friends.

*So: What have you done lately for the other guy`s freedom?*

If a politician that you helped elect tried to shut down a newspaper that criticized his policies, would you defend that newspaper`s First Amendment right to speak out? Or only if it was a newspaper that agreed with your views?

If a billion dollar lobby tried to repeal the Fourth Amendment so that federal agents could search homes for illegal drugs at will and without warrants, would you stand up for your neighbor`s constitutional rights? Or would you stand silent and allow the Fourth Amendment to be repealed simply because you have nothing to hide?

What about gun bans aimed at the other guy? Would you stand up for his rights, because they`re your rights, too? Or will you run and hide, and hope they don`t ban your guns next? If there`s anything history proves, it`s this: _*When any gun owner`s rights are diminished, every gun owner`s freedom takes a hit.*_

If you want to keep your freedom to own a shotgun, a rifle, a handgun or any gun, you`d better stand up and speak out against the legislative monstrosity of the Feinstein-Lautenberg-McCarthy gun bans now.

If you allow them to ban entire classes of firearms for no good reason, you allow them to set a precedent that could ultimately cost every one of us our freedom to own any gun at all.

*So get up, go out and do something for the other guy`s freedom. *

_*Because it`s your freedom, too.*_


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Bob M
Good one :toofunny: :toofunny: All I have to do to get that mental picture is look in the mirror 

Seriously though Politicians and gun owners will never agree because they have to represent their crime ridden districts. If and until we can get to the point where crime rates start to fall there is not much anyone can do, the squeaky wheel is gonna get the grease!

That is another reason I choose to live here. The whole state of ND had 5 murders last year (i think) if I am wrong someone please correct me, the last time I was in Houston for business they reported 11 that day!!! and Chicago is just as bad. We are not exactly the "andy of mayberry" of the midwest but the crime rate is low. ND has been a great place to call home for a long time and with any luck for a long time to come.

Have a good one!


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

I agree, Open Field, there are some great benefits of living in this state of ours.

And for those of us who do choose to reside in this state and its 600,000 population tax-base, we should be able to receive benefits that non-residents do not. If it's that big of a deal...become a resident.


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Nh bird hunter it is great to hear all of this from a woman that enjoys guns and hunting, you hit the nail on the head!! I believe that if the day ever comes that the bans that are proposed, happen it will be the second time that our country will experience a civil war there are too many legal gun owners that will not put up with this, from our goverment or anyone else for that matter. This great country of ours, that we all call home was built because we did not take NO for an answer, our fore fathers wanted a better life with out being regulated by their goverment hence the revolutionary war, if you people do not see that histroy is going to repeat it's self your are absolutly crazy!! Look at the patterns of history and you don't have t look hard and you will see that the current regeem is doing the same thing England tried to do over 200 years ago!! Wake up people this is no longer a joke they are and will come to your homes violate your fourth and second amendment rights to take your guns, and when they win that they will ban bow hunting, or bows. Have you ever tried to harvest a duck or pheasant or any other legal game animal with a rock? This issue is not about what state you live in, or what laws they have in place. This about what COUNTRY you live in, and the laws THEY have in place!! Please visit the web site mentioned 5 postings prior to this one, you will simply be amazed at the guns THAT WILL BE BAND FOR PERSONAL USE OF ANY KIND, what that list will consist of are guns that will have to be turned in and chopped up into little pieces, how long did you have to work and save money to go out and purchase that gun? Are you not proud of owning that weapon? Are you willing to give something to our goverment that you had to work hard and save up too buy? They will not reimburse you for your efforts!! Here are couple of things to think about how many guns have killed or injured poeple? NONE, you know why, because if you load a gun leave the safety off lay it on a table and never touch it, IT WILL NEVER GO OFF!! However if a human picks it up and pulls the trigger it will go off, in other words no gun is really responsible for persoanl injury of any kind, the human that operated the gun is!!!! Secondly so that everyone here knows less than ONE PERCENT of all violant crimes are commited with a firearm of any kind!! That means that people are committing over 99% of violant crimes with something other than a gun. What are they using you ask. They are using their hands, their feet, pipes, knifes, baseball bats, bottles, you name it. So that would mean that using the logic of our goverment we will not be able to own a knife, a bat, a pipe, a bottle then what will be next? Follow the logic and you will see that this issue DOES NOT make sense!! What will it take for people to stand up and fight for their guaranteed constitual rights? How many of our constitutional rights are people willing to sacrifice? Did you people know that Olympians that are competing the shooting sports from Australia, and England come to the U.S.A. to train because they can not even train in thier own country, and you know what else most of the shooting sports involve a SINGLE SHOT weapon!! This will be one of the last oportunities as American Citizens to stand up for what is right, in the up coming Presidential election if Mr. Kerry wins he will side with these activist and you can kiss your guns goodbye. Make sure to vote republican reelect George Bush, he believes in our second amendment.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Here is a great quote from another forum...if we blame guns for killing people then we can blame our pencils/keyboards for mispelled words. That really says it all.

