How much will it take?

[Skillet]

Steve, I never asked you to share my point of view. Doe, it hasn't happened YET, so I guess it is hypothetical, but I believe that they plan to take them all away eventually. Like I said, I wasn't trying to start some debate, just asking a question. There is no wrong answer, I just wanted to see how others felt.

[Doc]

I hate to state the obvious, but this term "gun rights crowd" that you guys are spitting out with such disdain happens to be the hunters and gun owners of this country who believe that law abiding citizens do not deserve to become the targets of misguided over zealous gunbanners or those who would endeavor to harrass legitimate gun owners from the legal pursuits that involve gun ownership and use. I stand firmly with that "gun rights crowd" and look with particular distrust at anyone who finds the gun owners of America to be their enemy.

[steve863]

Disdain?? So one can't call to question anything that the pro-gun crowd does just because we also own guns?? Sorry, Doc, but like I said, if you can't for a minute see the reasoning why the other side might think what they do about guns, then you are also part of the problem.

[Doc]

Disdain?? So one can't call to question anything that the pro-gun crowd does just because we also own guns?? Sorry, Doc, but like I said, if you can't for a minute see the reasoning why the other side might think what they do about guns, then you are also part of the problem.

Look, I have decades of seeing the reasoning behind someone who would use such terminology. I have watched the Brady bunch and the Schumers and the Boxers and all the other zealots that would call gun owners the "gun rights crowd". And there is no doubt in my mind just who and what is the problem. Using such terminology displays a complete contempt with anyone who values thier 2nd amendment rights, not just a little minor dispute and disagreement here and there. There are those who believe the answer to every problem in society is to regulate the law-abiding. And no, I "can't for a minute see the reasoning why" anyone would adopt that line of logic. Personally I find it repugnant and a true hazard to a free society.

[Skillet]

This is getting stupid, yet again. Just freakin let it go, I gotta learn to stop posting anything.

[Skillet]

Not directed @ you Doc, just the topic in general.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Skillet

[Grouse]

Why do politicians (mostly Democrats) insist on gun control, when they do nothing about crime control? What they, and the anti gun crowd, doesn't get, is the concept of gun ownership for self defense vs crime. I don't understand why people don't get the idea it isn't the guns that cause crime, it's the people who use them to commit crimes that need controlling. Guns don't call out to their owners and force them to commit evil criminal acts. If they did, I'd be America's most wanted.

Besides we all know if something is banned in this country, an illegal black market will immediately become very profitable and guns will still flood the ciminal under world. But all of the law abiding people will be disarmed, leaving them defenseless to criminal attack. And those atttacks become more common when criminals know everyone is disarmed. All you need do is look at England and Australia today to see that's true.

You know who are the biggest advocates of gun control in America? Convicts and Felons! They don't fear the Police or Jail. They fear an armed citizen that shoots them in self defense.

[Doc]

This is getting stupid, yet again. Just freakin let it go, I gotta learn to stop posting anything.

Actually I think it evolved into a very interesting and instructive thread. We often mistakenly feel that we hunters and gun owners form a united front against those that would harrass or deprive us of our 2nd amendment rights. This thread has straightened out that misconception and points out the actual real possibilities of the original premise of the topic and where that threat is surprisingly likely to come from.

[Grouse]

• Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.
  
  • Louis Brandeis, in Olmstead v. United States (1928)
    

[WNYBuckHunter]

Look, I have decades of seeing the reasoning behind someone who would use such terminology. I have watched the Brady bunch and the Schumers and the Boxers and all the other zealots that would call gun owners the "gun rights crowd". And there is no doubt in my mind just who and what is the problem. Using such terminology displays a complete contempt with anyone who values thier 2nd amendment rights, not just a little minor dispute and disagreement here and there. There are those who believe the answer to every problem in society is to regulate the law-abiding. And no, I "can't for a minute see the reasoning why" anyone would adopt that line of logic. Personally I find it repugnant and a true hazard to a free society.

