Mr VJP

http://www.americanhunter.org/articles/huntings-greatest-threats/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Threats-text&utm_campaign=Fishing

Clinton proposed a national gun "License". That means government consent to exercise a "right". That was the reason the NRA and other gun groups said no. If the other side was willing to accept what I stated above, an ID issued after a simple background check, that allows a gun owner to buy whatever they want, in any state they want, they would have gotten a positive reply. Instead, this is what they wanted. "President Bill Clinton shocked gun owners throughout the nation last night when he proposed that all citizens be licensed by the government before they can purchase a handgun. "Every state in this country already requires hunters and automobile drivers to have a license. I think they ought to do the same thing for handgun purchases," Clinton said. "I hope you'll help me pass that in this Congress." The proposal, part of the president's State of the Union agenda, would add to the required Brady background check now in force the requirement that adults wishing to purchase a firearm first take a special training course, and then be issued a gun license before they could purchase a firearm." Read more: Clinton pushes national gun ID card http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=411#ixzz1Sav8yhq2 Big Difference For Freedom There!! A background check proves you are not a threat, a license grants permission, but can be revoked, and regulations and fines can be imposed!

Actually, the resistence to the National ID card comes from the anti-gun side of the fence. Gun owners and the NRA were the ones who proposed that idea, provided the ID holders would not be limited in what they could own by more laws. If a person can get the National ID, they should be able to buy any handgun, long rifle or magazine they want, short of any Class III full automatic or A.O.W., which would require a Class III license and permit. And no registration of any firearms would be allowed either! The anti's fought that idea passionately, showing their true desires and intention of banning guns from society altogether, not making society safer. They proved they simply do not trust anyone with the responsibility of gun ownership, no matter what your background check reveals. Once gun owners saw their true agenda, it was not possible to deal with any of the "compromises" they offered after that. I think all gun owners should get behind the idea again and offer it up as the best solution to the gun issue today. We would just need to prevent the anti's from putting all kinds of rules in place to prevent a person from getting an ID card, like too many unpaid parking tickets!

SteveMcD, Nugent is just a board member of the NRA. He was never appointed a spokesman for the organization by the NRA. His celebrity and fame simply cause his views to gain attention and the leftist media likes to make him out to be the typical NRA member. I find it curious they don't seek out the views of the many active and retired military, Congressional Medal of Honor winners, past US Presidents, Vice Presidents, past and present Senators, Congressmen, Governors and patriotic elite of all types that are members of the NRA with something to say. Do you thing maybe their agenda is to paint the NRA as a radical right wing lunatic organization as opposed to the true equal 2nd Amendment rights for all races, creeds, religions and sexes organization that it actually is? I don't expect you to agree, but if you're honest with yourself, you will.

From the 2nd Amendment side, there is no compromise offered. The offer from the anti's is, take some loss of your rights (for starters), or take a huge loss of your rights (the eventual goal of the anti's anyway). Tell me what are they giving up in their "compromse", total repeal of the 2nd Amendment? I'm sure they will let good sportsman, like those on here who are willing to "compromise", keep all of their hunting guns. SteveMcD, pray tell which leader of the NRA are you referring to? Wayne LaPierre? If I had to choose between him and Obama, I don't think I would have to think about it very long. If the sportsman lose, it will be because they chose the wrong side in the fight and sold out the rest of the gun owners.

The problem with you sir, is you are rude, uninformed, self centered, deluded, assumptive and acusatory. I've studied gun control since 1968, which is probably before you were born. There are so many gun control laws on the books since then, it isn't funny. Yet, like you say, they don't work! So adding more gun laws will work? That's insane. It isn't the guns that are the problem, it is the criminals, society's protection of them, the judicial system, and the uninformed opinion of the insignificant electorate that is willing to "compromise" that is causing this problem. I personally know more than 100 police officers, 100+ Sheriffs officers, 100's of firefighters and EMT's and not one of them believes more restrictions on private ownership of guns is going to solve the crime problem in this land. The politically appointed Police Chiefs are a different matter. They do what they are told by the politicians they owe their jobs to. I'm not going to blame an illegal handgun if one of my loved ones gets shot, I'M GONNA BLAME THE SHOOTER! Because I'm not stupid. Am I to believe he couldn't get a gun somewhere or somehow, if more laws are passed to prevent it? Has the war on drugs prevented criminals from selling drugs? Have prostitution laws prevented that? Does the threat of a life sentence prevent murder? Just the fact that you state you know me and how I think is proof that you think you are a mind reader, have a huge ego, put yourself on a level above others and think you have the right to dictate to others what they must do. You, my boy, are the one who is not accepting reality.

