# President



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

I have a question for everyone. My buddy told me that Obama will take away our guns and hunting privilages is this true ?


----------



## dvldwg89 (Nov 4, 2008)

No


----------



## BeekBuster (Jul 22, 2007)

I was wondering the same thing....


----------



## BeekBuster (Jul 22, 2007)

I already have hoodlums outside my college apartment yelling black power... Should be a lovely 4 years....


----------



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

If that does happen i have no idea what i will do, i will probably just die.


----------



## dieseldog (Aug 9, 2004)

Anyone else want to move to Canada with me???


----------



## BeekBuster (Jul 22, 2007)

wanted to the last 4 years....


----------



## RiverRob (Jul 24, 2007)

dieseldog said:


> Anyone else want to move to Canada with me???


right behind yah....


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

.









Do you know where you are going eh?


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

Don't let the door hit your @ss on the way out....


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

willythekid said:


> Don't let the door hit your @ss on the way out....


My sentiments exactly.If having the wrong person as president was all it took to move out of the country,I'd have been a Canadian citizen years ago. :roll:


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

KEN W said:


> willythekid said:
> 
> 
> > Don't let the door hit your @ss on the way out....
> ...


Sorry Ken, but they don't take Vikings fans up there!


----------



## ac700wildcat (Oct 30, 2006)

if it flies it dies said:


> I have a question for everyone. My buddy told me that Obama will take away our guns and hunting privilages is this true ?


Obama and Biden are two of the most anti-gun people in Congress and will now be our president and vice-president for at least four years. They might not take away all guns at once, but they will try to pick away at them. Obama supported a handgun ban in Illinois and wanted the Brady Bill (banned assault weapons) to be extended. He would also want to ban all semi-auto rifles/shotguns/pistols. Biden would also have wanted the Brady Bill to have been made permanent

Its not the time to say oh that will never happen to us. Its time to do something so we can keep our rights and be able to pass on our hunting and shooting traditions to our future generations. I'm not sure what all we can do to protect our rights, but if you aren't a member already, joining the NRA and supporting them would be a good start. I'll be joining asap.


----------



## dvldwg89 (Nov 4, 2008)

Obama and Biden are going to have much more to worry about then taking our rights away. Being a Senator and being the President that has to follow the absolute mess uke: George and Dick left are TOTALLY different scenarios.


----------



## stash (Jan 20, 2007)

WE"RE FKD :sniper:


----------



## takethekids (Oct 13, 2008)

stash said:


> WE"RE FKD :sniper:


From what I understand, you may be right. I for one am heading to the local gun store to purchase more of my recreational/protection collection right away!! Time to teach the boys to shoot assault rifles! Hope I don't have to sacrifice my freedom/life defending my rights before the kids are grown :sniper: . The representatives of the weak do have more important things to worry about than our guns at the moment, but I still don't have a warm-fuzzy feeling about this! uke:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> Being a Senator and being the President that has to follow the absolute mess George and Dick left are TOTALLY different scenarios.


Obviously you meant the mess that the democratically controlled congress put us in by lending to people that had no business taking the loans they did!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## varmit b gone (Jan 31, 2008)

All mine got stolen last year. :wink:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

KEN W said:


> willythekid said:
> 
> 
> > Don't let the door hit your @ss on the way out....
> ...


Are you kidding.One of the biggest Vikes fans lives in Winnipeg.He has season tickets and a Viking costume he wears to every game.

When we hunted in Sask....the people we stay and hunt with are all Vikes fans.


----------



## BeekBuster (Jul 22, 2007)

KEN W said:


> willythekid said:
> 
> 
> > Don't let the door hit your @ss on the way out....
> ...


Ill send pics. of my hunts after you get your guns taken away...


----------



## cupped-in123 (Sep 23, 2008)

RiverRob said:


> dieseldog said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone else want to move to Canada with me???
> ...


agreed


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

BeekBuster said:


> KEN W said:
> 
> 
> > willythekid said:
> ...


Not going to happen. :eyeroll:


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

You're all ridiculous and going along with the medias spin of the situation. I'm entirely for guns and the ability to bear them blah blah blah but we do need some sort of control.

