http://www.infowars.com/obamas-gun-ban-list-is-out/
Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out
Alan Korwin (Author Gun Laws of America http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm)
Infowars
March 13, 2009
Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did.
Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.
Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady's plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady's current plans and targets of opportunity. It's horrific. They're going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They've made little mention of criminals. Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states' rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):
Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine, (WWII, but no M2 carbine which can be made full automatic? why no M-1"s on the list??)
Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
AR-15,
Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15,
AR-10,
Thompson 1927,
Thompson M1;
AK,
AKM,
AKS,
AK-47,
AK-74,
ARM,
MAK90,
NHM 90,
NHM 91,
SA 85,
SA 93,
VEPR;
Olympic Arms PCR;
AR70,
Calico Liberty ,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
Fabrique National FN/FAL,
FN/LAR, or FNC,
Hi-Point20Carbine,
HK-91,
HK-93,
HK-94,
HK-PSG-1,
Thompson 1927 Commando,
Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
Saiga,
SAR-8,
SAR-4800,
SKS with detachable magazine,
SLG 95,
SLR 95 or 96,
Steyr AU,
Tavor,
Uzi,
Galil and Uzi Sporter,
Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110,
MAC-10,
MAC-11, or MPA3,
Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-9,
TEC-DC9,
TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG,
SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
Striker 12,
Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see
below), on my Mossberg 12 ga. Defender!!!
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semi-automatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semi-automatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10
rounds.
A semi-automatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity
of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."
Note that Obama's pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event." In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.
The last part is particularly clever, stating, "that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose" — is that devious or what? And of course, "sporting purpose" is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.
Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm
A partial list of gun rights groups:
Gun Owners of America
http://gunowners.org/
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
http://www.jpfo.org/
FREEDOM=GUNS
http://www.tcsn.net/doncicci/freedom.htm
National Rifle Association
http://www.nra.org/
Second Amendment Committee
http://www.libertygunrights.com/
Second Amendment Foundation
http://www.saf.org/
Second Amendment Sisters
http://www.2asisters.org/
Women Against Gun Control
http://www.wagc.com/
Interesting, but out of the 10+ guns that we own, not one of them are on this list.
Give them time, Tobina.... they will eventually make the list if Obama and Holder have anything to say about it and they're in the drivers seat right now with congress backing them up (although I have a sneaking hunch some democrats will fight him on this).
Not all that surprising, if he has his way he will ban all guns.
The problem is how he plans on collecting them. Most american gun owners will not be willing to just hand them over, like in canada, austrilia, and great britian. If he tries to go door to door a lot of good people are going to get hurt, if not dead. I'm not worried about law enforcement personnel who get shot trying to enforce a ban, they made their choice. I know I won't give me up without a fight. True, they would probably be able to take'em but I wouldn't want to be the first person coming through my door.
Quote from: Tobina on March 20, 2009, 09:06:49 AM
Interesting, but out of the 10+ guns that we own, not one of them are on this list.
Tobino.. you are not alone in thinking that way.. but what if... you wanted one of those guns that are "on the list"..
Don't you think that as a non criminal law abiding hard working pay all your bills and taxes on time FREE American... that you should be able to purchase one IF you wanted to? I do and so do most Americans who understand and respect the 2nd Amendment.
The ""first list"" of guns that they have released is "Main Store Front". In other words, it is what you see before you go inside the doors. and naturally what most focus on. This is of course a huge concern and issue .. But there is so much that is overlooked too.
You have to also look past the ' types and calibers of guns".. and also see what lots of folks have in the way of receivers.. stocks .. barrels.. magazines.. grips..( the list is loooong and very intrusive)
They ( the enemy) and THAT is exactly what they are to gun owners.... are out to target EVERYTHING..
From ammo amounts to types to how you store everything firearm related. Their agenda is to make it so expensive and difficult or to ban it by making it illegal for the LAW ABIDING CITIZEN to have any type of firearm or firearm related items that the people will slowly become numb and unaware to what is happening and eventually be unarmed and easily controlled.
