GB Gun Rights forum
There's not much traffic there at all, 24 threads in the last 30 days.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=230908
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=230908
0
-
I think the General Discussion traffic is over 30 threads in a 24 hour period. 0 -
As long as they can crawl on their belly to beg permission to buy a gun, or to get a CW...that is exactly about as much attention as the average person pays to "Gun Rights".
What a sick joke, calling what we have..."Gun Rights'.0 -
I think some of that comes from the warm welcome people get when they show up and ask what they can do to help and then they get pounded with mean and rude sounding replys. Does not take long for people to stay away from that place.
As for myself being called names is not the way to get me to help OUR cause.0 -
I read the section often, I just don't comment very often there. Its a forum with alot of very extreme people. Even though you believe alot like them I notice they take shots if you don't agree with exactly the way they want you to. Theres more then one way to play the game. 0 -
quote:Its a forum with alot of very extreme people.
Thank God the Founders were very extreme people.
quote:Even though you believe alot like them I notice they take shots if you don't agree with exactly the way they want you to. The
The Second Amendment is not open to your interpetation of it...it is what it is.
The fine mess we are in today with Gun Rights is because people refuse to understand what "Shall Not Be Infringed" means...and the rest of us that do have stood meekly by and allowed ourselves to be flushed down the same tube as the ignorant...and mostly been silent , also...all in the name of 'getting along'.
20,000 ++++ Gun Laws is what that agenda has brought us.0 -
quote: The Second Amendment is not open to your interpetation of it...it is what it is.
Have you even asked me what I beleive should be legal or what if any laws should be in effect towards weapons? You assume way to much friend.
Every post you make sounds like you're about to blow and run off to do war with this country. Its ok if you're mad/outraged/disgusted/ect. It's ok if thats the angle you want to take. However, I'm not highball. Agian theres more then one way to play the game.0 -
quote:Have you even asked me what I beleive should be legal or what if any laws should be in effect towards weapons? You assume way to much friend.
No...I haven't. However..the fact that you seem to take offense at the things I say indicates that you support this or that gun law...show me where in the Constitution the authority is given to the Federal Goverment to limit possession of arms by citizens.
quote:Every post you make sounds like you're about to blow and run off to do war with this country.Been talking this way since about 1968..more then you are old, perhaps...
quote:Its ok if you're mad/outraged/disgusted/ect. It's ok if thats the angle you want to take. However, I'm not highball. Agian theres more then one way to play the game.
We ...again...have been 'playing the game'...of compromising, sweet talking, begging politicans to obey the Const\itution..and we have 20,000 gun laws to show for it.
One of the definations of Insanity...is doing the SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER...expecting different results.
I 'played that game' for many years....calling/writing/letters to the editor/NRA/GOA...ad nauseum...and only in later years did I become hardened to the fact that most all avenues have been explored...and the Elites are ignoring the Constitution.
I now patiently wait for the men in America to finally have their fill of being screwed by those in power.
Looks like I will live out my natural days, waiting.0 -
Not to be disrespectful but it seems like the older guys blame people like me for the 20K laws we have..... I was 2 when the 68 gun control bill passed ... Just what was I supposed to do about it?
I am told now all gun laws are unconstitutional yet why do we put an age limit on them 18 some 21 ...why not the nut jobs? Why should the mentally disturbed have their rights infringed? where does it start and where should it stop. We cant just have a free for all yet we want no laws...0 -
quote:Originally posted by EhlerDave
Not to be disrespectful but it seems like the older guys blame people like me for the 20K laws we have..... I was 2 when the 68 gun control bill passed ... Just what was I supposed to do about it?
I am told now all gun laws are unconstitutional yet why do we put an age limit on them 18 some 21 ...why not the nut jobs? Why should the mentally disturbed have their rights infringed? where does it start and where should it stop. We cant just have a free for all yet we want no laws...
why can't we regulate how many sheets of toilet paper you are allowed to use? Seriously do you realize all the trees involved? That is why we're experiencing such odd meteorological events, They're cutting down all the trees for toilet paper! and maybe a "lil" junk mail.
why don't we regulate how much air you can breath after all we have to share it and we must preserve it, for the kids.
hell why don't we just regulate what you're allowed to eat, and or drink. We will obtain pertinent information from your physician.
and while we're at it why don't we regulate how much of your income you can have.
we will also need to regulate the regulators, we don't want a free for all.0 -
quote: No...I haven't. However..the fact that you seem to take offense at the things I say indicates that you support this or that gun law...show me where in the Constitution the authority is given to the Federal Goverment to limit possession of arms by citizens.