Waiting periods for purchasing hand guns.... do you think that is good or bad? If you think that's bad, then how about you don't require sex offenders to register their location?

Full automatic weapons... Does anyone really need something like that?

Extended clips, noise suppressors, armor piercing bullets... do you really need those things?


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

Chaws said:


> You're all ridiculous and going along with the medias spin of the situation. I'm entirely for guns and the ability to bear them blah blah blah but we do need some sort of control.
> 
> Waiting periods for purchasing hand guns.... do you think that is good or bad? If you think that's bad, then how about you don't require sex offenders to register their location?
> 
> ...


define armor piercing bullets

And yes, people look dumb talking about moving to Canada. Thats the same crap all the kerry supporters said last election. Canada is already much farther down the socialism slope then we will be after 4 years with Obama.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

If you define AP bullets the same way they did in that bill that Obama gets blasted for voting for in IL, it's bullets designed to or marketed as having the ability to pierce body armor. I'm ok with that. It's not "all bullets that can pierce armor" like the fear-mongers said.


----------



## Wyowind (Oct 5, 2008)

Should be the end of reverse descrimination via government legislation, better known as *EEO* (Equal Employment Opportunity). Of course this will never happen until we've paid reparations to minorities in the form of wealth redistribution.

How many more decades will liberal Americans feel they have to claim that white america is holding back the minority group???


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Chaws said:


> You're all ridiculous and going along with the medias spin of the situation. I'm entirely for guns and the ability to bear them blah blah blah but we do need some sort of control.
> 
> Waiting periods for purchasing hand guns.... do you think that is good or bad? If you think that's bad, then how about you don't require sex offenders to register their location?
> 
> ...


Comparing guns to sex offender are completely 2 different things!
Guns don't make rational thoughts. They do what the person holding the guns wants it to do!

I am against most gun restrictions as it has proven to hurt the innocent/common folk( I am not saying waiting periods are bad, but a ban of things like handguns will do nothing but hurt YOU and I). Gangsters and criminals will find the weapon they want regardless of a ban on handguns or assault riffles!


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

The person holding the gun makes the rational thought as to pull the trigger... the sex offender having hands, eyes, and genitals are the same as a weapon. A sex offender is like a criminal holding a gun but that offender IS the gun. They cause harm regardless.


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

Chaws said:


> The person holding the gun makes the rational thought as to pull the trigger... the sex offender having hands, eyes, and genitals are the same as a weapon. A sex offender is like a criminal holding a gun but that offender IS the gun. They cause harm regardless.


I'm with Chaws with this one. I think it's oranges to oranges and apples to apples.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

You know what is funny.......all these people saying they will move to canada.....*Canada has very strick gun laws*.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> The person holding the gun makes the rational thought as to pull the trigger...


Correct...the person made the decision not the gun!



> A sex offender is like a criminal holding a gun but that offender IS the gun. They cause harm regardless.


He is not "like a criminal" he is a criminal, that made a decision on what weapon he was going to use. Put a knife in his hands....should we now have waiting periods on knives because a sex offender chose to use a knife to rape someone?



> the sex offender having hands, eyes, and genitals are the same as a weapon.


 Sorry but that's human characteristics! How he CHOOSES to use them is what makes him a criminal! Not the fact that he has hands, eyes, and genitals!
You put a hand gun in the hands of the person being offended(who would be without it if there was a ban) and your altercation is not just one sided!
Seems pretty clear to me!


----------



## takethekids (Oct 13, 2008)

Law-abiding citizens should not have right taken way because of how a criminal uses his or her gun. Should baby boys have their penis cut off because someone else committed a crime with a penis? I shouldn't have my right to have sex taken away if I'm not violating anyone with it...just the same, I shouldn't have my guns taken away because a criminal killed someone with a gun.


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

takethekids said:


> Law-abiding citizens should not have right taken way because of how a criminal uses his or her gun. Should baby boys have their penis cut off because someone else committed a crime with a penis? I shouldn't have my right to have sex taken away if I'm not violating anyone with it...just the same, I shouldn't have my guns taken away because a criminal killed someone with a gun.


We don't cut off genitals because children are informed of what's right and wrong through parents and schooling.

