With all the "They're after this, they're after that" threads I'm curious.

[walnutred]

Just what firearm do you think is totally safe from the politicians and why? Is there a reason you think the appeasement strategy that lets things be taken away one step at a time will work? That at some point they will say "OK, we've taken enough now and are happy to stop.".

Some of you obviously believe this and I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. If it helps I promise I will not try and counter any of your arguments. I'm not trying to start a multi page argument, just trying to understand your position better.

[kewpie]

"....That at some point they will say "OK, we've taken enough now and are happy to stop.".

I think they will (would like to) say -

"...and are happy to stop....for now."

And IMO, they will never stop.

[oldman45]

Nothing in firearms are safe from politicians.

[badguybuster]

It wont stop until you are hunting with a dang blowgun.

[ladder13]

The misinformation, panic, and speculation posted on these boards just blows me away.
People post all kinds of things without checking their facts. When called upon it, they cleverly weasel out with more misinformation, panic and specualtion. Never stops.

Sorry for the ramble. To answer the Q, nothing is safe, as we are all aware.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Taken enough? Probably never. But let's keep in mind that the gun-grabbers have been beaten to a bloody pulp the past few years. From handgun carry being allowed now in most all states... to the sunsetting of the Assault Weapons ban... and the recent Supreme Court Decision... My guess is that they're probably more concerned about how much more ground they will lose than when they have taken enough.

Keep vigilant... the gun-grabbers are beaten but they have not surrendered. ^5 NRA!

[P&R Fan]

I have an extensive collection of old gun magazines that were my late Fathers. Some old American Rifleman issues from the '60s and '70s are very illuminating. In their reporting on gun issues in congress, several times mention is made of pending bills that would totally ban different classes of guns. In a few instances, they would ban the ownership of ANY firearm by the general public. This was not to be state law, but sweeping federal legislation. These draconian measures obviously failed, but it shows the anti-gun side finally realized their utopian view of a gunless society would only be achieved in incremental bites. We used to have the "Coalition To Ban Handguns". Then it became "Handgun Control, Inc.". Now it's the "Violence Policy Center". They realized even the names showed their true intentions, so they softened them
up.
In answer to the original question, no, I don't think there is any form of firearm they would say they have no problem with you owning, if they had their way totally. But they'll never admit that now. Some short-sighted gun owners say give them those evil black rifles and they'll never come after my Browning Superposed. That's precisely what they want us to think.
Don't know about you, but I'm not buyin' it.

[moonclip]

Originally Posted by P@R Fan

I have an extensive collection of old gun magazines that were my late Fathers. Some old American Rifleman issues from the '60s and '70s are very illuminating. In their reporting on gun issues in congress, several times mention is made of pending bills that would totally ban different classes of guns. In a few instances, they would ban the ownership of ANY firearm by the general public. This was not to be state law, but sweeping federal legislation. These draconian measures obviously failed, but it shows the anti-gun side finally realized their utopian view of a gunless society would only be achieved in incremental bites. We used to have the "Coalition To Ban Handguns". Then it became "Handgun Control, Inc.". Now it's the "Violence Policy Center". They realized even the names showed their true intentions, so they softened them
up......

Ah, the good old days. The very fact that we're having this discussion shows how bad the problem has become. I'll bet you also saw ads for beer and cigarettes in those magazines as well. Times have changed drastically. Sure, the antis have changed their name. Those that would strip us of our rights are more powerful and determined than ever. We might have won a battle in the last election, but the war goes on. Their tactics change with the times. They saw that bombastic, all-at-once re-regulation would not work. Now they chip away at our rights and drive wedges between us. Evil Black guns vs shotguns vs handguns. Smokers vs non-smokers. Too much fat in your Happy Meal. Nope, they have no end in sight.

......moon

[ladder13]

Ever notice how they use "American" in their names?
IE: Center for American Progress, People for the American Way

[jlrhiner]

I just watched ol' Bloomberg on the news call for the enforcement of existing gun laws and did not see a point in passing more laws that wouldn't be enforced. I thought it odd. they also made the statement that there are 34 deaths related to firearms every day. does that statement include ALL firearms related deaths? The number sounded odd.

[stantheman86]

34 deaths from guns every day in the US? Does that count cops killing bad guys, drug dealers killing each other, homeowners killing intruders, CC licensed citizens saving a life by killing an attacker.......