( controlled like hapless mindless sheep is top on their long-run list)
Not to be disrespectful to anyone ..but the normal everyday working Joe doesn't have a clue as to what they are hammering at behind the doors so as to take away our ( and it is OUR) 2nd amendment rights. Kjell and I are smack dab in the middle of it dealing with it EVERY SINGLE day in overloads of content and information directly from "our inside sources" ..and it is so overwhelming that I can't see a starting point or stopping point sometimes. But please trust me when I tell you ..that Old Faithful is rumbling and it is going to blow sky high.. When it does.......I DO sincerely hope that people are prepared for what will take place.
This is something I got from a friend of mine about the laws being made in Illinois. You would fall in a faint if you could see all the information and personal e-mails I get from individuals who keep their nose to their states gun rules and legislation and are trying to fight and keep on top of all of this freedom stripping acts. The hard core liberals are just inching in little by little ..like a slithering rank pole cat ready to chomp down on the unsuspecting chicks.
There are a few states that are slowly staying strong, but it is a constant hard working fight to do so. Turn your backs or close your eyes for a day of rest and the Pelosis, Obama, Brady ringleaders of their little anti- American Circus will strike faster than a coiled rattlesnake!
This kind of legislation is being brought to the surface.. some states are worse than this and others are just beginning. There are still some states who are planting their feet and going to try to stand firm for the block. But .....it is happening.
http://www.examiner.com/a-1898950~Ill__lawmakers_introduce_dozens_of_gun_bills.html
QuoteLegislators have introduced at least 55 bills that could change Illinois laws on guns and hunting. Here's a look at a few:
- Concealed carry: Lets gun owners carry handguns in public. (HB245, HB367, HB462, SB1976)
- Private sales: Requires individuals to sell or transfer firearms through a licensed gun dealer. (HB48, SB1848)
- Assault weapons: Bans semiautomatic assault weapons, .50 caliber rifles and accessories. (HB165, SB1721)
- One gun per month: Limits a person to buying one handgun within a 30-day period. (HB12, HB199, SB1275)
- Insurance: Requires gun owners to maintain a $1 million liability insurance policy. (HB687)
- Gun storage: Increases the penalty for a gun owner if a minor obtains an improperly stored gun and shoots someone. (HB179)
- Revoke licenses: Strips licenses from gun owners who fail twice to report a missing or stolen firearm. (HB845)
---
http://www.ilga.gov
Well, my gun, which I have only for defense purposes is not on the list. Actually, no one needs to fear my gun or the person holding it. It will stay exactly where it is unless it is needed and I have time to retrieve and load it. So, come arrest me and hold me in contempt.
I will bury my guns before I'll ever hand them over...I think we are going to be invaded at some point in our future history...and I'm not going to be caught without some form of initial defense. Katrina proved that point...those with guns were at least able to defend themselves and their property.
Why do you think the govt would want to ban any firearm? Ask yourself that. It sure won't stop them falling into the "wrong hands" now will it.
I understand where you're coming from, and the overall "big picture" that the gov't is trying to limit the arms that people can have. I'm not trying to disagree or play devil's advocate here... But, again forgive my lack of education on all firearms, the guns on that list that I did recognize were more like military grade firearms, and firearms that are designed to kill PEOPLE. How many times do you go out deer or squirrel hunting with any of the AK's?
Yes, I agree that it doesn't matter and people should be allowed to have whatever firearms they want based on the Constitution, but I don't think it's legal to have tanks or cannons? I guess my viewpoint is that why get "up in arms" ;D about these people-killing firearms? Yes, I know, all firearms can be used to kill people, but most of them have been designed for other purposes... hunting, home defense, etc. I think those can be accomplished with guns that are NOT on that list? I know, I know... give them an inch, they'll take a mile... and I know that if you limit the legality of these guns, it doesn't matter because the thugs will still acquire them non-legally anyway. But if that's you're thinking, then are you also for legalizing coke and crack and other drugs?
I just want some friendly discussion on this issue here to help me understand and expand my knowledge. Please don't bash...
The right to bear arms was not put in Constitution for quail or deer hunting - it was put there to overthrow unruly government.
It's no wonder that there are some who want to deny Americans their rights.
Quote from: redcliffsw on March 23, 2009, 04:03:18 PM
The right to bear arms was not put in Constitution for quail or deer hunting - it was put there to overthrow unruly government.
It's no wonder that there are some who want to deny Americans their rights.
Yeah, so much for asking nicely about NOT BASHING me. How was that answer helpful to answering my questions?