They're not taking the gun out of your hands, they're running a background check to make sure you're not a felon.

Still never have understood why people get so fired up about a waiting period on hand guns because of the background check. It's the most common weapon used in crimes and the ability of ballistic forensics these days, those "registered" guns can be traced. With registered sex offenders, on file DNA and fingerprints can be used to trace down the person who committed the crime.


----------



## smalls (Sep 9, 2003)

Chaws,

There's lots of things that we don't "need" but as law abiding citizens we are allowed to have them (eg-who needs a samurai sword). The problem arises when one goes to define terms like "extended clips" "automatic weapons" or "armor piercing bullets". The collateral damage is that the definitions cannot precisely include the malicious while excluding the completely recreational. For example, in many of the weapons restrictions bills that get written pertaining to "automatic weapons", rifles like your BAR or Remington 740 would be banned. Or what is an extended clip...10 shots? 11? I grew up shooting rabbits, fence poles, gophers and squirrels around my farm with a ruger 10/22 witha big ole' 25 shot banana clip hanging down from the stock. It didn't make me a terrorist or criminal, but it did allow me to walk a long time before having to reload. I don't want my government making decisions that will restrict my choice to own anything, with a scope that goes well beyond firearm ownership, that they may deem "unnecessary".

And lets face it, how much crime would be prevented if we limited the marketing of "armor piercing bullets"? None. When is the last time a murder was actually caused by an extended clip? Never. You will not reduce crime one bit by limiting our freedoms of firearm ownership.

You're sex offender defense (not that your defending sex offenders) is bogus because it focuses on the intent of individuals to do harm, what instrument (genitalia, gun, billy club, etc.) they actually use to inflict that harm is a moot point. People who are motivated to inflict harm will find a way to do it, cut a sex offenders hands off and he'll use his genitalia, cut his genitalia off and he'll use his tounge.


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

I'd have to look it up regarding the extended magazines ruling but I believe its intentions were to go hand in hand with automatic weapons and tactics used by law enforcement. In a standoff with a suspect spraying bullets because they don't have to reload is primarily the reason. Shooting rodents or small game with an extended magazine is purely luxury and not needed. I suppose unless you're walking into a lemming infestation and 25 rounds are needed.

Armor piercing bullets are to assist also with our law enforcement officers and their safety. Beyond causing harm with using a load like that, what are the reasons to provide that to the public?

I agree with your samuri sword analogy, however has there been or will there every be a seriously malicious crime committed with one versus a firearm?

With sex offenders just like felons who have used weapons in the past are registered. Registering sex offenders allow people to know where they are and possibly avoid that area etc etc. Background checks on guns is a way of keeping the guns out of hands of people with a past.


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

And I don't believe there has been any movement or ever will be with semi-automatic weapons like the BAR or AR's. The stop of fully automatic weapon sales I find to be fully reasonable. Who the hell needs a fully automatic rifle or handgun?


----------



## takethekids (Oct 13, 2008)

Chaws said:


> And I don't believe there has been any movement or ever will be with semi-automatic weapons like the BAR or AR's. The stop of fully automatic weapon sales I find to be fully reasonable. Who the hell needs a fully automatic rifle or handgun?


Someone who is willing to stand and fight against an invading army if the time ever comes.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Chaws said:


> You're all ridiculous and going along with the medias spin of the situation. I'm entirely for guns and the ability to bear them blah blah blah but we do need some sort of control.
> 
> Waiting periods for purchasing hand guns.... do you think that is good or bad? If you think that's bad, then how about you don't require sex offenders to register their location?
> 
> ...


Its not a matter of need. Its a matter of personal freedom for law abiding citizens. Its also a matter of "give an inch take a mile". Do you honestly believe theyll stop once theyve outlawed extended clips, noise suppressors, etc etc etc? No, they will use it as a feather in the hat to spur their movement along. Next up will be "black guns" that look "menacing", than it will be semi-autos....there goes your favorite goose gun, or pricing the average joe out of a paticular firearm or ammo type, and so on so forth. Their not stupid, they know they cant get them all at once, but they can get em piece by piece.