I'm not surprised at the mentality of non-gun owner non- hunter type, they watch movies of talking pigs and other animals and think they are real. Our media can portray this anyway they want.


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

If you go to the NRA web site you will be able to see the list of 1994 firearm banned weapons and the new list of 259 guns proposed to be added to the list on the new list they are specifically nameing firearms by brand and model as well all of the guns that list are hand guns some of them have barrel lengths of 4 plus inches, some of the new assult weapons are your old standard everyday run of the mill wheel guns, six shooters, or more simply known as a revolver. Someone explain to me how my hand guns that are revolvers are now an assult weapon? I use my .357 for deer hunting and have managed to shoot six deer with it over the years, talk about challenging and lot of fun!! I just don't get it the new list is all hand guns in all calibers from .50 cal down to a Ruger .22 revolver how are these everyday hunting guns and target pistols now an assult weapon. We better get an handle on this issue and fast or we will be just like the U.K. !!!


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

Some good points. I also have a hard time seeing how a six shooter is on that list.....


----------



## Avman81 (Dec 9, 2002)

From a friend of mine who just got back from New Zeeland and Autralia:

I stopped at a Sporting goods store in NZ. They told me they still can have guns. Australia can not.

Duck season opened in 2 weeks. This is there first yr of steel shot. They were not happy. I told them it will make better shots out of them.

As part of a tour we had supper with New Zealander's in their home.

The subject of guns came up and he thought it was a very good idea that NO one should have guns.

My son told him that the only problem with that is ONLY the irresponsible 
people will have guns. He said that is a good point and turned on me and asked how I justified it.

I told him our Constitution's right to bear arms in the second amendment, was included to clearly indicate to citizens of their need to participate in 
protecting their freedoms. A responsible citizen (not a felon) is 
compelled to own and know how to use firearms responsibly as well as 
own whatever type of firearm necessary to defend privacy and the well 
being of the United States against irresponsible people which might 
include our government or military. I told him that if more citizens would 
exercise that responsibility, the United States would have the lowest 
crime rate of any country in the world and not expect someone else (the police) to do the impossible without help.

As you well know the United States does not take lightly its ideology to protect any threat to our freedom worldwide.

Protecting our freedom of gun responsibility (ownership) is a lot like 
many of the responsibilities we have, we tend to pick and choose 
which we are willing to sacrifice first.

If I were to paraphrase the German Martin Niemoeller's condemnation
of bystanders to racial ideologies after the war, a similar "call to early
action" today for outdoor activities would probably read something like
this: First they came for the wetlands, but I was not concerned about
the few to be destroyed - so I said nothing. Then they came for the 
posting of all lands, but I had enough friends to give me access - so
I did nothing. Then they came for concealed guns, but I didn't carry - 
so I did nothing. And then they came for assault guns, but I didn't 
believe assault guns were needed - so I did little. Then when they 
came for hunting, trapping and fishing, there was no one left to 
stand with me.

Martin Niemoeller, was one of main opponents of Nazi racial ideology.

For his original quote go to this link, http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/prisochr.htm

***

It seems a shame to me that it falls to the hunters, trappers and fishers of the US to bear the brunt of keeping the rights of others open, free and available. Oh, wait, let me get this right, it was the hunters, trappers and fishers of the Colonies that got it right and attempted to keep it right. It is just the commoners who have elected officials that have reacted to extremists to enact gun laws that thwart mostly the law-abiding citizen.

