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

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
 
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. ;)
 
Last edited:
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.
 
walnutred said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no explanation for it, other than an attempt to appease the anti-gunners by distinguishing oneself from the "gun nuts." :mad:
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
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:)
 
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.
 
walnutred said:
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.
Click to expand...

IMHO, ALL LAWS that restrict (read infringe) gun ownership to US Citizens are UNCONSTITUTIONAL! :D
 
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
 
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
 
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. :p
 
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....
 
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......
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Stu1205
You Just Might Be A Gun Nut If.....
2
Replies
22
Views
6K
Golddollar
Golddollar

Latest posts

Back
Top