I think most of us can agree we can't give up anything, or it will be the road to losing everything. I have been shocked to see some people on here, in a roundabout way, imply that they would be OK with a hi-cap magazine ban, with comments like "I have never needed more than 5 rounds in my hunting rifle"........it seems gun owners are not united, but have organized themselves into "cliques"....semi-auto rifle owners vs. hunters, handgunners vs. trap shooters, etc. "I don't need a Glock,let them ban those 30 round mags...... I have a Ruger Red Label that I shoot trap with every weekend and a Rem 870 for HD, who's gonna worry about a shotgun ban" seems a common theme with some.

[billdeserthills]

Originally Posted by walnutred

Just what firearm do you think is totally safe from the politicians and why? Is there a reason you think the appeasement strategy that lets things be taken away one step at a time will work? That at some point they will say "OK, we've taken enough now and are happy to stop.".

Some of you obviously believe this and I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. If it helps I promise I will not try and counter any of your arguments. I'm not trying to start a multi page argument, just trying to understand your position better.

My pick is the firearm that you carefully bury deep in the ground in the darkness following the next full moon. Don't forget the plastic wrapping

[mikerault]

Just remember, all they have to do is make spitting on the sidewalk or passing gas in public a felony and all your firearms are gone.

[LoboGunLeather]

My 1850's vintage .41 caliber muzzle-loading single-shot percussion rifle "shares significant design features that are used, or have been used, in weapons for military use" (albeit, weapons of Civil War military use), thus clearly fits into that commonly used definition of "assault weapons".

The 60-year old Marlin Model 39 lever-action .22 rifle that I gave to my grandson will hold over 20 rounds in the magazine, thus qualifying as an "assault weapon" under many common definitions in use.

During WW2 the US Marines experimented with mounting BAR 20-round magazines to US M1903 Springfield rifles, which means that the 5-round standard '03 Springfield "can be modified to accept magazines having a capacity of 20 rounds", therefore is an "assault weapon".

Rifles that are not sufficiently accurate for hunting can be described as "having no legitimate sporting purpose".

Rifles that are highly accurate, especially those with telescopic sights, are frequently refered to as "sniper rifles" by the anti-gun crowd.

I actually witnessed an incident in which a Colt Single Action Army revolver went full-auto for 3 rounds. The recoil shield blew out, allowing the primers to blow back, thus cocking the hammer and revolving the cylinder and, with the trigger pulled, that old .45 Long Colt popped off a 3-round burst before a loose primer jammed in the hammer recess. Therefore, to some it is reasonable to describe the 137-year-old Colt SAA revolver as "readily converted to a machinegun".

There is no such thing as a firearm that is safe from those who are pursuing "reasonable controls". Everything is part of an incremental process of completely disarming the general public, and every argument used is nothing more than semantics intended to inflame emotional responses.

Once the camel gets his nose inside the tent we will be forced to sleep with the camel. Keep swatting his nose.

[walnutred]

lobo,

In the early days of WW2 Australia developed a means to convert bolt action military rifles into gas operated machine guns similar to a light weight BAR. I have a copy of the shop drawings and while I've never tried the conversion after you understand the principle it does not look that hard. Remember John Brownings first sub machine gun started life as 44 WCF M92 Winchester.

[ace22]

if certain elitist powers have their way, even squirt guns will be illegal.

[Road Rat]

Listen to what the politicians say:

Senator Diane Fenstein of Kalifornia..........If I had enough votes I would tell you, "Mr and Mrs America---TURN THEM ALL IN".

Of course...she is slightly NUTS........

These people (Fenstein, Pelosi, etc.) will do anything for a VOTE.

Fenstein has a CCW and guards. You, peon, are not allowed!

[Road Rat]

Originally Posted by billdeserthills

My pick is the firearm that you carefully bury deep in the ground in the darkness following the next full moon. Don't forget the plastic wrapping

PVC piping with caps glued on........works great - or so I've been told!!

[oldman45]

The town I live in has a restriction against using any item within the town limits that can be used to propel a projectile.

So kids cannot use slingshots. Adults cannot practice using the bow & arrows for hunting season. Dart throwing is against the law. Even cork guns are banned from being used within the town limits. Yet this is a gun friendly area. One many owns over 400 acres of wooded land filled with deer on the outskirts of town and the powers to be will not allow him to hunt on his own land.

This may offer some insight on how far the government is capable of going.