The type of firearm a person wants to own shouldn't be an issue, regardless of its original design. All firearms were derived from a weapon that was designed to kill people and then later adapted for hunting purposes. My question is what logical reason would the gov't have for banning any type of weapon? Espically those with a combat application? I don't mean to sound "short or bashing" but the 2nd admendment isn't about hunting.
Instead of outlawing that list of arms, we ought to be supplying them free of charge to our police force nationally. We will never be able to deal with the outlaws until we're armed in a similar fashion to them.
When the 2nd amendment was written, what kind of firearms were they talking about? What was common in those days?
Front loader muskets...ball and cap operations...flintlocks...later came the more modern models of the Winchester, Colt, and the like...That's all I can remember...Anyone else have a better memory for history than I do? Kjell?? Teresa?? Frank?? Warph??
I understand your opinion Tobina, but in all actuality guns are for killin period, whether people OR game. The only difference is the number of shots you can get off and how fast. I am totally against gun control myself for the simple reason that outlawing things doesn't keep criminals from havin whatever it is. Just keeps law-abiding people defenseless and face it out here where we all live by the time the law gets there to shoot em for you you are gonna be dead already.
And if somebody is shootin at me with a fully automatic weapon I don't want to be shootin back with a single shot 12 guage :P lol
Not my opinion, Pam. Just curious to understand everyone else's opinion and your thoughts on why banning these fully automatic weapons is such a bad thing.
For the record, YES, I'm totally against gun control for civilians!
Sometimes I just like to ask the "hard" questions of everyone on this thread. Sometimes people tend get a little too stuck in their own opinions and don't fully express to the rest of us the "why". It's not that we disagree, it's just that we want to understand why YOU think that way. This thread is for DISCUSSION of political issues. Sometimes I think it's just a place for people to spew their own opinions and bash everyone else for not agreeing. Rather than stating your opinion, stating the REASONS behind your opinions, listening to other's opinions, and then having a civilized discussions on the differences of the opinions. No, you're probably not going to change someone's mind, and someone's not likely to change yours, but just MAYBE you can open your eyes to the "other side" and at least listen to what they have to say. You don't have to agree, but you do have to be respectful.
Tobina for statesman of the day! Thanks for your input. I wonder how many are reluctant to participate for fear of being unloaded on. I suspect the number is more than would be thought from the postings in most of the political threads. The gun question is a complicated one, and I can see both sides. It is difficult to say exactly where the line should be drawn, or if a community can have a gun ban or not. I can see the problem of youngsters gangbanging and innocents caught in the crossfire. I can see the banning of certain weapons and not others, and the problems that might arise from that. One thing that does concern me however is the participation of certain groups in the influence of our government under the guise of second amendment rights. I am speaking of drug cartels, hate groups and gangs. Their growth into mainstream America is unrecognized by many.
Oh I agree with you Tobina and I generally try to be respectful but I also try to pry open some closed minds too.(which usually gets me in trouble :P) As for the unloadin that goes on to people with dissentin views all I can say is ya charge the hill until ya get tired and disgusted, retreat, regroup, and charge the sucker again LOL
I can see both sides of the question too but I really don't agree with banning weapons. It just won't work except like I said to keep honest people defensless cause the gangbangers and the cartels are gonna have the stuff if it exists because they DON'T care how they get it just that they get it.
Some people use accidental shootings as their reason but I don't agree with that one either. I truly believe if kids are taught from the get go about guns and what they are for, what they do, and to respect them and leave them alone there will be no accidental shootings. I know.....some people who have guns don't have the intelligence to teach kids what they need to know and are as ignorant with weapons as a 4 year old...I don't know the answer to that one.
All I do know is MY experience, my dad and grandad taught US right from the get go, I taught my kids right from the get go and it worked for us.
i have daughter-in-laws who freak out about guns, but my sons have the common sense to teach their kids too so.........it all seriously comes down to raisin' or lack of raisin' I think.
In a perfect world where people were really livin the way we are supposed to there really would be NO need for defending yourself and your family from people who mean you harm......but it ain't a perfect world........unfortunately........