Also, do you really think bans of this nature will stop criminals from attaining these items, I HIGHLY doubt it. It will only hurt the LAW ABIDING citizens.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Chaws said:


> And I don't believe there has been any movement or ever will be with semi-automatic weapons like the BAR or AR's. The stop of fully automatic weapon sales I find to be fully reasonable. Who the hell needs a fully automatic rifle or handgun?


Crimmals will get them so why can't we? Its not like a a group of crimmals planning on robbing a house think "well Bob did you get the automatic guns today?" "no Dan I figured that its against the law of have them so I only the semi auto's instead. I don't want to be breaking more then I have to."


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

varmit b gone said:


> All mine got stolen last year. :wink:


Yeah the craziest thing happened! I don't know what happened to my ar's? :-?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chaws you have totally bought into the media bias. If you watched the media when they showed semi-auto firearms they showed them shooting full auto. You mentioned auto, that has been banned since 1936.

Armour piercing bullets. Any bullet proof vest a policeman is currently using in North Dakota I can shoot through with any deer rifle I own. Remember the big cop killer Teflon bullet scare? As far as I know there was no such thing. Totally emotional.

Look at Oak Grove, Illinois, has crime come down after they broke the constitution and banned handguns? No, some criminals moved into the area because they felt safer knowing the home they were about to burglarize didn't have a handgun.

The second amendment isn't about hunting it's about protecting us from the government. Some of you have tried to hold people up as radicals for saying that. Do you think our founding fathers were radical? George Washington, Patric Henry, and all the others, were they radicals? We are free today because of these people. Without them we would still be subjects of the English crown.

If you wish freedom in this country to disappear have the nerve to say so. If you want it to remain but don't have the guts to help ensure it at least don't be a ball and chain to those who do. I wonder how many fellow countrymen kept telling George and Henry they were doing the wrong thing. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

Ok, so you're against the speed limit too? I don't NEED to go 100mph in my sports car, but it should be my right because I'm a law abiding citizen...


----------



## bowhunter04 (Nov 7, 2003)

The right to drive as fast as I want wasn't laid out in the constitution.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

It also has no bearing on the law abiding citizens rights to self protection. Its as they say, "apples to oranges", but nice try.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

murder and sexual abuse has went on for millions of years prior to the invention of firearms, but firearms are a great equalizer for the weak that evil people prey on.

Take guns away and the murders will continue unabated, history if you read it is interesting and informative


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

The constitution was written at a time prior to preloaded munitions. The attempt to make rational to having a safer place to live. If those things weren't outlawed think about how much easier it would be to acquire even deadlier equipment. Obviously it will never slow anyone down from getting their hands on fully automatic weapons or armor piercing bullets or extended magazines if they really want it.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Chaws said:


> Obviously it will never slow anyone down from getting their hands on fully automatic weapons or armor piercing bullets or extended magazines if they really want it.


So why punish those that follow the law?


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree which is great about this country and why it's great that our forefathers knew of situations that have opposing views which is why the designed our government with checks and balances the way they did.

You don't see limits on gun control but I do.


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

Wow, that was a run on... sorry bout that


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I cant believe that someone on this board thinks the sky is falling this morning. Stunning.... I never would have expected it. (deadpanned)

Had a great discussion with my 13 year old last night about how wrong the whole process is with the electoral college. I told her and I say to all of the whiners out there. Your right it is the absolutely bar none worst form of government anywhere on the planet.....

Except for every other form of government.

Dont let the door hit ya'll.....


----------



## MN goose killa (Sep 19, 2008)

if someone came to my house to take my guns they would be staring down the barrel on their way in. and let me tell u they wouldnt make it out.


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

just remember who will appoint/fill openings for supreme court justices. they are the ones that will interpret the constitution. i don't think there will be any hearings on new appointments as long as the whole federal government is controlled by one party. it will be a slam dunk appointment strictly along party lines and not always for the betterment of the country.
i also think that we will be priced out of hunting by the greed of the companies that supply us with everything we buy for the sport.


----------



## takethekids (Oct 13, 2008)

MN goose killa said:


> if someone came to my house to take my guns they would be staring down the barrel on their way in. and let me tell u they wouldnt make it out.