[Snowbandit]

Believe it or not, it's not about the "guns" anyway. It's about the "control". They just need to get the guns so they can control everything else.

[mikerault]

Rape is about love like gun control is about guns.

[G.T. Smith]

Our firearms are just as safe as we make them. I believe in the "cold dead hand" doctrine. I have a hard time imagining everyone handing over their weapons at the request of the government. I wonder if the criminal element will hurry down to the collection point?
Got any ideas how a total gun grab would be carried out? This is the land of the free and the home of the brave IIRC!
That would make a great reality show. You could have contestants drive around the country in a pink Prius with an "I'm here to collect your guns" bumper sticker or something similar. Just a thought.
gordon

[Andy Griffith]

If I am correct, it was illegal for the common man in the "old countries" across the pond to own armament of any kind- in the time before firearms. I think these laws were in place so the serfs couldn't rise up against their feudal lords or the land owner nobles.

An unarmed people are subjects- whereas armed people are citizens. Ancient history confirms this fact that scholars attempt to sweep under the rug. The presence of arms keeps everyone "straight," whether literally or figuratively.

There's too darn many studies and writings of ancient history to confirm this- I am but a mountain man crying in the wilderness...'cause I was cutting onions.

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Originally Posted by walnutred

Just what firearm do you think is totally safe from the politicians and why?

None. Because we let the enemies of our country continue to reside here and sponge off of the sacrifices of the founders of this country.

[walnutred]

I was hoping this would be an opportunity for those who believe in magazine restrictions, etc. to explain their beliefs because I'm really trying to understand.

[watchmanjimg]

Originally Posted by walnutred

I was hoping this would be an opportunity for those who believe in magazine restrictions, etc. to explain their beliefs because I'm really trying to understand.

There is no explanation for it, other than an attempt to appease the anti-gunners by distinguishing oneself from the "gun nuts."

[Steve in Vermont]

IF I thought the advocates of gun control would go away I'd not object to limiting pistol magazines to, say, 18 rounds or less. But they won't go away, that would be only the beginning. They would want more and more restrictions until someday all firearms are illegal. It appears that is why gun control doesn't have much traction in this country, the general public understands how this works. Would I surrender my firearms if they became illegal? I certainly would. As soon as they can prove to me that all the criminals in the country have also done the same.

[stantheman86]

When different kinds of gun owners start seperating themselves from each other, than we are in trouble........"sportsmen" want to differentiate themselves from the "NRA gun nuts", so some of them say........they are the "who needs 20 Glocks, 10 AR15's and 10,000 rounds of ammo" crew.......since their one Rem 700 and 20 rounds of 30-06 is "enough for hunting".

[DeadManWalking]

Originally Posted by badguybuster

It wont stop until you are hunting with a dang blowgun.

Or spear or . . . What's that thing David used against Goliath? Yeah, one of those. Sling shot or . . . . What ever!!!!

[snub56]

I do not think a ban on magazines with more than 10 rounds is a good idea. What I do believe is if a person commits a crime when armed they go to prison. If the person commits the crime armed with an excessive ammount of ammo they go to prison longer.

[stantheman86]

I always ask the fervent anti-gun people, if they would rather let armed intruders come into their home and rape and kill their family while they stood there with a baseball bat......I love these "taking life is wrong no matter what" people, such hippocrites.....most of them are "closet gun owners" anyway, but they hide the fact like it's a "disease".

I work with a real pacifist, real religious guy, probably never touched a gun in his life, doesn't believe in the military, war, violence, etc. and the other day he asks me if I ever heard of a Bersa because he's thinking of getting a CC permit "to protect himself"......maybe a former "guns are evil" person finally seeing the light

[David LaPell]