I think that I may have to purchase more guns to offset those who do not purchase any.

Fire 'em up and show safe!

Avman81
Proud volunteer at protecting this country's freedoms since 1983


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

I just read through the posts and sent everyone in my email list a copy of the orignal post.

Like one of the above post, to be legal you have had to buy a special and strictly limited permit from the ATF to own a fully auto weapon. These weapons are much to expensive for the average hunting person to own and really worthless for that purpose. But if you want one bad enough I am sure there are some on the street that could be had. I don't have a fully auto weapon and have not real use for one.

A total ban of anything from the people is only taking more rights from the people. :******:

Keep up the good work :beer:


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

To: Eric Hustad, Either you are incrediably gullabel or you pretend to be an ostrich buring your head in the sand. You really need to go to the web sites I stated in my earlier posts and personally check out the list of guns, I understand that not every one knows alot about guns however they clearly spell the word revolver and the capacity of the magazine as well as list the length of the barrel on the posting of the list they also include the name of the manufacturer. It does not get any simpler than that!! You do not have to believe me or anyone else for that matter. If you do find your way to the web site you will see for yourself that no one is lieing to you about this. I have a question for you Eric you claim to be a hunter, how many and what kind of guns do you own? Do you own any handguns? Because if you do you might even find the model you own printed on the list. IF you do find a gun you own printed on the list please make sure to make a posting telling all of us how you feel about that. You see this is a clear violation of YOUR second amendment rights. WAKE UP AND FIGHT FOR YOUR PERSONAL RIGHTS if you don't are just as much a part of the problem as all of the left wing liberals trying to take a way your second amendment rights!! Hey Eric have you ever tried hunting with sticks and rocks? I bet it is not as much fun as pulling the trigger, and you know what I do not want to find out either!! And hey while I am at it picture this you and your offspring sitting the duck blind hunting and your telling them about the good old days of hunting with guns, about that time a flock of mallards sets their wings to land in your decoys, you stand up and yell "TAKE EM!!" as hurel rocks and sticks at them trying to knock them out of the sky. Does this sound stupid to you? I hope so, but if you lay down and let them take away your guns and second amendment rights, WHAT do think hunting will be like? Be a man and fight for your personal second amendment rights!!


----------



## NHbirdhunter (May 26, 2004)

Below is the vote tally from *your* state senators in regards to the much debated and misunderstood "Assualt Weapon" ban:

*North Dakota:	Conrad (D-ND), Yea	Dorgan (D-ND), Yea*

_*By voting YEA means they are in favor of continuance and expansion of this legislation.*_

North Dakota firearms owners need to get off their A$$ES and get on the phone, write letters and send emails. Please take time to read the article below.

*Feinstein Planning to Offer Semi-auto Ban as an Amendment Soon
-- Please urge your Senators to oppose this effort*
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, June 2, 2004

Well, we knew this day would eventually come.

GOA has been warning gun owners that Democrat Senator Dianne
Feinstein of California would be looking for an avenue to attach her
gun ban to unrelated legislation sometime this year.

According to Senate sources, Feinstein will be making her move quite
soon.

While she reportedly has her eyes on a number of different bills as
possible vehicles for her amendment, it seems certain that she will
try to piggy-back her anti-gun language onto a legal reform bill
(such as S. 2062) within the next few weeks.

You will remember that when Feinstein offered her gun ban amendment
in March, it passed 52-47.

While a switch of only three Senators would be enough to kill the
amendment, it seems that the easiest way to defeat Feinstein will be
through a filibuster. Our side only needs 41 Senators to kill her
amendment through the art of filibuster, and it would appear that we
definitely have that many votes... BUT ONLY IF THE 47 SENATORS WHO
VOTED RIGHT LAST TIME CONTINUE TO HOLD THE LINE!

That's why we need another barrage of phone calls and e-mails going
into Senate offices.