Okay, time for me to stop "lurking" and say something. As I have previously posted elsewhere I have never allowed guns in my house strictlly for safety reasons. It is like remove the temptation and not have the worries of something terrible happening. However, it is my opinion that when the second amendment was written guns were protected against anyone, including our government, to take them away. Guns were used more for hunting for food than committing crimes. Guns were needed for survival not only against hunger but against indians or others who would cause harm. Therefore, I feel that guns should be allowed for those that want them without the danger of our government outlawing them. In all of the history of mankind, there has been crime with whatever weapon was handy at the time. Taking away guns will not solve anything except to make it easier for criminals to commit their crimes.
Completely away from this subject, I would like to NOMINATE WARPH TO HAVE HIS OWN CATEGORY. He has a real sense of what is going on in the world. So maybe there should be a separate category just after POLITICS that is entitled "WARPH SAYS". Any seconds? Larryj
Quote from: sixdogsmom on March 24, 2009, 09:48:42 AM
Tobina for statesman of the day! Thanks for your input. I wonder how many are reluctant to participate for fear of being unloaded on. I suspect the number is more than would be thought from the postings in most of the political threads.
I can attest to that, I have had a taste of the rude inappropriate comments from a couple of people on the forum, that do not know me, know absolutely nothing about me.
Everyone knows my stance and passion on our 2nd amendment rights and constitutional rights. So I won't get on a big long writing of the whys and the reasons.
But we all must remember that education is #1 on the list of safe handling and use of any kind of firearm. And also respect of human kind in general.
Guns Do Not kill people.................PEOPLE kill People.
Lets fix society.. fix the decay of human morale values.. fix family break down and disintegration.. fix the drug and alcohol abuse.. fix the lack of respect for everything and everybody that is literally smothering the breath out of people. Quit letting the repeat offenders out on the street.
Quit blaming the guns.
I wonder if all of those "politicians" that are so quick to spew their venom about banning guns and disarming the people were to be totally without armed body guards and around the clock protection...and had to rely on protecting themselves from whatever is there now and whatever will be there in the future...
I wonder if their tune would change.
(http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n366/glioma/mega-icon-smiley-thumbs-up.jpg)
Quote from: larryJ on March 24, 2009, 01:03:02 PM
Completely away from this subject, I would like to NOMINATE WARPH TO HAVE HIS OWN CATEGORY. He has a real sense of what is going on in the world. So maybe there should be a separate category just after POLITICS that is entitled "WARPH SAYS". Any seconds? Larryj
Whoa.... LOL... Thanks anyway, LarryJ.... but I'm afraid I would have to get in line. Their are many more intelligent people on this forum that would qualify for something like that before I would. For instances... Teresa, Frank, Catwoman, SDM, Jo, Diane, Wilma, Pam, W.Gray, Tobina, Steve.... just to name a few. Besides, when would I have time to work on my golf game and sippin' suds at the 19th Hole?
Quote from: Tobina on March 23, 2009, 03:41:21 PM
I just want some friendly discussion on this issue here to help me understand and expand my knowledge. Please don't bash...
Quote from: sixdogsmom on March 24, 2009, 09:48:42 AM
Tobina for statesman of the day! Thanks for your input. I wonder how many are reluctant to participate for fear of being unloaded on. I suspect the number is more than would be thought from the postings in most of the political threads.
Quote from: frawin on March 24, 2009, 04:25:58 PM
I can attest to that, I have had a taste of the rude inappropriate comments from a couple of people on the forum, that do not know me, know absolutely nothing about me.
Dumb Guy: "What do you mean, Americans have gotten ruder?"
Lady on the Street: "Poll after poll has been showing it in recent years. Nearly 70 percent of respondents to an Associated Press poll said people are ruder than they were 20 or 30 years ago."
Dumb Guy: "Why would that be?"
Lady: "Lots of reasons. For starters, life is moving faster these days. Companies are employing technology that has dramatically increased the speed of change. This technology has enabled competition on a global scale and employees, fearing for their jobs, are working long and hard to keep up."
Dumb Guy: "Yeah, yeah."
Lady: "The pace at home is much faster, too. Many couples, having fallen into the big-mortgage trap, are both working. To afford large houses, they've moved farther out into the suburbs. They're perpetually sitting in traffic jams, rushing to pick the kids up from day care, and racing to get home to make dinner."
Dumb Guy: "It's a free country."
Lady: "Computers, video games and other gadgets are isolating people from each other. And many people are living far away from their extended families -- living among people they are not deeply connected to."
Dumb Guy: "Sounds good to me. My family drives me nuts."