There are some, politicians, activists, reformers, what have you that will never be satisfied until every gun is out of the hands of the populace. I believe it is in NYC where there is a giant gun state with the barrel twisted in a knot. That is what they want. These people, some misguided, and some with a more sinister agenda, will think nothing of having their owned armed bodyguards while taking everything down to the very last gun out of circulation. To them, they are doing a world a favor. Keep in mind, they are not just doing this at the legislative level, they are teaching it to our kids in school and in college, on tv and in the mindset. How many schools once had rifle teams? Here in NY Hunter Ed classes used to be taught in schools. Now, you mention that and you will be scolded publicly in the papers and by the teachers unions.
Make no mistake, just because the 2nd Amendment has been before SCOTUS doesn't mean these people will not try to legislate, tax, and regulate the guns, ammo, reloading supplies, locations you can carry and everything else under the sun until they make owning a gun so expensive and such a social poriah until people will just throw up their hands and say enough. All the while you will have some gun owners who will go along and say, "It's not my guns they're after, they'll never take mine." Until someday, your guns are on the list and now there is nothing between you and them. Ask the Brits, ask the Aussies, and ask the Canadians about those next steps. Don't think just because the NRA is there that they will stop all the assaults on gun rights. You need to write your elected officials, the newspapers that write and try anti-gun activities and boycott their advertisers and tell them all why. Make them understand that you will work hard to defeat them at the ballot box and hit them in the wallet. Only then will they get the message. Here in NY we have been fighting this fight since I left high school. We have Mayor Bloomberg in NYC dictating terms to Albany. A small area like that has been running the rest of this state, despite the protests. But we have been keeping the wolves at bay, but just.

[DeadManWalking]

Originally Posted by walnutred

Just what firearm do you think is totally safe from the politicians and why? Is there a reason you think the appeasement strategy that lets things be taken away one step at a time will work? That at some point they will say "OK, we've taken enough now and are happy to stop.".

Some of you obviously believe this and I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. If it helps I promise I will not try and counter any of your arguments. I'm not trying to start a multi page argument, just trying to understand your position better.

IMHO, ALL LAWS that restrict (read infringe) gun ownership to US Citizens are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

[FirebirdV8]

The anti-gunners won't stop. They pick whichever battle they think they can win with public support at the time. If the rest of the world is an example, they don't even stop at guns, they ban pocket knives and anything else that can be used for self defense. The battle to retain our natural rights never ends

[lagavulin62]

here is an interesting link. most of us know gun control is rooted in racism but this article also points out how much further these nuts will go after they achieve a total gun ban.

I think it's also important to understand the mind of those who work so hard for the other side. their gratification comes from the need to be a part of a movement that they feel is doing some better good. so once they achieve one goal they quickly replace it with another one. liberals have taken advantage of the "do gooder" mentality better than any other political group. these lost children are the ultimate in "follow the crowd" thinking that our parents warned us about. well at least those of us who were raised in the church. (which I believe to be a huge majority on this forum) pretty much if you were not raised with a solid foundation in your way of viewing the world then you spend the rest of your life looking for it. liberals are more than willing to guide these nomads and use them as tools for their own desires.

here's the link.

http://www.secondamendment.net/2amd8.html

[lanxandreads]

I shot my friend's glock with a 30+ round mag and I have to admit, it was FUN. Finger was a bit sore after the third reload and it wasn't full auto (too bad).
As enjoyable as it was, I realized it served no real practical purpose and I'm happy with my 14 and 17 round mags

Do I think the 30+ rounds should be banned? Of course not. It's an enjoyable little gimmick despite the improbability of actually NEEDING one unless:

You are invaded by an army of home invaders
You are surrounded by polar bears
You are a really, really lousy shot.

If you fall under the last category then you probably shouldn't have a firearm.

I dunno where I'm going with this. I'm tired.

[tcc1953]

As a certified RSO, NRA Certified Instructor, and NRA Endowment Member, it never ceases to amaze me the number of "shooters" and owners who do not support the National Rifle Association. The simple fact is that, while you may not completely agree with everything the Association does, they are the big political hammer and the loudest voice for the individual gun owner. Strength lies in numbers....

[seagill]

Originally Posted by badguybuster

It wont stop until you are hunting with a dang blowgun.

Not in California, blowguns are already illegal. I was a "closet" blowgunner till I moved.

[stantheman86]

Why is it that 30 rounds is an "extended" magazine for a Glock, but a 30 round mag is standard for an M16-AR15?

If you have a 32 round mag for your handgun it's like "Jeez why do you need that many rounds" but then if you have a 30 round mag for your AR15, it's just the normal mag......it's all about perception and what anti-gunners can point at and scream "That's evil and we need to ban it!!!!"

There was even a "public poll" in my local newspaper where they ask random people around town if, quoted for improper anti-gun terminology "Clips that hold 30+ bullets should be banned"......and some idiot is like "I'm a hunter, and I don't think any normal citizen needs 30 rounds in a magazine".....others are like "Who needs a gun that holds 30 bullets" they are all parrots, just repeating what they hear...I should go tell him no normal person needs a .300 Win Mag with a 32x scope to kill a 70 lb. whitetail......

