# Where do we stand?



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I get e-mails from the NRA. And I know from previous dicussions on this site NRA members are a minority here. But please take time to read this....

"Yesterday the voters of San Francisco, California voted to strip you of your gun rights.

They approved Proposition H, a measure banning the lawful possession, sale and manufacture of handguns and ammunition within city limits. They also banned the transfer of all rifles and shotguns, even among family members.

The effect of the measure is local but its supporters are sending a message across America that voters want to support gun bans at the ballot box. And they are hoping to spread that message to a politician near you.

If they are successful, they will spark a national feeding frenzy in the elite media, spreading the lie that there is no political support for our Second Amendment rights. And some local, state and federal lawmakers will believe them.

We have no intention of standing idly by while the anti-gun lobby tries to build momentum for gun ban measures in other communities.

No, we intend to strike down this ill-advised, clearly illegal and unconstitutional measure - before it spreads like wildfire. I hope we can count on your help.

In response to the passage of Proposition H, NRA is filing suit today to stop this unconstitutional ban.

This gun ban scheme not only violates federal constitutional guarantees, but also the California statute that gives the state sole authority to regulate firearms. But the outcome of any court proceeding is far from guaranteed.

We are bringing the finest legal minds and constitutional authorities to bear, and we will incur sizeable legal fees and expenses. But the defense of our Second Amendment rights demands no less. We will borrow the money if we have to...but we will fight this ban until freedom prevails.

We will not stand idly by while the enemies of freedom conspire to undo our constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights. Your help in this most urgent matter is deeply appreciated. "

Most everyone on this site have firearms, enjoys hunting or some form of shooting sports. If you aren't a member of the NRA I urge you to join. Ask your wife or girlfreind for a membership this Christmas. GET INVOLVED!


----------



## Norm70 (Aug 26, 2005)

I know san fransico and other cities are doing this and are trying to do this and i don't know the ins and outs of the NRA, but i do not think in good consience i could support them. I believe there are some guns that should not be allowed. The NRA image to me is bad, but on the other side the non-hunters that support anti-gun organizations usually look like bigger idiots than the NRA. I cannot support and organization that would love to put RPG's or anything like that open to the public and would never support anti-gun organization


----------



## Danimal (Sep 9, 2005)

Norm,

First, the NRA does not want to put RPG's in everyone's hands. They do oppose almost all new anti-gun legislation for the sole reason that most proposed anti-gun legislation is very bad. MostA-G legislation is proposed under the disguise of crime control. BUT those laws are really aimed at law abiding citizens, not criminals. A great example of this is gun registration.... A few years back New Jersey created mandatory gun registration. The anti's said it was to reduce crime, not to limit law abiding citizens. Then a year or two later they banned a list of guns and they KNEW WHO HAD THEM because of the registration. Either you turned them in (WITH NO $$ COMPENSATION) or you were charged with possession with illegal firearms. One minute you are a law abiding citizen and own a firearm legally, and the next minute you are a felon!!!

NICE CHOICE, HUH????

On the other hand, the NRA does support proper back ground checks for firearm purchases. They do support prosecuting criminals. They do support law enforcement, in fact they are one of the biggest educators of gun safety.

My wife wanted us to move to CA a few years ago to be closer to her sister. I told her NO because I have an AR-15 (WHICH IS LEGAL IN MD) and in CA, it is illegal. I would be a felon just by moving!!!

In MD, the libs passed a law a few years ago that limits us to be able to buy only ONE restricted (any pistol and certain rifles) per month.

Sorry but the NRA is here to help preserve our rights. EVERY gun owner should be a member!!!

If Congress/States really want to reduce crime, they should punish the people who COMMIT the crimes, not the other 99% of us. How would you like to have your car taken away because a co-worker of mine had a DUI???? It's the same thing.


----------



## apeterson (Aug 3, 2005)

My two cents:

I do agree we do not need auto weapons and regular people should be banned from going to the store and getting them... I also support the NRA because I feel their polocy of "give them and inch and they will take a mile" is the only way..... so I guess I am on both sides.... But I send my $$ to the NRA, I am more on theirs..