Just because you see no reason to need a large cap mag, doesn't mean you can see clearly or see into the future. Remember Katrina? If you were a business owner in New Orleans when lawlessness ruled, you needed one. Remember the LA riots? Sure as heck needed one there too. But you weren't there so you didn't see it, or the need for one. It doesn't matter. The 2nd Amendment isn't about who needs something, because that means someone else gets to decide. I'd rather have the right. Laws are there to prosecute those who misuse their rights, and that is how it should be. But limiting rights, or making any inanimate object illegal, and prosecuting some otherwise law abiding citizen for mere possession, is a strong example of a police state. That's one step away from tyranny fellas, whether you choose to believe it or not.

If there is arrogance on this side, it is in support and defense of freedom, not in opposition to it. You say you banned the military rifles from the range? Then you are just as bad as the anti's who want them banned. You should have just banned rapid fire on the range. What's to prevent a bunch of guys with Marlin 1894's full of 15 rounds of 38 special loads from making the same noise on your range? Or is the rapid fire not your real issue? Your true prejudice is obvious. You don't like the rifles and you think no one should own one. I fail to see how you are different that the anti's with the same opinion. And because the NRA would also say you are wrong, you criticize them and call them extreme? I'm thankful the NRA doesn't see things the way you do.

That's stereotyping, prejudicial and judgemental. If you think all military style firearms owners are like that, you're wrong. Any other types of people you would like to be able to decide can't own certain guns? Talk about a holier than thou attitude. This is exactly the type of attitude that will allow major infringements on our 2nd Amendment rights. Do you have any idea how many nationally sanctioned target shooting events involve the AR-15 rifle? Why doesn't your club have a rule prohibiting rapid fire on the range then? Control your own area, but you have no right to try and control the whole population of the country.

[table] [tr] [td][/td][td] July 11, 2011Obama Administration Plans New Gun Control [/td][/tr] [tr] [td] http://www.gunreports.com/media/newspics/barack-obama-angry454.jpeg[/img] Sarah Brady says the president told her “I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control] ... We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” (AuctionArms.com) -- As we pass the six-month anniversary of the tragic Tucson shooting, multiple press reports indicate the Obama administration is planning to unveil new, but unspecified, gun control initiatives. At a Thursday briefing, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, "As you know, the President directed the Attorney General to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common-sense measures that would improve Americans' safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights. "That process is well underway at the Department of Justice with stakeholders on all sides working through these complex issues. And we expect to have some more specific announcements in the near future." Carney provided no further details on the initiatives, but he isn't the only one saying something is in the works. According to a related article on NPR.org, U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) said, “I have spoken to the president. He is with me on [gun control], and it's just going to be when that opportunity comes forward that we're going to be able to go forward.” And longtime anti-gun activist Sarah Brady has said that in March, the president told her “I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control] ... We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” There will be significant developments in the weeks ahead. [/td][/tr][/table]

What aggravates me is gun owners who side with the anti's against other law abiding gun owners because they believe they possess more "common sense", when they actually have very little sense of the threat gun control advocates present. To allow the anti's to restrict all gun rights up to the point it affects you personally, is the height of hypocrisy and self centered ideology.

Let's forget about the UN until it needs to be addressed. Right now, it's Obama that is working against us with the Mexican gun running conspiracy. The UN would love to control guns worldwide as well, and they are making attempts to do it. But as long as we keep Congress informed of our objections to it, they shouldn't let it happen. I just hope the Congress can wake up the morons in this country who don't think Obama was running guns into Mexico, getting people killed, and planning to blame it on so called "lax" gun laws in the US. He knows attempting more gun control in the US is political suicide. But if the public were to believe a huge threat existed because of so called "lax" gun laws, they may allow more restrictions that will do nothing but affect us! The Democrats still want to attack your gun rights as much as possible, but getting re-elected is more important to them than taking your guns. They need more public support to do it and this was the plan to get that support. This administration is the most unlawful this country has ever seen. But I don't find it surprising the majority of the electorate doesn't see it. That's a whole nother discussion. It's not really about controlling crime folks, it's about power and controlling the people.