I'm not easily offended by anyone on the internet. For the record I support a back ground check for purchasing firearms due to voilent criminals and mental disorders. Thats about it.
quote: Been talking this way since about 1968..more then you are old, perhaps...
So whats stopping you? I'm 28 born in 1978.[:)]
quote: We ...again...have been 'playing the game'...of compromising, sweet talking, begging politicans to obey the Const\itution..and we have 20,000 gun laws to show for it.
One of the definations of Insanity...is doing the SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER...expecting different results.
I 'played that game' for many years....calling/writing/letters to the editor/NRA/GOA...ad nauseum...and only in later years did I become hardened to the fact that most all avenues have been explored...and the Elites are ignoring the Constitution.
So whats the solution?
quote: I now patiently wait for the men in America to finally have their fill of being screwed by those in power.
Looks like I will live out my natural days, waiting.
Spell it out. Waiting for what? I would like to hear what exactly you're waiting for. You talk with alot of conviction so taking the time to write a short summary of what you'd like to see happen and how it should happen shouldn't be to great of a bother for you. The politians are snakes and our laws are making less and less sense. Nobody I know denys it or argues that fact. So how to do we change it?0 -
quote:Originally posted by EhlerDave
I am told now all gun laws are unconstitutional yet why do we put an age limit on them 18 some 21 ...why not the nut jobs? Why should the mentally disturbed have their rights infringed? where does it start and where should it stop. We cant just have a free for all yet we want no laws...
The right to keep and kear arms was designed protect the arms of the militia.
The militia, according to the U.S. law, is comprised of all able-bodied males aged 18-45.
The National Guard ceased to be a militia when it fell under federal control.
The mentally disturbed are, of course, not "able-bodied" and therefore are not members of the militia.
Therefore, any law which restricts the ownership of weapons to the militia is unconstitutional. Simple enough, right?0 -
1. This subject does not belong in the general discussion forum. I bet it moved.[:p]
2. On second thought, nobody would read it over there.0 -
Anyone slightly versed in the raise and fall of empire would require no 'spelling it out'.
When all attempts to right the wrongs that the Elites perpetrate upon a free people fail..there will be a day of reckoning.
The only question remaining is..are there enough men...Americans...left to resist the final attempt to institute total control..tyranny..upon America ?
You refer to my 'ready to blow,ect...'...actually...let me tell you that ANY attempt at premature violence will doom freedom to failure..probably for a 1000 years.
What is required is a total ban on firearms...so that even the Anti-Gun gun owners can't choke it down. Anti-gun gun owners ? Yep...those that believe in big goverment instead of personal responsibility.
Instead of asking big brother to give you permission to own a gun (background checks) ask them to instead PUNISH those misusing/abusing the Rights we get from God at birth...and get off our backs if we have to shoot somebody threatening us or our loved ones...0 -
quote: Instead of asking big brother to give you permission to own a gun (background checks) ask them to instead PUNISH those misusing/abusing the Rights we get from God at birth...and get off our backs if we have to shoot somebody threatening us or our loved ones...
Actually a very good way of looking at it.0 -
Henry, I think McCarthy is the woman who's husband was killed and her son seriously wounded on a train in New York City by some idiot from the Caribbean. I don't recall the details, but I think he killed several people. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
Henry, I think McCarthy is the woman who's husband was killed and her son seriously wounded on a train in New York City by some idiot from the Caribbean. I don't recall the details, but I think he killed several people.
Um, Ok, that's not what I meant by my comment. I was thinking of the McCarthyism of the 50's.0 -
I haven't been there in a while, the thing about that forum is ... your preaching to the chior.
... besides the fact there is nothing going on over there.0 -
Kimberkid;
quote:your preaching to the chior.
Actually...in my normal tradition..I must disagree with you.
85% of the 'gun people' posting on these forums believe in gun control. not the Constitution...NOT the Second Amendment...GUN CONTROL.
They refuse to demand personal responsibility..and swift goverment punishment/execution of those abusing guns (or any OTHER weapon)instead opting for the freedom destroying 'punish us ALL for the misdeeds of the few'..thereby supporting and making stronger the Shumers/Kennedys/Fiendsteins..
AND all the time they want to villify and castigate those people..when better they should look in to the mirror.
Indeed..gun people supporting gun control cuts the guts out of any effective resistance politicaly....weakens the Constitution..and is directly responsible for 20,000 +++ gun laws.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Kimberkid;
quote:your preaching to the chior.