Go easy....they'll start calling you a radical for saying you'll stand for you and yours! Don't worry MN goose killa, I don't think they're stupid enough to think they could take all of our guns, but there will likely be some new restricitions and more tax on ammo.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

6162rk said:


> they are the ones that will interpret the constitution.


Thats the problem, I for one dont want them to interpret the constitution, I want them to enforce it. There should be no interpretation, its plain english, its says what it says, enforce it.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Interesting... I dont remember the part of the constitution that deals with rules for selling bandwidth to wireless companies for broadband internet services.... I guess when the Supreme Court is asked to rule on that issue in a few months they will just need to open the cover on the Constitution and enforce the language therin....

Nah, the Constitution is not a living, evoloving set of statements. Just read it and do what it says.


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

Maybe why he won? Kool Aide!


----------



## verg (Aug 21, 2006)

I'm with Chaws on this.
Fully automatic weapons etc aren't made for shooting deer they are made for killing people..period. As well as piercing bullets, monster clips etc.
There is no logical reason citizens other than military or police force need to own one of these types of weapons.
I blame much of this on the NRA. They are way one sided which I think forces the liberals to be as well. If the NRA would tell the libs that "Hey, we will give in on the bazookas (sp) and fully automatic weapons if you agree to leave it just at that." Compromise. This probably wouldn't be a huge issue.
Maybe that is why NRA has lost about a 1/3 of there membership over the
past several years. There is no way to get all the guns off the streets but what is wrong with strict background checks to make sure you're not some douch mop with a load of felonies??


----------



## takethekids (Oct 13, 2008)

verg said:


> I'm with Chaws on this.
> Fully automatic weapons etc aren't made for shooting deer they are made for killing people..period. As well as piercing bullets, monster clips etc.
> There is no logical reason citizens other than military or police force need to own one of these types of weapons.
> quote]
> ...


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

Are you a member of our armed forces or local law enforcement or anything that should require you to use a weapon for national security? If not, then don't even attempt to make comments like those.


----------



## Rick Acker (Sep 26, 2002)

You guys all move to Canada...That means more fields for me :eyeroll: ...And maybe even a roost or two I can bust! :beer: The president only has so much power and not 1/2 much as you think. Your guns aren't going anywhere, unless you high tail it to Canada, where they are even less fond of hunters than BO!


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

dieseldog said:


> Anyone else want to move to Canada with me???


A president is elected who is too liberal for your liking so your plan is to move to a country that is even more liberal????

Great logic there dude. :roll:


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

He just likes the beer... maybe get lucky and wear a mount-me hat or something :lol:


----------



## takethekids (Oct 13, 2008)

Chaws said:


> Are you a member of our armed forces or local law enforcement or anything that should require you to use a weapon for national security? If not, then don't even attempt to make comments like those.


Don't tell me what kind of comments I can make!!! You wouldn't if we were face to face I can assure you :******: If the country were invaded, would you hide in your house and rely on those in uniform to take care of everything or would you want to help defend the country in any way you could? Do you think that everyone in the American Revolution was paid security personnel??? Good luck with your shotgun! Sure hope there are plenty of Americans out there smart enough to know we won't be able to defend ourselves with shotguns!


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

Wow, that was interesting to say the least.


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

takethekids said:


> Chaws said:
> 
> 
> > Are you a member of our armed forces or local law enforcement or anything that should require you to use a weapon for national security? If not, then don't even attempt to make comments like those.
> ...


Ok take Iraq for example. How well is it working for them having random people fighting there war?

If we are invaded they are NOT going to want random people running around with there guns. Thats a great way to get shot by one of our own. This isn't the great west anymore. Sorry!


----------



## takethekids (Oct 13, 2008)

Sorry guys, I won't be sitting in my house waiting for someone in uniform to save my family. The likelihood of being invaded is nill, but I am the type that likes to be prepared.


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

We all do, however the likely hood that your AR is going to do work on an army is also nill.

That is if you don't get shot by an American soldier first for not following there orders to put down your gun!

Just sayin


----------



## driggy (Apr 26, 2005)

Chaw, either you are young and are showing us what our tax dollars are paying for in public schools or are totally ignorant of historical facts.