Sounds like some think a 30 round magazine and an AR rifle are extreme examples of the 2nd Amendment. It ain't about hunting and sporting arms boys. It's about freedom and keeping power in the hands of the people, not the government. Seems some of you are OK with a lot less feedom if it doesn't affect you. What you don't get is, it will affect you eventually. We are talking about allowing the government to chip away at our rights, in all areas of the constitution, not just the 2nd Amendment. The NRA is in the forefront of preventing the erosion of our rights. If that makes them an extremeist group in your opinion, you better start educating yourself on the government's constant attacks on your rights these days. I cite numerous examples of these attacks constantly. I'm amazed how apathetic some of the people on this forum are when they just blow off the info with no understanding or research into the subject matter. An uninformed electorate is the best thing the government can produce. If your not NRA, you are not informed. If you think they are lying to you, you are a fool. If you don't agree with their agenda thinking it is extreme, wait till you see how extreme the restraints on gun ownership, and freedom in general, will be in the future.

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/07/14/guns-gone-wild-atfs-good-intentions-gone-bad/

"It's a common refrain among those who lust to increase government's size and power: Every failed measure justifies more of the same. Poverty programs make it harder to escape poverty? We need more poverty programs! Racial preferences heighten racial division? We need more racial preferences! And a diversity manual for every janitor in the country! When ObamaCare ends up driving the costs of medicine up and the quality and availability down, you can bet the people who created that monstrosity will claim it failed only because it didn't go far enough. Let's generalize this into the First Rule of Liberalism: Government failure always justifies more government." --Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto

"The ignorance about our country is staggering. According to one survey, only 28% of students could identify the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Only 26% of students knew that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. Fewer than one-quarter of students knew that George Washington was the first president of the United States. ... Ignorance and possibly contempt for American values, civics and history might help explain how someone like Barack Obama could become president of the United States. At no other time in our history could a person with longtime associations with people who hate our country become president. ... The fact that Obama became president and brought openly Marxist people into his administration doesn't say so much about him as it says about the effects of decades of brainwashing of the American people by the education establishment, media and the intellectual elite." --economist Walter E. Williams

More info keeps coming out. Of course, none of this is credible info, in the eyes of the blind who accused me of spreading propaganda at first, but seem to no longer respond to this thead. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=320221 All of this was part of a planned agenda designed to create animosity towards gun owners, while inflaming the anti-gun crowd. It was meant to provide justification for an "assault weapons" ban through intimidation and lies. This was Obama's program to get more gun control forced onto the American Public. The plan almost succeded, without Obama having to come out and publicly announce his gun control agenda to the voters, which is a sure death blow to any incumbent's re-election.

If you would all stop voting for these bums and throw them out when they mismanage the taxpayers money, you wouldn't be asking if they can be laid off. The voters are the problem. Electing politicians that create these problems is the voters fault. The electorate is about to get a shocking education regarding the importance of the election process and the responsibility that goes along with the right to vote. People get the type of government they deserve. Anyone who votes without a full understanding of the candidates intentions and past voting record is a fool. Anyone who votes because they expect to get a freebie at taxpayers expense is being selfish and not patriotic. Anyone who doesn't vote at all is not entitled to complain.

And it will not be voted on by Congress, it will be forced upon us by Executive Orders! The good thing is, it is happening just before the election, which will insure Obama is a one term President. http://www.huntingclub.com/forums/aft/185274

And for anyone who thinks it was wrong, his last words were a confession and an apology to the dead girl's family. For 15 years, legal protection allowed him to claim he was innocent. Only when he was abot to die and his religious upbringing was all he had left to save his soul, did he confess. Do you have any idea how much taxpayers were forced to pay to finally give this subhuman what he deserved? Obama himself was pleading for even more tax dollars to be wasted on this animal. Liberals will fight to defend someone like this, but will gladly lock up the owner of an AR-15 for life without losing any sleep. They are predjudice, against Americans who do not agree with them.