Actually...in my normal tradition..I must disagree with you.
85% of the 'gun people' posting on these forums believe in gun control. not the Constitution...NOT the Second Amendment...GUN CONTROL.
They refuse to demand personal responsibility..and swift goverment punishment/execution of those abusing guns (or any OTHER weapon)instead opting for the freedom destroying 'punish us ALL for the misdeeds of the few'..thereby supporting and making stronger the Shumers/Kennedys/Fiendsteins..
AND all the time they want to villify and castigate those people..when better they should look in to the mirror.
Indeed..gun people supporting gun control cuts the guts out of any effective resistance politicaly....weakens the Constitution..and is directly responsible for 20,000 +++ gun laws.
Well, I guess that just proves I haven't been there in a while ... I would have never have guessed that 85% of the people posting in that forum are gun control supporters ... [:(]
You can call it disagreeing with me if you like ... but it's more like you're just correcting my thinking, because if what you say is the case, my thinking is wrong.0 -
quote:Originally posted by HighVolumeOfFire
quote:Originally posted by EhlerDave
I am told now all gun laws are unconstitutional yet why do we put an age limit on them 18 some 21 ...why not the nut jobs? Why should the mentally disturbed have their rights infringed? where does it start and where should it stop. We cant just have a free for all yet we want no laws...
The right to keep and kear arms was designed protect the arms of the militia.
I have heard this before, that is the reason such arguments persist. Do I as an individual have any gun rights, or do I need to run down the street to Billy Bobs machine gun militia and join up?
As for the rest it is yet another form of gun control. Cant have it both ways. I agree with what has been said but I just want people to see even those who yell NO GUN CONTROL support the gun control to some point.
The militia, according to the U.S. law, is comprised of all able-bodied males aged 18-45.
The National Guard ceased to be a militia when it fell under federal control.
The mentally disturbed are, of course, not "able-bodied" and therefore are not members of the militia.
Does this mean that I am not allowed a gun because I am not able bodied? Should using braces and a wheelchair make me un gun worthy?
Therefore, any law which restricts the ownership of weapons to the militia is unconstitutional. Simple enough, right?
That is just what I hear from the gun grabbers, then they spit out their idea of what a Militia is and we go around and around.
I am all for doing everything I can to help stop the tidal wave of gun laws, but what can I do? Where do I aim my anger? When asking for help from places like this all I see is infighting among those who should be grouped together, stand together, fight together. I agree that a lot of gun owners do not deserve to own anything. I do not agree that our rights are God given, I think the MEN who wrote our constitution fought for what they wanted,took the rights,held them up and said "we will never live under tyranny again", and since then we have failed to fight to keep them.
I see it like this , mom and dad buy Jr a car, Jr trashes it becaue he has no idea what it took to get that car, then he whines because his car is gone. Thats us and our Constitution, it was given to us and we did not take care of it.0 -
Let`s Hijack the Gun Rights Forum and turn it into something else! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Kimberkid;
quote:your preaching to the chior.
Actually...in my normal tradition..I must disagree with you.
85% of the 'gun people' posting on these forums believe in gun control. not the Constitution...NOT the Second Amendment...GUN CONTROL.
They refuse to demand personal responsibility..and swift goverment punishment/execution of those abusing guns (or any OTHER weapon)instead opting for the freedom destroying 'punish us ALL for the misdeeds of the few'..thereby supporting and making stronger the Shumers/Kennedys/Fiendsteins..
AND all the time they want to villify and castigate those people..when better they should look in to the mirror.
Indeed..gun people supporting gun control cuts the guts out of any effective resistance politicaly....weakens the Constitution..and is directly responsible for 20,000 +++ gun laws.
Nothing to add to this. On-point Sir.[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by EhlerDave
I have heard this before, that is the reason such arguments persist. Do I as an individual have any gun rights, or do I need to run down the street to Billy Bobs machine gun militia and join up?
When I speak of the militia, I am not talking about the "Billy Bob's" militia. I'm talking about the unorganized militia, as defined by U.S. law. Here is the actual text:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
quote:Originally posted by EhlerDave
Does this mean that I am not allowed a gun because I am not able bodied? Should using braces and a wheelchair make me un gun worthy?
It doesn't mean you are not allowed to own a gun. What it does mean is that your right to possess a gun is not specifically protected by the second ammendment. Its purpose is to provide for the "security of a free state". It does not involve hunting, or the right to self defense.