----------



## Norm70 (Aug 26, 2005)

Danimal,

I do agree with you on several points. I agree all anti and pro gun legislation should be at a national level. I know that states such as North Dakota and other states in the midwest are alot different as far as what most guns are being used for. This is by personal expierence i have no studies or anyhting to prove this, but gun i think are being used for different things in different states. My point is that the should be some uniformity to prevent what happed to you. I am sure that isn't the only reason you'd did not move, but you make a excellent point.

I do think there should be mandatory background checks. People like you and me and our friends will get guns after this background check, but i do not want people commiting felonies, rapes, or any other serious crime owning a gun, whether they did their crime with a gun or not.

My point is i always always support the right to defend yourself and right to hunt, but i will not support a high powered organization that advocates the ownership or use of guns that have no other purpose than to kill people or be used in a miltary situation.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

Zogman I went right to my desk dug through the mess and found my membership dues. I will write the check when I am done typing. I heard about the legislation in San Francisco. Some people just dont look down the road.


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

Have been a member Im guessin 15 or so years. :beer: :sniper:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Norm70 wrote:

"i will not support a high powered organization that advocates the ownership or use of guns that have no other purpose than to kill people or be used in a miltary situation".

Other than cosmetics, can you tell me the difference between a ArmaLite AR-10 rifle in 308 and the Browning BLR in 308?

I'm also not a big fan of the NRA but I know I can depend on them to challenge the gun grabbers. Sitting at home complaining simply won't work so why not throw a few dollars towards the group that does work? I see in a couple posts in this thread with the often used dangerous and mistaken words "the right to hunt" The gun grabbers love to use that phrase in attempts to pacify. And no, I'm not saying anyone here is a gun grabber but folks, the right to hunt is not in the constitution. The right to bear arms is. You will note it does not say guns, it says arms and that includes these military looking semi auto rifles that are no different than grandpa's old semi Browning.


----------



## apeterson (Aug 3, 2005)

I am not a "grabber" like you say.... and love my guns and all... but you saying they are not different is not true..... I think you and every upstanding citizen should be able to own one.... But I can also see the other side of the picture where they are saying "why do you need one" (assult rife) Personally I do not own one, but I have shot them all and what fun.... But they serve no functional purpose but that... I guess I find myself on both sides on the assult rifle thing... Like my other posts says I would not give them up simply for the fact I would be afraid of what they would take next (handguns)....


----------



## Danimal (Sep 9, 2005)

An "assault rifle" is a firearm capable of full-auto fire (i.e. a machine gun or sub-machine gun).

An AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle as it is only capable of semi-auto fire. The media and most of the public ERRONEOUSLY calls AR-15's and other semi-auto rifles as "assault rifles".

PLEASE, PLEASE do not call semi-auto rifles "assault rifles". IT PERPETUATES THE ANTI's FALSE INFORMATION that the general (non-gun educated public) hears and believes.

Now if we look at true assault rifles (firearms capable of full auto) are restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). 

Anyone wanting to own a full auto firearm (FAF) may pay a $200 transfer tax, provide two sets of fingerprints to the BATF and go through a very strict background check,....BEFORE being issued a Class 3 Federal Firearms License and BEFORE taking possession of the FAF. Have you priced FAF's lately??? THEY ARE VERY EXPENSIVE, preventing most from even thinking of going through the process of owning one.

In addition FAF's were further restricted in 1968 in regards to interstate transfer. In 1986, more restriction, no more FAF's can be manufactured after 1986 to be sold to civilians. FAF's already in existence may be sold to civilians under the NFA. This prohibition of manufacture also includes converting semi autos to full auto. Since 1986 this is illegal so anyone converting a firearm to full auto is committing a felony.

Now that I have clarified "assault weapons", let's look at the real issues.

Assault rifles are NOT regularly available to the general public by laws already on the books (SOME OF WHICH DATE BACK TO 1934!!!) New laws can not make them more illegal. For example isn't is already illegal to murder someone regardless of the method (beating /stabbing/ shooting)?? Can you make it more illegal?? NO, but you can make the penalties harsher for committing the crime. YOU PUNISH THE 1% CRIMINAL POPULATION, NOT THE 99% LAW ABIDING POPULATION.

Semi-auto rifles that look like military assault rifles (ie AR-15's) ARE NOT ASSAULT rifles. Cosmetics do not give firearms the capability of full auto fire. (BTW dad's AR-15 is twice as accurate as my single shot .223. So if I really want to compete or shoot varmints, during season, I should use his rifle not mine!!!!)