Lady: "Even modern architecture is promoting isolation. Look at the older homes built in the 1920s. Big glorious porches were on the front and the garages were in the back. Homes were designed to invite friends and family to stop in for a visit and some cold lemonade. Now the porch is hidden in the back and the garage is on the front -- even our homes are rude to people."
Dumb Guy: "If you say so, Lady."
Lady: "As a result of this desensitization and the stress of modern times, we're seeing more incidents of road rage, more people cutting in lines at the supermarket, fewer people holding the door open for strangers. I know I've been short with service people at times."
Dumb Guy: "Being rude with service people is the reason I get out of bed in the morning."
Lady: "What's most interesting is that folks are quick to see rudeness in others, but not in themselves. Only 13 percent said they'd used an obscene gesture while driving. And only 8 percent said they'd used a cell phone in a loud or annoying manner."
Dumb Guy: "I do both every day on my lunch break."
Lady: "It's certainly true that life is moving faster and keeping up is more stressful, but that's no excuse. We all need to get back to the basics. Parents need to do a better job teaching their kids to have respect for others. Adults need to slow down and be more considerate of others."
Dumb Guy: "Why should we care?"
Lady: "Because a civil and mannerly existence is not just a more delightful way to live, but one that is essential to a well-functioning society. But don't ask me, ask Judith Martin."
Dumb Guy: "Judith Martin?"
Lady: "You know her better as Miss Manners. She says that good manners are the philosophical basis of civilization, that it's essential folks have a common language of civil behavior that restrains their impulses."
Dumb Guy: "But impulsiveness is my favorite hobby."
Lady: "Martin says our legal system was originally intended to punish serious conflict involving the loss of life, limb or property, but the legal system is now forced to handle disputes that the proper use of etiquette used to prevent."
Dumb Guy: "I ain't following."
Lady: "She says that what used to be an insult is now called slander. What used to be meanness is now called hate speech. What used to be boorishness is now called sexual harassment. If the rules of civility and etiquette were stronger, fewer people would engage in actions that are now considered crimes."
Dumb Guy: "Slander, meanness and boorishness are illegal now? There goes the weekend."
yeah, Warph, you are exactly right on about the members of this forum. Maybe that is why I "lurk" so much! Its like my mama always told me---------"it is better that people think you are dumb than to open your mouth and prove it"!!!!!! I really do enjoy all the opinions expressed here whether I agree with them or not. As far as "bashing", if I were to say something that someone else might find offensive or djsagreeable, I would be taking the chance of being critized or "bashed". Oh, and by the way, Warph, if I ever get across the river to the east I will join you at the 19th hole!!!!
People here might think I am dumb, but those that personally know me can prove it.
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Tobina on March 23, 2009, 03:41:21 PM
How many times do you go out deer or squirrel hunting with any of the AK's?
Tobina,
I'm glad you want to learn, that's the first step to gaining knowledge. First: The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The founding fathers never even dreamed that hunting would ever be under attack. The 2nd amendment was put in the constitution to protect the other amendments and to insure that we would never be subject to a tyrannical government or a government that over taxed the people. The American revolution was spawned over taxation and the first shot of the revolution at Concorde was fired because the British were coming there to disarm the populace.
Second: The AK 47 and any other assault rifle has been illegal to own since the 30's without first obtaining a special license for an automatic weapon. It is very controlled and hard to get. The news media are constantly calling rifles that look like assault rifles as assault rifles when in fact they are not assault rifles or AK 47's, M-16's etc. It's a play on words to make the uninformed public think that the streets are full of assault rifles, when in fact it is a lie.
Third: It really doesn't matter if you or I or anyone else feels that there is no reason for an individual to own a certain firearm. I personally don't think anyone needs a Hummer to drive around in, but I certainly wouldn't deny them that right to own one if they want it. And lastly, remember, a firearm is completely harmless until a person fires it, just like any other tool, automobile or big boy toy, they can cause injury if not handled properly.