That being said, I would never support any restriction of weapons ownership by ANY law abiding citizen.
quote:Originally posted by EhlerDave
I am all for doing everything I can to help stop the tidal wave of gun laws, but what can I do? Where do I aim my anger? When asking for help from places like this all I see is infighting among those who should be grouped together, stand together, fight together. I agree that a lot of gun owners do not deserve to own anything. I do not agree that our rights are God given, I think the MEN who wrote our constitution fought for what they wanted,took the rights,held them up and said "we will never live under tyranny again", and since then we have failed to fight to keep them.
I don't look at the infighting among us to be an entirely bad thing. If nothing else, it allows us to sharpen our arguments and refine our beliefs.
I do agree with your final assessment however, if we lose the fight, we have no one to blame but ourselves.....0 -
The text of the linked topic, which no one seems to be addressing either here or there.
Originally posted {elsewhere} by 22WRF
Gun Owners of America Legislative Alert
-- Oppose McCarthy Gun Control Bill, H.R. 297
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
The first major anti-gun bill of the new Congress has already been
introduced, and it could prove to be the most serious threat to the
Second Amendment we face under the new congressional leadership.
On the first full day of the new Congress, anti-gun Rep. Carolyn
McCarthy introduced H.R. 297, the most massive expansion of the Brady
law since it passed in 1993. This is a bill you helped kill last
year, but the new House leadership will be even more eager to pass it
than were their predecessors.
This bill provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the
states to "provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited
from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of
section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the
elapsed time since the disqualifying event."
Covered under this bill are records pertaining to the Lautenberg
misdemeanor gun ban, lists of persons under indictment, mental health
records, records relevant to the identification of illegal aliens and
other records.
NICS is the system used by the FBI to conduct a background check
prior to a firearm sale by a federally licensed gun dealer. Most
people are aware that NICS records include a list of convicted
felons, but there are many other categories of persons who are
prohibited from possessing firearms for which computerized lists may
not be available. It is these categories that are targeted by this
bill.
For instance, the bill expands upon the unconstitutional Lautenberg
misdemeanor gun ban [922 (g)(9)]. This gun ban, passed as an
amendment to a 1996 omnibus spending bill and signed into law by
President Clinton, was originally introduced by leading anti-gun
Senators Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, and Edward Kennedy.
Under the Lautenberg ban, people who have committed very minor
offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, merely
yelling at a family member can no longer own a firearm for
self-defense.
The Lautenberg gun ban should be repealed, not expanded.
The bill also seeks to computerize records of persons "under
indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year." Such persons, though not even convicted of the
crime in question, are prohibited from possessing a firearm.
The gun grabbers are seeking to force the states to provide the
federal government all of these indictment records, updated
quarterly. Given the maxim among those in the legal profession that
prosecutors can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich," this,
too, is a gun prohibition that should be repealed, not expanded.
Mental health records are also covered under the McCarthy bill.
This could have a significant impact on American servicemen,
especially those returning from combat situations and who seek some
type of psychiatric care. Often, veterans who have suffered from
post-traumatic stress disorder have been deemed as mentally
"incompetent" and are prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C.
922(g)(4). Records of those instances certainly exist, and, in 1999,
the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of
veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check
system.
Mental health records can also have a future impact on young people,
as this country trends closer to mandatory mental health screening
for students. In a 2003 report by a subcommittee of the President's
New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the author states that "The
problem of emotional disorders in children is large -- 20% of all
children are affected -- and it seems to be growing." It is unknown
how these people will be categorized in the future.
The fact that metal health 'experts,' a notoriously anti-gun
community, would have a say in who is allowed to possess a firearm
is, quite frankly, frightening. Many in the profession would just as
soon consider anyone who owns a gun as 'mentally incompetent.'
Another sobering thought is how computerized data are often
mishandled. Consider the disturbing news reports that 25 million
Social Security number records of veterans were hacked. The more that
our private data gets added into government computers, the more
likely we are to have our identity compromised.
Perhaps the provision that would lead to the greatest number of
'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens.
Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill
requires all relevant data related to who is in this country
illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the
states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what
records are not relevant?
In order to identify illegal aliens, "relevant" records could allow
the FBI to demand state tax returns of all citizens, employment
records, library records (we've already seen how these have been
deemed relevant to terrorism investigations), DMV and hospital
records -- all in the name of making sure that you're not an
illegal.
The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is one of the most
virulent anti-gunners in the entire Congress. Of the 32 cosponsors
of the bill last year, 31 were GOA "F" rated, one was rated
"D."