[Steve in Vermont]

It's not just guns these "social activists" are looking at. There are many other social issues they are involved in as well. A few decades ago these folks tried to change society through "educating the public". When the public told them "Thanks but no thanks" they changed tactics. They started organizing and either running for public office themselves or supporting liberal candidates. Hence we see the attempts at firearm restrictions as well as others. One example: They want McDonalds to get rid of Ronald McDonald because (they say) he encourages kids to eat unhealthy food.
I spoke to one person who referred to this as "social engineering" to make this a more just, kind, compassionate and caring society. Great concept, but where does it stop. Are we supposed to regulate every facet of our society through the judicial system?

[billdeserthills]

Originally Posted by stantheman86

Why is it that 30 rounds is an "extended" magazine for a Glock, but a 30 round mag is standard for an M16-AR15?

If you have a 32 round mag for your handgun it's like "Jeez why do you need that many rounds" but then if you have a 30 round mag for your AR15, it's just the normal mag......it's all about perception and what anti-gunners can point at and scream "That's evil and we need to ban it!!!!"

There was even a "public poll" in my local newspaper where they ask random people around town if, quoted for improper anti-gun terminology "Clips that hold 30+ bullets should be banned"......and some idiot is like "I'm a hunter, and I don't think any normal citizen needs 30 rounds in a magazine".....others are like "Who needs a gun that holds 30 bullets" they are all parrots, just repeating what they hear...I should go tell him no normal person needs a .300 Win Mag with a 32x scope to kill a 70 lb. whitetail......

Yeah, screw Zumbo. If a hunter has any real balls he oughta make the kill the old fashioned way, with a Spear. Just sayin...

[afasano]

Originally Posted by stantheman86

When different kinds of gun owners start seperating themselves from each other, than we are in trouble........"sportsmen" want to differentiate themselves from the "NRA gun nuts", so some of them say........they are the "who needs 20 Glocks, 10 AR15's and 10,000 rounds of ammo" crew.......since their one Rem 700 and 20 rounds of 30-06 is "enough for hunting".

They have been trying to divide gun owners into groups of "gun club snob hunters" vs. pistol and semi auto target shooters for a long time.

[wbraswell]

I think if you are in a debate with one of our adversaries on this issue, you should ask them. "How are you stopping crime by making otherwise law-abiding Americans, like me, felons? Because I'm not turning in anything." If they get their way, we will all be members of the National Pocketknife Association.

[billdeserthills]

Originally Posted by wbraswell

I think if you are in a debate with one of our adversaries on this issue, you should ask them. "How are you stopping crime by making otherwise law-abiding Americans, like me, felons? Because I'm not turning in anything." If they get their way, we will all be members of the National Pocketknife Association.

Yup,
And right after they get that, pocketknives will come under fire too
The anti-gunners remind me of most 18&19 year olds. They haven't the faintest idea how life works, but they are experts at every aspect of it, don't believe me, ask one for yourself

[DeadManWalking]

Just a few of the banned firearms, maybe not in all 50 states but . . . That have been banned, look at this list and check it again in two years, I'll bet it will have doubled.

Just machineguns.
Just silencers.
Just short barrels.
Just ones that look different.
Just pistols, in some places.
Just all guns in a few states.
Just most magazines.
Just folding stocks.
Just guns with rifled barrels over .500 bore.
Just threaded barrels.
Just concealed carry.
Just open carry.
Just Chinese guns.
Just Chinese ammo.
Just armor piercing ammo.
Just hollow points.
Just lead ammo.
Just military guns.
Just scary looking shotguns.
Just anything south african.
Just select fire.
Just pistol grips.
Just flash hiders.
Just magazines that attach outside the pistol grip.
Just pistols over 50 ounces.
Just grenade launchers.
Just bayonet lugs.
Just open bolt.
Just semi automatic clones of full auto guns.
Just shotguns that can accept detachable magazines.
Just shotguns that can hold over 5 rounds.
Just guns without enough American parts.
Just imported guns that don't make a specific "sporting-purpose" parts count.
Just the Algimec Agmi
Just the Armalite AR-180
Just the Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol
Just the Auto-Ordnance Thompson type
Just the ****mat Kalashnikov AK-47 type
Just the Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1
Just the Beretta AR-70
Just the Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol
Just the Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P
Just the Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88
Just the Colt AR-15 and Sporter
Just the Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2
Just the Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45
Just the Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FN/FNC
Just the FAMAS MAS 223
Just the Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT
Just the Federal XC-900 and XC-450
Just the Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12
Just the Galil AR and ARM
Just the Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol
Just the Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89
Just the Holmes MP-83
Just the MAC-10
Just the MAC-11 and MAC-11 Carbine type
Just the Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion
Just the Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000
Just the Ruger Mini-14/5F
Just the Scarab Skorpion
Just the SIG 57 AMT and 500 series
Just the Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol
Just the Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3
Just the Sterling MK-6 and MK-7
Just the Steyr AUG
Just the Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns
Just the USAS-12
Just the UZI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol
Just the Weaver Arms Nighthawk
Just the Wilkinson "Linda" Pistol