Sarge, that says it as good as it can be said. I have had one occascion travelling where my gun may have saved my family. Several years agon we left Midland, Texas to come to Kansas, we got as far as Lawton Oklahoma and stopped for the night and got a room at the Holiday Inn. There was Myrna, me, my two sons who were probably 11 and 13 and my daughter who was 4 years old. We just got to bed and someone started beating on our door, I got up, grabbed my pistol and without opening the door I asked what they wanted, the guy said"open this BLANK, BLANK door or I am going to kick it open. I asked him again and he said open this door now or I am going to kick it open and I am not telling you again. I told him I had my pistol with 9 shots in the magazine and if he kicked the door open I would shot him and to make no mistake about it. He said my wife is in there and I am coming in, I told him there was noone in the room but my wife and I and our three children and I would not hesitate to shoot if he came in. He said, I think I got the wrong room. All 3 of my children are excellent shots, all 3 have hunted since they were big enough to walk and go with me, my grandson shot his first deer at 7 years of age and has shot one every year, he is 10 now, my granddaughter is 5 and she targets shoots with us. I firmly believe that giving up our weapons in this country would be a big mistake and I also firmly believe that the American people will not give up their weapons without a fight. The present Administration in Washington is splitting this Nation right down the middle and it is going to get pretty nasty before this is all over.
(QUOTE)I wonder how many are reluctant to participate for fear of being unloaded on. I suspect the number is more than would be thought from the postings in most of the political threads.(END QUOTE)
WOW, this is the pot calling the kettle black. The reason we don't put out there who we are is because of you and how verbally rude you can be when you don't agree, and I know other people that think the same thing.
I did not know that I addressed any kettles unless of course that is your handle. >:(
Quote from: ELK@KC on March 29, 2009, 12:23:52 PM
QuoteI wonder how many are reluctant to participate for fear of being unloaded on. I suspect the number is more than would be thought from the postings in most of the political threads.
WOW, this is the pot calling the kettle black. The reason we don't put out there who we are is because of you and how verbally rude you can be when you don't agree, and I know other people that think the same thing.
Lol I don't remember SDM ever being any ruder than anybody else on here! Not near as rude as some, probly includin me! I'll tell you what I think if it's important enough to me and I don't CARE if you know who I am cause I would'nt say it if I didn't have the guts to say it in person! That's why I use my name ;D If I feel I've been rude I will apologize for gettin carried away but it don't change my opinion unless somebody actually brings me some enlightenment which HAS happened a time or two ;D
Frank. that is a VERY good example of what I was tryin to tell Diane.....
Pam, I do get it.... honest. But I've seen the other side too, the part that police officers see. That complicates it for me. Heck, if someone was pounding on my door, I'd say what Frank did even if I DIDN'T have a gun at hand! Yes, Al and I have traveled with guns, mostly for varmits (no, not that one ;D) out in the mountains. Besides, a gun won't always take down a violent drugged out person as easily as one might think! Scary stuff. No, I don't have any answers. If I did, I'd have won the Nobel Peace prize by now.
Thanks for taking up for me Pam, for some reason, I really yank on this persons' chain. I just looked back through their 26 posts and a very large part are accusing me of rudeness, lying, etc, etc. Oh well, can't please 'em all! I too get passionate about some issues but I do try to retain a little decorum. Diane, I too noticed that the gun wasn't a real part in Franks' little mishap at the motel, although I am certain it made him feel better. It would me too; I don't have anything against guns per se but we have some problems in the gun culture that they are unable or unwilling to address. Number one being, how to get and keep guns out of the hands of gang bangers, and number two where are all the guns coming from that are being smuggled into Mexico for illegal activities? Is it possible that some of our gun support organizations are involved in some way? Manufacturing or in another way? Have gangs infiltrated these organizations to support the drug culture? Anyone?
Quote from: sixdogsmom on March 29, 2009, 05:54:28 PM
Where are all the guns coming from that are being smuggled into Mexico for illegal activities? Is it possible that some of our gun support organizations are involved in some way?
I sincerely doubt that the NRA is involved in any way with the illegal drug activities of the Mexican cartels. It would be highly noticable if anyone started being pro-drug dealer in any organization, not only the NRA.
Diane,
You were traveling with guns in the mountains and was looking for varmints?
Were you after Big Foot?
Hee, hee... let's stir up the kettle / pot again... ;D
So, what's everyone think about this idea... you can own these types of semi-automatic, military grade weapons... but only IF you have been in the military.
My thought is that way you've got proper training on how to handle these guns, what they're supposed to be used for, and if you've been shipped overseas maybe you know what damage they can do to a human body. Maybe it will get more people to enlist in the military so they can understand what it means to actually DEFEND a country and DEFEND people you don't even know... and have a little respect for guns, bloodshed, and Country.