These representatives support the bill because it enhances their gun
control agenda, not because they are concerned about protecting your
Second Amendment rights.
Also among the bill's supporters are anti-Second Amendment groups
like the Brady Campaign and Americans for Gun Safety (AGS). In fact,
the McCarthy bill is taken point by point from a 2002 ASG "report"
entitled "How America's Faulty Background Check System Allows
Criminals to Get Guns."
This bill was first introduced in 2002 by Rep. McCarthy and Sen.
Chuck Schumer. It passed out of the House that year, and was only
defeated by a GOA-supported filibuster by former Sen. Bob Smith
(R-NH). Since the bill has already been around for several years,
look for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put this bill on the fast track as a
way to thank Sarah Brady and her anti-gun cohorts.
The Brady law needs to be repealed, not expanded to allow anti-gun
administrations to find new ways to strip citizens of their Second
Amendment rights.
ACTION: Gun Owners of America is the only national pro-gun
organization opposing the McCarthy bill, so it is imperative that you
contact your representative immediately. Please take action today
and spread the word about H.R. 297! We need all the help we can get.
You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a
pre-written e-mail message. And, you can call your Representative
toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
---- Pre-written letter to your Representative ----
Dear Representative:
Gun Owners of America has told me that anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy
is trying to expand the Brady Law via H.R. 297. Well, on behalf of
those millions of Americans who:
* have had their gun purchases held up by the Brady background check
system for no apparent reason;
* know of people who have been targets of stalkers or abusive
husbands -- and were killed (or simply forced to live in fear) while
some bureaucrat in West Virginia fumbled around with their lives;
* have tried to buy a gun when the NICS system was shut down
completely -- thereby blocking gun purchases nationally;
* are just curious why the Brady Instant Check -- which was billed as
"the gun control bill that would stop future calls for gun control"
-- almost immediately became a stepping stone for gun control bills
dealing with gun show background checks, private sale background
checks, and more personal information for the NICS registration
system;
* are wondering why the FBI brags about the number of sales blocked
by the Brady check, but can produce no data showing that the Instant
check system has any relation to crime reduction;
* are struck by the fact that the anti-gun Clinton administration
tried to use the system -- without further legislation -- to impose
onerous fees and to retain records forever; and
* are wondering why the folks responsible for Waco and Ruby Ridge
should be put in charge of determining whether or not I can have a
gun --
I would ask you to oppose H.R. 297, the anti-gun legislation
sponsored by liberal Carolyn McCarthy. Thank you.
Sincerely,
McCarthy, McCarthy, for some reason that name rings a bell...0 -
Kimberkid;
I did not include the gun rights forum in that (x percent are anti-gun)..because those that frequent that forum are aware of the meaning of the Second Amendment, by and large.
You see lots of griping at the 'extreme members'..those people doing the griping are people that believe in their favorite form of gun control...thereby, as I have said, aiding and abeting the gun grabbers agenda.
Henry O'Reilly;
You will get no comment from me about futher gun laws being, about to be, or passed...I refuse to beg politicians on my knees to 'please obey the Constitution'....
From a position of watchfull wakeness, I observe the steady decline of the culture...and wait for the day that 'that law' is passed that even the dumbest among us cannot simply shrug off as 'good for the chilins'....it saves one life, after all.
quote:I do not agree that our rights are God given, I think the MEN who wrote our constitution fought for what they wanted,took the rights,held them up and said "we will never live under tyranny again", and since then we have failed to fight to keep them.
This has bothered me for years...the determined effort by those in power to stamp out the idea of a Deity. The fact is...if basic 'Rights' don't come from and granted by God..instead come from man...then MAN can take them away...and we better stop fighting, because the majority of people today want gun control.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Kimberkid;
I did not include the gun rights forum in that (x percent are anti-gun)..because those that frequent that forum are aware of the meaning of the Second Amendment, by and large.
You see lots of griping at the 'extreme members'..those people doing the griping are people that believe in their favorite form of gun control...thereby, as I have said, aiding and abeting the gun grabbers agenda.
I guess I hadn't noticed it so much on the forums but I do see it, seems like every gunshow I hear, especially shot-gunners and a few hunters talking about how no one needs "guns like that" ... usually referring to the military styled firearms the seek me out for new homes. Trying to convince them that all gun owners need to stick together like all gun-grabbers do is like talking to a wall.
I'm guessing that when their guns are "threatened" they'll see the light.0 -
This should be in the GUN RIGHTS FORUM... 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
27 comments