Yeah, they're not working towards a goal here. Nope, they will never ban firearms, completely. LOL! And if you believe that I've a couple bridges for sale, fool.

[Etemmu]

I dont know any shooters who subscribe to the "appeasement strategy". While I personally dont have any use for a 30 round mag for any of my pistols, I certainly dont think they should be regulated in any way. If they were going to be banned, now would be a great time to buy as many as I could find/afford. The smart ones among us already have a plan to protect their property from those who wish to take it. In the event of a complete gun ban, I wonder how many folks would turn their collection, their PRIVATE property, over to some government agency...oops, I'm getting off topic

[oldtexan]

Folks, the political tide in this country is running strongly against further gun control and in favor of greater firearms rights, has been for more than a decade, and likely will continue as the people lose even more of their faith in government's ability to solve various problems.

I don't understand why we continue to allow ourselves to be frightened by the few and almost invariably unsuccessful attempts to weaken the 2d Amendment.

Think about the increase in the number of states that have "shall issue" carry laws over the last two decades. Think about the Heller decision. Think about the apparent dismantling, albeit slow, of gun prohibitions in the District of Columbia, in Chicago, etc.

Here in Texas, concealed carry by concealed handgun licensees on college campuses appears headed to becoming legal. More than half the State Legislature has signed on as co-authors of one bill that would allow it (HB 750); there is strong support for it in the Texas Senate (SB 86); Governor Perry has publicly stated that he supports it.

Another bill that looks likely to become law here would empower employees in Texas to keep firearm in their locked vehicles in their employers' parking lots.

A couple of years ago it became legal for law-abiding Texans to possess concealed loaded firearms in their vehicles even if they lacked a concealed carry license.

Similar changes are going on in many other states.

We all need to keep the gun control situation in perspective. Gun control at the Federal level and in almost all states is a political loser now. The high tide of US gun control was probably the 1994 bills; Democrats now understand that passage of those bills caused Dems to lose control of the US House of Representatives in elections that year. They don't want to pay a price like that again.

Yes, there are people who continue to want to impose even more restrictions on firearms ownership in this country. The reality is that these people are becoming increasingly irrelevant in terms of their influence on our laws and public policy. We should be realistic about that.

[vrd-vmd]

Remember it is CONTROL the elite want. However gun control is the lynch pin. Although they seem to be willing for now to chip away at many decision and responsibilities we once had to control ourselves.

[Gunfighter9]

Gun control does not impact crime, violent or otherwise. Why? Because, gun control does not deal with the root causes of crime which are based in economic, and social issues. So, if gun control has no legitimate impact on crime, but its supporters claim their goal is to make the world a safer place. Why then do they persist with their flawed strategy? The answer is that public safety is not their concern. All power in the world derives from the ability of one party to enforce its will upon another party. Without this, there is no power. Stripping firearms from the American people is a way of setting the stage for a non-democratic form of government. Therefore there is not one single object firearm or otherwise beyond the scope of potential governmental regulation.

Take for example the development of many Japanese martial arts weapons. They were crafted from common farm tools in many cases because the government of Japan had outlawed the possesion of swords by anyone other than the Samurai. Of course, government has gotten much more "progressive". So expect that right after a total ban on guns passes a registration of baseball bats, kitchen knives, hockey sticks, and other improvised weapons will begin. The attempts to disarm us will never cease. The line needs to be drawn right now.

[wbraswell]

DeadManWalking, you could have included "big" guns and "little" guns.