ACTION: Please contact your Senators and urge them to oppose any
Feinstein amendment to reinstate the semi-auto ban. Tell them to
also support any effort to filibuster this unconstitutional
legislation.

You can send the letter as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative
Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone
and fax numbers are also available).

_*THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, NO $$ REQUIRED JUST A FEW MINUTES OF YOUR TIME.*_
----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

I have been alerted to the fact that Sen. Dianne Feinstein is
planning to offer the renewal of Clinton's semi-auto ban as an
amendment to legislation in upcoming weeks.

I would join the voices of many other Americans who would urge you
to support our call for a filibuster against the reauthorization.

Please know that the Clinton semi-auto ban is one of the most hated
pieces of legislation ever enacted, and those who support its
reauthorization will find no friends or votes within the pro-gun
community.

Sincerely,

****************************

Pratt To Speak

Larry Pratt, Gun Owners of America's Executive Director, will be
speaking at the Freedom Roast in *Sioux Falls, SD *on Saturday, June
12.

This is a family event with attractions for the kids while the
parents are taking in the speeches or filling up on the free eats at
this gala hog roast.

Pratt will be available at the GOA tent when he is not at the
podium. His book and GOA membership applications will be available.

See http://www.freedomroast.us for more information.


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Hey Eric, cat got your fingers have not heard any response to my challenge, I was wondering if you had a chance to reveiw the lists of guns that are proposed to be banned? Hopefully you have been taking the time to educate yourself on this issue before you put your foot in your mouth again. I don't mind having a good debate with someone, however you better at least know some of the facts before you go around telling people that the things they are saying are not true. I am sure you know alot about other subjects, but you better brush up on your gun ban knowledge and don't wait until they are standing on your door step asking for your guns!! It is not going to be that far in the future, if we as sportsmen of the outdoors and people who are passionate about shooting sports don't ban together and stop this once and for all!! We need our congressman and senators to pass some form of legislation that promises us that they will not keep revisting the gun ban laws and they can NEVER, NEVER, have our guns!! Like I said before eric if you don't help your just as much the problem as all of the tree and bunny huggers out there from the extreme left wing. You better check to see what side of the fence you wish to stand on and learn the facts.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

*This just came into my email. Check it out and let everyone know what you think. I hadn't researched this yet but it seems reasonable, I thought anyone interested in this thread would like to read this.*

GUN CONTROL 
> > 
> > FROM: Dr. Donald Sanders, D.C
> > A police officer in Australia Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to 
> > see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since 
> > gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender their 
> > 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a 
> > program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. 
> > (That's $780.79 for 
> > every gun collected and destroyed. - RRP) 
> > 
> > The first year results are now in: 
> > Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults 
> > are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are u p 44 percent 
> > (yes, 44 pe rcent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with 
> > firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding 
> > citizens turned them in, the criminals did not. 
> > 
> > While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in 
> > armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the 
> > past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey 
> > is unarmed.There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and 
> > assaults of the elderly. 
> > 
> > Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has 
> > decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 
> > "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." I suspect that you 
> > won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or 
> > members of the state Assembly disseminating this information. 
> > 
> > The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest 
> > citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only 
> > the law-abiding citizens.&nb sp; Take note, you Americans, before it's 
> > to late! 
> > 
> > PLEASE FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST. 
> > 
> > IF YOU REMAIN SILENT ON THIS ISSUE, IT WILL AFFECT YOU, YOUR CHILDREN 
> > AND 
> > THEIR CHILDREN. DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN IN THE U.S. 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> > ---------------------------------------------


----------



## phil999 (Mar 9, 2004)

Just for clarity as to what happened in Australia.
1) Psycho shot a bunch of people with AK or something similar
2) All automatic weapons (fully or semi) banned
3) All pump and lever action banned
4) Then it continued further

Time span from 1 - 4: quick

Reason: #2 was pushed through when the country was "reeling" 
from #1 (that is something that was supposed to happen in the US, not Australia). Then the antigun lobbies had the power and organization to slip in #3 and #4 before the Australian hunters / gun owners got organized.

This is old news to a lot of people. The point I am trying to make is - don't give them an inch ... because it doesn't stop there.

Phil


----------