First in the sex offender argument you use, they are convicted of a crime. If they were not convicted they would not have to register where they live. They had their day in court to earn the penalty of registration. What did I do to earn it?

Second, lets take your speed example to the correct comparison. From now on all cars will not exceed 75 miles per hour as it is the highest speed legal in America. You legally cannot speed to pass someone so everything will be fine.

Third, if you studied history at at, you'd know that having a population of gun owning citizens has gotten us out of a few tight situations. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf have seen influxes of new recriuts to the military in times of need just in the 20th century alone. The fact that many of the new recruits were at least familiar with firearms significantly shortend training time.

Finally, I have lived in other countries while serving this nation and have seen supposively free people, that feared their governments. In Korea the largest gun most had was an air rifle, and few even had them. The second amendment is a right to ensure the government doesn't over step it's bounds. The founders didn't say that single shot rifle were the only ones protected. It just happened to be what was available to both the militia and everyone else. In fact it was in many state constitutions that every household was required to own at least one firearm suitable to be used as a weapon in case they were called up to defend the state. It is written in other writings of our founding fathers that the intent is for the average citizen to be comparitively armed as the government that is suppose to serve them. I lived in Alaska 5 years and Sundays when I sometimes went to the range, I'd hear several machineguns going off. I guess you'd be amazed at the zero machineguns used in violent crimes. I have to cut this short as I'm heading out to ND and need to beat the storm, But I'd advize you to research for yourself what the founding fathers had in mind. Not what liberal tenured teachers feel you should know.

By the way, biggest post I've ever sent to a forum.


----------



## takethekids (Oct 13, 2008)

HuntP&Y,

I appreciate your respectful approach to sharing your opinions and your insight is good. I hadn't considered it from that angle. I think that a big part of the enemy's success in Iraq is the extraordinary efforts of individuals on their behalf. Their nation should be no match for ours when you consider military might. However, the efforts of individuals have helped to balance out the fight a little. Don't discount the capabilities of someone on their home turf. There are woods that nobody knows like some outdoorsmen I know :sniper:


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

driggy said:


> Chaw, either you are young and are showing us what our tax dollars are paying for in public schools or are totally ignorant of historical facts.
> 
> First in the sex offender argument you use, they are convicted of a crime. If they were not convicted they would not have to register where they live. They had their day in court to earn the penalty of registration. What did I do to earn it?


My reference to this is that registration of them identifies them just like a background check on a gun purchase identifies your background. If you're clean, good, no worries. If you're a felon, then obviously you have problems.



> Second, lets take your speed example to the correct comparison. From now on all cars will not exceed 75 miles per hour as it is the highest speed legal in America. You legally cannot speed to pass someone so everything will be fine.


Regardless, the law states you should not exceed the speed limit. I exceed the speed limit, but not because it's my right.



> Third, if you studied history at at, you'd know that having a population of gun owning citizens has gotten us out of a few tight situations. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf have seen influxes of new recriuts to the military in times of need just in the 20th century alone. The fact that many of the new recruits were at least familiar with firearms significantly shortend training time.


I completely agree that owners of guns have assisted the training methods of our armed forces. You're portraying this to look like I said we should allow them to take our guns. My argument was for some forms of gun control and not the all out right to bear arms regardless of that arms capabilities.


----------



## Almomatic (May 6, 2006)

Who wouldn't want to be able to shoot full auto guns!!!! Here's me practicing my second amendment rights!!


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

Saying you own and approve the desire to have a weapon like that is one thing but posting it and identifying yourself is another. Smart move.


----------



## Almomatic (May 6, 2006)

Did you see all the bodies dropping??? Lighten up.. you can own them in the United States, one of our freedoms these guys are worried about, its not mine anyway but the one that does has the licensing to own them legally and enjoys shooting them at the range. Criminals will get them whether they are legal or not, don't forgot that! Gun control isn't for criminals, just hurts law abiding citizens.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Rick Acker said:


> You guys all move to Canada...That means more fields for me :eyeroll: ...And maybe even a roost or two I can bust! :beer: The president only has so much power and not 1/2 much as you think. Your guns aren't going anywhere, unless you high tail it to Canada, where they are even less fond of hunters than BO!