The NRA does not want EVERYONE in the country to own a FAF. They do however want every law abiding citizen to be able to purchase any legal firearm they wish. Whether it be a shotgun, pistol, rifle or,....FAF,...AS LONG AS THEY follow the laws. The NRA also wants ANY AND EVERY criminal prosecuted for the crimes that THEY commit. The NRA also want PROPER background checks for firearm purchases.

The Anti's today use the disguise of banning assault weapons (WHICH ARE ALREADY RESTRICTED) to try to ban semi-auto rifles. And once they are do that, then they will go after the next type, maybe semi-auto shotguns next. Say, "Bye" to your 1100's, 1187's SBE's, Auto-5s, B-2000's and everything else. Then maybe all semi-auto rifles, no more Ruger 10/22's...

Now some may ask, "what purpose does an AR-15 have?" Well ANY FIREARM'S SOLE PURPOSE TO FIRE A BULLET OR PELLETS (in the case of a shotgun). IT IS HOW THE FIREARM IS USED THAT IS THE REAL ISSUE. If you want to shoot one at paper targets, then go ahead. If you want to go hunting and it's legal, go ahead. If you want to collect firearms, go ahead. It is not my or your place to ask WHY someone wants to own a particular firearm. The only thing should be interested in is, can that person legally own it. PERIOD!

If the speed limit is 65MPH (MD's highest limit) then why are ALL CARS/TRUCKS/VANS SOLD IN MD CAPABLE OF EXCEEDING THAT LIMIT?? There is no criminal background check or waiting period when you want to buy a car. HECK, BAN ALL of them!! That would prevent all traffic accidents and highway related deaths, prevent all DUI's. No more road rage, save billions on highway maintenance, cut pollution, save the environment. With all of these $ savings, the state(s) and federal government could cut taxes.

Same goes for baseball bats, there is no waiting period on those, but yet, my mother-in-law's brother was beaten to death with a Louisville Slugger. Better ban those too!!!! NO MORE MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, NO MORE LITTLE LEAGUE, NO MORE T-BALL!!!! Forget the fact that it was designed to hit a ball, not a skull.

My point from all of this is that the Anti's don't want to "just" ban assault rifles, they want them all banned. But they are willing to chip away a little each day/month/year until no more guns can legally be owned in this country. Can you imaging duck hunting with out a shotgun, only using a sling shot?? (if they are still legal)

If the Anti's get their way, they will BE ERODING THE GREATEST DOCUMENT EVER WRITTEN, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The greatest present I ever received was a LIFE MEMBERSHIP to the NRA. It was my H.S. graduation present Every time I go to the range or hunting, or think that I CAN defend my house and my family, I thank my father.

You may think the NRA is radical, but look at their opponent, the Anti's are extreme radicals in sheep's clothing. Let's look at New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and California as examples of the Anti's plan.

"If you can read this, thank a teacher,... If you can read this in English, thank a soldier."

With today being Veterans Day, please honor and thank our Veterans.


----------



## apeterson (Aug 3, 2005)

dont mistake what I wrote.... I am with you on everything you said... just bringing up a point... I think you answered my question well. Thank you.. and you are right it is not my business why you would want to own one... and just because I dont does not mean someone else does not...


----------



## Danimal (Sep 9, 2005)

Apeterson,

I never said that you were or are a gun grabber. I figure if you are on this site you are either a gun owner/sportsman/angler or a poser. And from what I've read of your posts you are the first.

As someone who works with many non-gun and a few anti-gun people, I have to deal with people who regurgitate the media without checking the facts.

I was only trying to provide some education for those who may want it. If one person is enlightened about gun control/assault rifles then we all have one more voice on our side.

Thanks


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Don't get too upset with the SF vote - it's just window dressing. It'll get thrown out in the first court challenge. Everyone, on both sides of the issue, knows that will happpen.

It was more of a poll than a binding issue, but if the gun issue was enough to get Schumer into the senate, everyone else wants on that bus too.

I think the NRA is using this to their fund raising advantage, even though they know it is actually a bogus proposition.

M.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

MRN


> Don't get too upset with the SF vote - it's just window dressing. It'll get thrown out in the first court challenge.


This is probably true, but who pays for the court challenge? :eyeroll:

If your not a member of the NRA your getting a free ride :******:


----------