You seem to support any gun control law that will not effect you, but anyone else be damned. As long as we can own hunting guns, you are happy. I guess you don't own a handgun, or wouldn't mind losing it when they are banned. You're idea of rational is very naive and very dangeous to all Amercans, and all of the rights they possess, because you are willing to sacrifice freedom for a false sense of security. Some have said you therefore deserve neither. The people in America who are paranoid are the ones who do not feel it's citizens can be tusted with freedom. You seem to be one of them. The wild west was never as dangerous as many cities in America are today. At least in the past, men were legally allowed the right of self defense. Answer this, what would you do if you had to defend your own life from an attack? Would you want the right to defend yourself or do you think that would be a bad thing? How do you defend yourself against a violent attack if you are disarmed by law?

The top man in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has turned sensationally against his Department of Justice bosses saying they were trying to stymie an investigation into the Operation Fast and Furious scandal. [table][tr][td] [table][tr] [td][/td][/tr] [tr] [td]Kenneth Melson told Congress in a secret deposition that the Justice Department falsely leaked stories to the press that he was about to resign over Fast and Furious, Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Charles Grassley say. (Associated Press Photo)[/td][/tr][/table] Kenneth Melson, acting director of the ATF, gave a secret deposition to Congress on July 4, it was revealed today. He took his own lawyer instead of relying on one from the ATF. The stunning move will increase pressure on Attorney General Eric Holder to resign over the operation that saw some 2,000 guns sold to straw buyers who then sold them to Mexican drug cartel leaders. But Fast and Furious and its sister plan, Project Gunrunner, went disastrously wrong, and 80 percent of the weapons went missing. Two were found at the Arizona site where Border Agent Brian Terry was killed in December. Republicans leading the investigation in both the House and Senate wrote a stinging letter to Holder yesterday informing him of Melson’s move, calling it “extremely helpful to our investigation.” Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Charles Grassley wrote, “He was candid in admitting mistakes that his agency made and described various ways he says that he tried to remedy the problems.” Issa and Grassley said Melson claimed that ATF’s senior leadership would have preferred to be more cooperative with the congressional probe. “However, he said that Justice Department officials directed them not to respond and took full control of replying to briefing and document requests from Congress. The result is that Congress only got the parts of the story that the Department wanted us to hear,” they wrote. “If his account is accurate, then ATF leadership appears to have been effectively muzzled while the DoJ sent over false denials and buried its head in the sand.” Issa and Grassley also said that Melson claimed that the Justice Department falsely leaked stories to the press that he was about to resign over Fast and Furious. They warned Holder against firing him now. “It would be inappropriate for the Justice Department to take action against him that could have the effect of intimidating others who might want to provide additional information to the Committees. “Knowing what we know so far, we believe it would be inappropriate to make Mr. Melson the fall guy in an attempt to prevent further congressional oversight,” they concluded. Just last week, Iowa Sen. Grassley told Newsmax.TV that he did not want to see Melson quit because one resignation would make it seem like the matter was over. “There are too many people involved in it for me to be satisfied with one resignation,” he said at the time. In their letter Grassley and California’s Issa said Melson had been scheduled to give evidence on July 13 but brought the date forward when he realized he could take his own lawyer, Richard Cullen. “We are disappointed that no one had previously informed him of that provision of the agreement,” the two GOP members wrote. “Instead, Justice Department officials sought to limit and control his communications with Congress. This is yet another example of why direct communications with Congress are so important and are protected by law.” The release of the letter came on the same day that Mexican officials said that any officer accused of supplying guns to the cartels should be tried in Mexico. “I feel my country's sovereignty was violated," Sen. Rene Arce Islas, the chairman of Mexico's Commission for National Security, told Fox News. "They should be tried in the United States, and the Mexican government should also demand that they also be tried in Mexico since the incidents took place here. There should be trials in both places." Operation Fast and Furious came to a head on Dec. 14, when Terry was killed in a scuffle along a smuggling route close to the Mexican border, and assault rifles found at the murder scene were traced back to Jaime Avila, who had bought them from a Phoenix gun shop. Avila had been allowed to buy the assault weapons even though the ATF suspected he would sell them to the drug cartels. The plan was to trace the guns, with the hope of leading ATF agents to the drug kingpins. Even before Terry’s murder, ATF agents and senior managers had expressed fierce opposition to the policy. One agent called the strategy "insane." Another said, "We were fully aware the guns would probably be moved across the border to drug cartels where they could be used to kill." For months, ATF agents followed 50-caliber Barrett rifles and other guns believed headed for the Mexican border but were ordered to let these highly dangerous weapons go. CBS reports that one distraught agent often was overheard on ATF radios begging and pleading to be allowed to intercept transports. The answer: "Negative. Stand down." The Department of Justice, which oversees the ATF, claimed in a letter that the agency never knowingly permitted the sale of assault weapons to suspected gunrunners. Read more on Newsmax.com: Issa, Grassley: DOJ Obstructed Mexican Guns Probe[/td][/tr][/table]