Damn right Doc, it's the same with the term "assault rifle". How is an AR15 any different than a semi-auto hunting type rifle? Because its a different color? Because some ding dong that doesn't know squat about guns other than they go boom thinks they look scary? The more people keep on referring to guns like that as "assault rifles" or some other "scary" name, the worse they make the problem. You think that a ban will stop at just an AR15 or AK47? Nope, it will include your semi auto hunting type rifles, and probably any other gun capable of holding multiple rounds. Say good bye to your pump shotgun (which, BTW, is far more effective in a close quarters situation than an AR15 is), your bolt action rifle (after all, military and police snipers use them, scaaaary) and your handguns.

[13BVET]

Disdain?? So one can't call to question anything that the pro-gun crowd does just because we also own guns?? Sorry, Doc, but like I said, if you can't for a minute see the reasoning why the other side might think what they do about guns, then you are also part of the problem.

Huh? I'm sorry, but that just blows my mind. Are you saying that even though you own guns, that your "anti gun", since you're not "pro gun"?! Kind of reminds me of a guy we had in my platoon, when I was in Army basic training. He hated guns, but he joined the Army. It just doesn't make any sense!

[wooffer]

Passing laws against the law abiding to restrain the law breakers just doesn't work, plain and simple. Remove the law breakers and you will curtail the problem. The worst mass murder in NYC history didn't involve a gun, bomb or knife, Yet no one called for legislation to ban the murder weapon. Gun laws are about total citizen control and not about citizen safety.

They can have my guns if they want them, but I will eventually get theirs.

[Grouse]

I can understand the mentality behind the thinking of some gun owners that we need to appease the anti-gun crowd by agreeing to ban certain guns that are preferred by criminals, look scary, have large cap mags, etc., etc. But what those gun owners fail to realize is how giving in to such pressure allows for even more encroachment into other areas of gun rights. There is not one area of gun owenership that hasn't been attacked in the past.

Semi auto, sniper, black guns, cop killer ammo, shotguns, collapsible stocks, muzzle brakes, large cap mags, bayonet lugs, you name it. You gotta realize, anti's hate guns and think they should be allowed to tell you what you can own. If it were up to them all you would have left would be single shot rifles and shotguns. Handguns would be the first things banned. If they could show any actual decrease in crime after one of these laws have been implemented, that would be one thing. But all statistics show the exact oppoisite. Ex: The more they make guns illegal, the more guns seem to be used in crimes. Conversely, the more places they have allowed lots of folks to have CCW permits, the lower the crime rates have gone.

I for one, do not want to allow anyone to tell me what I cannot own. I'll allow them to tell me what I can't do with them, meaning commit crimes. But letting them curtail my 2nd Amendment RIGHT ( licensing means it's become a priveledge that can be revoked ) to own a firearm of my own choosing is a little too close to a dictatorship for me to accept.

As far as uniform national gun laws go, we have the NICS sysytem now, which is uniform and national. It's not the system that is broken, it's the people who don't abide by it. Straw buyers will always be a problem, even if private sales required a NICS check. I don't like having to go through NICS every time I buy a gun. I'd rather do it once and be issued a card for life that could only be suspended if I get convicted of a crime. But that would defeat the government's money train of NICS fees collected with each firearm purchase, and that is why they want you to go through it each and every time you buy a firearm. IT"S A TAX ON GUN OWNERS, PERIOD!! How are you gonna feel when a NICS check goes to $100 each time? Don't think it will? It's already gone up 20% since it began. It could easily be used to prevent people from buying guns by raising it to a very high level.

Also, the NICS system could be upgraded at any time to say, things like a drunk driving offense, FALSE arrest, or simple FALSE accusation of domestic violence, are enough to revoke your gun rights, PERMANENTLY!

The point is this my friends, they want to curtail our gun ownership until it becomes only a priveledge, and there are lots of ways to do that. If they ever repeal the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution, the game is over. We need to look at every infringement with a simple question. "Is this going to decrease crime, or is it going to decrease rights?". It's our own fault if we allow our rights to slip away.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Grouse