The rest of us will just have to defend our homes from skunks, possums, and intruders with shotguns, pistols, and rifles.
Usually if I take a gun traveling it's because of potential rattlesnakes. ( or bandidos) I've never had a bad encounter though. Big Foot would scare me but I wouldn't want to shoot it. Around here the "utes" ( youths) who shoot anyone who even looks at them are so warped and antisocial the military won't touch 'em because they are not trainable and won't take orders from anyone.
"Around here the "utes" ( youths) who shoot anyone who even looks at them are so warped and antisocial the military won't touch 'em because they are not trainable and won't take orders from anyone."
I have to disagree with you here. If our military was allowed to go back to the old style of training they could deal with these punks. Speaking from expirence let me tell you there is nothig quite as impressive as a Drill Sergeant who loves his job!! Sadly, our military has been crippled with "senitivity training". They are no longer allowed to really tear these kids down and rebuild them into something useful. Don't get me wrong here, I am not dogging the troops we have now, they're good people. But the kids the military won't take could be used if our military trainers were allowed to do their jobs, old school style. Because there ain't no school like the old school.
My husband would totally agree with you, but I was referring to what is, not what ought to be.
Well in that case, I would have to say that it is a prime example of what is poor parenting.
The really bad ones usually come from several generations of one parent homes. The kids are raising themselves on the streets and the "parent" is on alcohol and/or heroin. They are introduced to guns very early, by the wrong people for the wrong reasons. Very sad.
Like I said, the guns aren't the problem. It seems to me that we should issue background checks on folks who get pregnant instead of those wanting a gun. I mean, you need a licnese to catch a fish but they allow any idiot to have a child. Talk about dangerous...
One thing that kinda leaps out at me about the folks that want to ban certain guns, is that they seem to have no knowledge of firearms. They want to ban so called assualt weapons but don't give much thought to "hunting" rifles or "target" shooters. For example, if you ask a special forces operator what weapon he would choose for a survival situation where stealth was required, he'd would tell you he'd take a .22mag. Close-in military snipers train with and use a .22 caliber pellet rifle. I know I can do more "damage" from a greater distance with my 300 win mag, than someone with an AK. The only real advantage they have over me is cheaper ammo. As for home defense, give me a 12ga pump any day. I guess what I am getting at here, is that it isn't the weapon, but the skill of the person holding it.
One thing that jumped off the page when I read the ban list is its mention of threaded barrels. That is a pretty large group!
Click here to view Wayne LaPierre's speech on the Glenn Beck Program.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlnZ8yq6wJA
I love Glenn Beck (in a purely hetrosexual homophobic way of course)!!!
I only heard one fundmental mistake in this. Lepirre said that the NRA told gov't officals that the cartels weren't getting arms from us. Nobamas people no longer seek counsel of AMericans. THey rely on other countries tell them to do.
This is very interesting story.........
You and I Can't Buy the Guns Mexican Cartels Own
The Administration is Not Dealing Straight With Us on Mexico's Gun Problem
Ralph Weller
March 1 2009
Let's set things straight right up front. Yes, some guns are being smuggled into Mexico from the U.S. Most are handguns. But, handguns are being illegally trafficked from state to state and from the U.S. to Canada. It should come as no surprise that guns are smuggled into Mexico. But, the problem being portrayed by the U.S. media and our government is not as it seems.
You see, Mexico doesn't allow ownership of most firearms, so ordinary Mexican people seeking self-protection will find a way to get them into Mexico. As for the drug cartels operating in the border towns along the U.S., they have other sources for their weapons and have become the prime supplier within Mexico.
I worked in Mexico in a border town for about five years. It was far enough from San Diego County in the Sonora Desert of Mexico that commuting several hundred miles daily was impossible. So, for a few years I lived in the city and commuted home periodically on some weekends. As crime grew out of control, I eventually moved into a place on the U.S. side and commuted daily in and out of Mexico for my own safety.