More Hunters, Shooters Belong to NRA than Any Other Organization FERNANDINA BEACH, Fla. - Concerns over increasingly confusing and restrictive gun laws along with the common bond firearms create among shooters and hunters across the entire spectrum of outdoor sports appears to be a driving force in why so many people are members of the National Rifle Association (NRA). In a recent survey conducted as part of Southwick Associate's monthly Hunter Survey, more active hunters and shooters claim membership in the NRA than any other organization. The organization that received the next highest nod was the North American Hunting Club, while the dedicated conservation organization that received the next highest membership claim was Ducks Unlimited. The National Wild Turkey Federation and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation were next, respectively. The survey findings basically mirror each group's actual reported membership with the NRA claiming as many as 4.3 million members, while the NAHC has more than 850,000 and Ducks Unlimited close to 780,000. "Involvement and unity has been the silver lining to all the political and conservation issues faced by hunters and shooters. No other recreational group can claim to be as organized and effective as sportsmen and women in defending their freedoms and rights," said Rob Southwick, president of Southwick Associates, which designs and conducts the surveys at HunterSurvey.com, ShooterSurvey.com and AnglerSurvey.com. Southwick also pointed out that it is impressive to see so many people maintaining their membership across such a broad array of conservation groups, particularly given these tough economic times.

An enlightening new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey indicates that the National Rifle Association has significantly more credibility with likely U.S. voters than the National Education Association, and far more than the Sierra Club. The survey of 1,000 "Likely Voters" was conducted June 30-July 1. The favorable/unfavorable percentages shook out like this: NRA-54 to 41percent; NEA-42 to 37 percent; Sierra Club-35 to 32 percent. Of the 42 percent of all likely U.S. voters who hold at least a somewhat favorable opinion of the NEA, 37 percent regard the organization at least somewhat unfavorably, including 22 percent with a very unfavorable view, and 17 percent very favorable. That left 20 percent with no opinion of the national teacher's union, which on July 4 announced its endorsement of President Obama-16 months ahead of the 2011 election and before a Republican opponent has even been chosen. Among Democrats, 60 percent said they view the NEA favorably, while 57 percent identifying themselves as Republicans regard the union unfavorably. There's little doubt among politicos and poll watchers that the National Rifle Association is likely to endorse whomever Republicans choose as their presidential nominee in 2012. Of those polled by Rasmussen, 54 percent view the NRA favorably, with 29 percent having a very favorable opinion, 41 percent with an unfavorable view, and 25 percent with a very unfavorable view. Among those polled, 80 percent of Republicans and 53 percent of unaffiliated voters share a favorable opinion of the NRA, while 63 percent of Democrats view the group unfavorably. Onward to the Sierra Club, widely regarded as the most powerful environmental group in the country. Despite its high profile as a national voice and lobbying powerhouse, 33 percent of those polled had no opinion of the Sierra Club. Of those remaining, 35 percent viewed the Sierra Club favorably, 32 percent had an unfavorable view, 16 percent very unfavorable and 12 percent with a very favorable opinion. Democrats were inclined to have a positive view of the Sierra Club, while Republicans saw it in a negative light. Unaffiliated voters had more mixed feelings. A separate Rasmussen poll performed in January of this year found that only 36 percent of Americans support stricter gun control laws, while a 56 percent majority prefer less stringent gun-ownership laws and regulations.

They are intended to disarm as many citizens in America as possible and remove as many firearms from US citizens hands as possible. That is what the anti's believe we make us all safer. The trouble is, every place, and every time it has been done, people were far less safe, being unable to defend themselves at all, and crime rose dramatically. There are many instances worldwide that prove this case even today. But many Americans do not believe it because they haven't looked into it at all.