Right on Rick. 

Obviously no police officers in this discussion.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Chaws said:


> Are you a member of our armed forces or local law enforcement or anything that should require you to use a weapon for national security? If not, then don't even attempt to make comments like those.


Do you know what the 2nd Amendment says? here I'll help you out:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Now lets look at what a militia is. From Wikipedia:
"The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of *ordinary[1] citizens* to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:

1. Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.[2]

2. *The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms. *"

I added the bold to this quote because for our purpose here those are the most important statements to illustrate your misinformation. the 2nd amendment was added to our constitution because our forefathers had the foresight to recognize that while it may be farfetched, at least nowdays, the need for utilizing ordinary citizens in the event we are invaded is paramount to the safety of those very citizens. Law Enforcement has nothing to fear from the law abiding citizen who happens to own an automatic weapon, and they can be legally owned by the way, with the proper license.

In any case, should the unthinkable happen and we are suddenly invaded and overrun, you will not be able to depend on law enforcement or the military to protect you. We will be busy, you may have to save your own *** and that of your neighbor.

In case you're interested, I am in law enforcement, have been for 29 years.

huntin1


----------



## takethekids (Oct 13, 2008)

Huntin1,

Thank you for that post Sir!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

verg said:


> I'm with Chaws on this.
> Fully automatic weapons etc aren't made for shooting deer they are made for killing people..period.


If you REALLY want to get technical, the "gun" was invented to kill people. Firearms were first devised for war, to kill people, using them for hunting was an afterthought. Just saying.


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

I have a feeling that if Americans need to bare arms to protect our homeland because our government bodies of law enforcement and military service are being overcome, we have more things to worry about.


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

Chaws said:


> I have a feeling that if Americans need to bare arms to protect our homeland because our government bodies of law enforcement and military service are being overcome, we have more things to worry about.


:beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chaws said:


> I have a feeling that if Americans need to bare arms to protect our homeland because our government bodies of law enforcement and military service are being overcome, we have more things to worry about.


So what your suggesting is roll over and give up? That's what the anti-gun crowd is counting on. They love sheep that follow, not people with minds of their own and a willingness to stick up for their rights.


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

Thanks for twisting my words BTW.... Never did I say I'm giving up my guns or want to, I'm just saying that if general citizens need to fight a battle on our own home land and the armed forces can't help, we're in serious trouble a small regime of people with AR's aren't going to stand a chance.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

You just don't get it do you?

That's OK, have another glass of kool aid, the government will take care of your every need. :eyeroll:

huntin1


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I haven't been following this thread, but I did notice one analogy that should be corrected.

One poster mentioned driving 100 mph is equivalent to owning a type of gun that has no sporting use (I'm paraphrasing somewhwat).

That's a very good analogy, but sort of backwards.

The proper comparison would be for the government to prohibit the sale of any car that could exceed the speed limit.

Why do we need corvettes that can go 165mph anyway? 

It's not ownership of a particular type of tool that makes you a criminal...it's illegal use of that tool.

I also saw mention of the NRA not giving in to the left, inferring that they still want fully automatic rifles legal to the general public. I was not aware of that stance. Please post info illustrating such.

And lastly, I also saw mention of registered guns. Outside of California, please explain where these "registered" guns exist.

How can you guys have opinions concerning new gun laws when you don't even fully understand the laws we have now? :eyeroll:


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

The 2nd amendment is more to prevent tyranny from our own government than anything else.



> Most estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun(thats about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for thier own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of american households owning 260 million guns).


It shouldn't be hard to get a million gun owners together to form a milita. If you guys are serious about your 2nd amendment rights, get a million gun owners together and march into Washington.

That's what your 2nd amendment rights were designed for more than anything else IMO.


----------



## varmit b gone (Jan 31, 2008)

This has to do with the sports car/automatic firearm deal also. The desinged purpose of a corvette/any other car that will do that is for drag racing (on a track where it's legal). An automatic weapon is the same way, to be used in a certain instance, where it is needed and where it was desinged to be used. So don't drive 100 unless your on a racetrack and don't use an automatic weapon until you need it. (Plinking counts too, right?  )


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

The whole point is use of a tool is restricted...not the ownership...in a free society.

