Mr VJP

Ours is not a Democacy, it is a Republic. There is a difference. A Republic is run by the rule of law, not the rule of men. The law of our land is the Constitution, and if men try to take over our land against the Constitution, the Constitution gives us the right to fight them, with any and all means available to us. This is why men of evil intentions want to take away our guns. This is not paranoia or crazed militia thinking, it is the truth. It is all about power, the abuse of it and control.

In reality, it always was Socialism. true Liberals are called Libertarians.

The NRA is now getting over 8,000 new members a day. Apparently a lot of folks who were content to sit on the sidelines, feeling they were not under any threat from the government, have had their eyes opened. Unfortunately, some folks are so blind, they will never be able to see. I wonder where they choose to send their money to?

Sogaard apparently isn't a fan of everything the 2nd Amendment stands for. From his past posts, he seems extremely comfortable with a lot of infringement to the right to bear arms.

Virgil, send another check in to Cuomo's re-election campaign.

With the shouting and the crazed eyes, the fool looked absolutely insane. Insane with power too. A tyrant, spawned by another tyrant. Don't tell me Democrats don't hate guns and gun owners. They're the ones who are pushing this gun ban/confiscation agenda.

Joe, Sogaard must hear things in his head that you don't say and reads things you don't type.

Imagine if the law was proposing castrating all American men because you might use your genitals to commit rape. How many men would think that is OK?

"The government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can require the individual to prove that he won't violate another's rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to. But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational, responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others have used them irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable. The government may coercively intervene only when there is an objective threat that someone is going to use force. ... Statistics about how often gun-related crimes occur in the population is no evidence against you. That's collectivist thinking. The choices made by others are irrelevant to the choices that you will make. ... The government may respond only to specific threats, objectively evident. It has no right to initiate force against the innocent. And a gun owner is innocent until specific evidence arises that he is threatening to initiate force. Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished." --columnist Harry Binswanger Got that Cuomo? Friggin' Tyrant Spawned By A Dying Failed Tyrant.

This is a great read on why we are where we are today regarding gun control and freedom in general. http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2012/12/police-state-progressives/

"[T]he government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can require the individual to prove that he won't violate another's rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to. But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational, responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others have used them irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable. The government may coercively intervene only when there is an objective threat that someone is going to use force. ... Statistics about how often gun-related crimes occur in the population is no evidence against you. That's collectivist thinking. The choices made by others are irrelevant to the choices that you will make. ... The government may respond only to specific threats, objectively evident. It has no right to initiate force against the innocent. And a gun owner is innocent until specific evidence arises that he is threatening to initiate force. Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished." --columnist Harry Binswanger That sums up the falacy of the gun control argument perfectly.

I have 4 words for all of these political whores..."I WILL NOT COMPLY!!"

How well is that "stick together" attitude working out for the firearm owners in America. We are being treated like the Jews in Hitler's Germany right now. We are being portrayed as the cause of all things evil. Come together for hope and change? That's BS to get people to turn against others, one select group at a time. Everything Obama says is Orwellian double-speak. Wake up people.

It's really very simple. To elected officials, as an NRA member, you count. As a non-member, you don't. When they see 4.5 million voters (and they DO vote!) analyzing there voting records, they fall into line with the Constitution. It would be far more effective if there were 30 million NRA members, and based on the number of gun owners in this country, that's a number that should be real now.

If you're a hunter or gun owner who voted for Cuomo, don't ever tell me that if we ever meet face to face.

I've been a Life Member of the NRA for decades now. Every negative NRA comment on here simply tells me there are a lot of truly uniformed, or leftist brain washed, gun owners on here. If you think anyone else is going to effectively keep the governent from attacking your gun rights, you are sadly mistaken. Some of you guys would probably curse a good samaritan trying to stop a mugger from killing you. Please don't join the NRA. We don't need members who haven't got a clue.

Nobody in the government is your friend. A Tax Is A TAX!!!

When anyone that is in a politically appointed position, who's job depends on falling in line with their political party's agenda, speaks out about any issue, one is to be commended for having a large amount of cynicism about what they present as the truth on any subject. They were appointed by, and currently work for, the political party in CT that wants to ban AR type rifles, as well as many handguns and any 30 round mag capable rifles. If you don't believe they could be lying to the public, you are not being objective. Since questions about the legitimacy of the investigation have arisen, why are they stonewalling an impartial analysis of their investigation? I suspect there is something to hide.

The Remington R-15 is a clone of an AR, and a poor one at that. Colt, DPMS or Bushmaster is the way to go, in that order. But you may want to get something other than an AR, since Cuomo is going to take it from you soon anyway.

I suspect we will soon have to go through the same amount of hassle to buy ammo as we currently do to by a rifle. Lots of paperwork and a NICS check before you can take it out the door. And very high prices will be the norm. The government will try to throw as many obstacles in our way as they can, until most people give up and decide owning a firearm, shooting one, or going hunting, is not worth the trouble. None of the current generation of shooters or hunters will ever give up, but do you think your grandkids and great grandkids will get involved if they face those obstacles? That is the plan I think the government is implementing.

Demand is the absolute reason for the high prices. I saw this coming years ago and got way ahead of the issue. I saw a bumper sticker that clued me in to the future. It said, "Ammo, the currency of the 21st Century!".

They cannot ban any ammo in general. Too many bolt guns are chambered for 7.62x39 and are used for hunting. What they can do is tax the hell out of it, cause massive paperwork requirements to buy it and limit how many rounds you can have in your home at any one time. None of that should be acceptable to any American citizen that has any common sense. P.S. I could probably get 1000 rounds of any cartridge tomorrow, either in a store or online. I just won't pay the high prices they are asking for it at this time. But, then again, I don't see the prices coming down, I see them going up.

NRA members get all this info regularly so we can keep up with the laws being forced upon us. Straw purchasers are in the sights of the gun banners right now. Bloomberg is big on claiming most of the illegal guns in NYC come from straw buyers in states like VA, SC, GA, TN, NC, etc... The way the FED would likely look at what you did wouldn't make you very comfortable and would leave you wondering if you needed to get a lawyer. This is why gun owners really need to keep themselves informed about new gun laws being proposed in this country all the time. These laws are often intended to be vague and confusing so as to be prosecutable even if you broke no law at all. You need to let the Judge decide. If they can make things this much trouble for you, you may decide it's not worth doing. That's the whole idea. And if they are able to convict you of something, they can now say you are a convicted felon and ALL of your firearms must now be turned in. See how government firearms confiscation is made legal now?

Banning 30 round mags is like banning Corvettes. Who needs a car that is capale of going more than 70 MPH? The law limits your max speed on the highway. Maybe we need to START BANNING FAST CARS, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY KILL MORE AMERICANS EVERY YEAR THAN ALL OF AMERICA'S FIREARMS DO. Who needs a 30 round mag? Someone who misses a lot.