Reminds me of something you all have probably heard about. It's supposedly a true story about a liberal female reporter giving a high ranking military man grief for allowing a local scout group to be trained in rimfire rifle use on his military base. Her point was he was irresponsible because teaching boys how to shoot a gun was preparing them to be criminals. He was, in effect, giving them all the tools and knowledge they would need to break the law.

The man's response to her, which apparently got him into some hot water, was that even though she was a woman, and as such possessed all the knowledge and proper equipment to be a prostitute, she still chose to obey the law.

Wow...just think about how rich we would ALL be if they outlawed vaginas !!!!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Csquared said:


> Wow...just think about how rich we would ALL be if they outlawed vaginas !!!!


   But not nearly as much fun!

"Now, wheres those bagels, im gonna microwave one and have sex with it".


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

barebackjack said:


> Csquared said:
> 
> 
> > Wow...just think about how rich we would ALL be if they outlawed vaginas !!!!
> ...


LMAO...... :lol: :lol: :lol: Thanks bareback


----------



## bluebird (Feb 28, 2008)

You guys make :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Thanks, Jack. Now I'll never think of creamed cheese the same again !!!!!!!!


----------



## jmillercustoms (Dec 11, 2007)

Whats an AR? :lol:


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

is it true then that spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Although every hunter should be concerned about the second amendment some prefer their head in the sand so I think I better move this to the political form. I would not want to interfere with the bliss of ignorance.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Although we all knew this was coming, how come it was introduced in June and the media didn't jump on it?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6257.IH:

H.R.6257
Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Introduced in House)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008'.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

Anyone want to bet on how fast this thing gets passed through Congress and signed by our new President?

uke: uke: uke:

huntin1


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

huntin 1

the link you supplied was timed out.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Fixed, I think.

huntin1


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

IF you know the bill # use this link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c110bills.html

6253 . Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Introduced in House) [H.R.6257.IH]

(look at the total number of bills, no wonder this country is in trouble)


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> Anyone want to bet on how fast this thing gets passed through Congress and signed by our new President?


And after we see who wins that bet, how about we bet on how many of the active posters here who defended Obama's 2nd amendment views have the cohones to step up and admit they were wrong....assuming they were, of course :wink:


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

For all gun owners the anti-gun group wants all of your guns. They will take one thing then one more and one more. Then you will be wondering why they want my single shot bolt action rifle I use for deer hunting.

We can not give them a inch. They want the full mile. Even if you do not think civilians should have Full Auto (FA) weapons you better fight for the civilians to keep them. I know many who feel this way I would rather have no guns then not be allowed to have Semi's and pumps. Removing them from my colection would leave me with 2 rifles what do I have to loose? Two rifles who cares I would give so much cash to the anti group it would not be funny.

Do not punish people who support the pro-gun group. We need to stick togeather on this one.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Chaws said:


> Thanks for twisting my words BTW.... Never did I say I'm giving up my guns or want to, I'm just saying that if general citizens need to fight a battle on our own home land and the armed forces can't help, we're in serious trouble a small regime of people with AR's aren't going to stand a chance.


So what your saying is that youd rather:

1) Shake a big stick

2) Pray

3) Curl up in the fetal position and accept the beatings

4) Hang yourself now and avoid the problem altogether

I'll stick with my AR thank you


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Gun Owner, you forgot the first step of the "bury your head in the sand" approach to gun rights....

#1) get on outdoor forums filled with hunters and gun owners and try to convince them that handguns and black rifles don't fit into any specific sporting purpose, therefore are not worthy of protection under the second amendment...since we ALL know they're just meant for killing people, and the second amendment was only talking about keeping the corrupt rabbit population in check :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Matt Jones said:


> The 2nd amendment is more to prevent tyranny from our own government than anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's all fantasies Matt, we need to get serious. Your idea might have worked in 1808, but not 2008. The media would have a hayday with you. The media would have you right up there with David Koresh within days. Your approach would be like throwing a drowning man a bowling ball.


----------