I stayed in Mexico for a Mexican holiday my first year. I don't recall the holiday. Normally, I would leave Mexico for a holiday, but it was in the middle of the week and one day was not long enough to come home. All I know is that on that particular Mexican holiday, Mexicans love to fire guns into the air. That evening as I sat on the balcony of my hotel, the gun fire that erupted in celebration was quite unbelievable. It was so intense I backed off the balcony and watched the festivities from a couple three feet in the room. We're talking war-like firing of weapons, it was that intense.
As I listened that night to the gun fire, I was somewhat shocked at the amount of fully automatic gun fire. It wasn't sporadic. It was continuous throughout the city.
For a country that bans guns I thought, how in the world did they get their hands on all these full-auto weapons? Clearly what sounded like M16 fire was prolific along with 7.62 x 39 AK autos with a smattering of smaller caliber full-autos, most likely 9mm.
Gun fire can be heard in most American cities on New Years, but I've never heard full-auto weapons being fired, at least not in the San Diego area.
The next day I went into work and sat down with a trusted senior Mexican manager. I looked at him and said, "I thought guns were illegal in Mexico." He chuckled and said, "So you stayed in town last night?" As the conversation progressed, it became clear that guns are as common in Mexico as tamales at Christmas. Everyone he knows, including himself, own at least one gun. And, it matters not whether it's a semi-auto or fully automatic, they're all illegal, so why stop with semi-autos? Though clearly illegal in the states in most instances, a lot of Mexicans have more firepower in terms of military weapons than we can only dream of owning here.
As time went on, parties in the city at middle class Mexican homes become a way of life. Most Mexican managers in the plant knew I was a gun wonk. As it turns out, they couldn't wait to invite me over to their place on a Friday night to show me their collection. Semi-autos, some very high-end Sigs and other European handguns were not uncommon along with piles of old revolvers. I thought I had seen everything in the states, but in Mexico it's not uncommon for people to own full-auto military rifles. Everything from an M16, UZI machine pistols and the most popular, select-fire AK47 military rifles. These are not the so-called "assault weapons" you can buy at the local gun shop in the U.S., but full select-fire military-issue rifles.
Now, I know you want to know and are dying to ask; Did I see any U.S. military-issue weapons stolen from the U.S. military? Not a single one was marked with U.S. military markings. Everything was marked with additional foreign markings on the receiver, including M16 rifles, or they had nothing at all. I saw firearms manufactured in Europe, China, Russia and South America along with U.S. manufactured weapons. I saw rifles that looked familiar with no place of manufacture, no serial number or manufacturer's logo. The information was not removed, it was never there to begin with. I can only assume they came from illegal arms manufacturers in India or Pakistan that produce copies of weapons. It was obvious that none of these firearms came from a U.S. gun shop in Tucson or San Diego. You couldn't buy them from a gun shop in the states if you tried.
It seems Mexicans have a rich heritage of firearms ownership prior to the ban in 1968. Despite the laws against owning them, they ignore it. Most Mexicans will say they need it for personal protection of themselves and their family. The other reason is they don't trust the government or local law enforcement. If they have to use it in their home for self-defense, whether they end up in jail is all dependent on how much money they can come up with, or who they know in the government. It also depends on who they shoot. But, given the alternative with high crime rates, most middle class Mexicans willingly and without reservations take the risk. Despite being able to own .22 caliber pistols or rifles, Mexican law requires them to be stored at an approved firing range. Where's the firing range I asked many times? No one knew of one. Where's the gun stores in town to buy legal guns? Gun stores? No one ever recalled seeing one anywhere in Mexico, let alone their city. I'm sure somewhere, maybe in Mexico City you might be able to buy a gun, but not in this city of almost 1.5 million residents. And the gun traffickers know it.
Where do ordinary Mexicans get their weapons? Most buy them from a 'friend' or a friend of a friend or cousin or uncle. Where the friend gets them is not talked about. But, it seems that drug cartels in Mexico are heavily involved in gun trafficking of military weapons and related hardware. And, who are these ordinary Mexicans?
They range from people who work in factories as managers and senior managers, government workers, doctors, dentists and anyone with the financial means to buy a firearm. I even ran into a couple of government bureaucrats, one a lawyer for the federal government who owns firearms. He confirmed that people he knew in the government, some very highly ranked bureaucrats and politicians all own illegal firearms. The other works for the Mexican equivalent of the IRS. It's a way of life in Mexico. It seemed to me that you aren't in the 'in-crowd' in Mexico unless you own at least one firearm. I was amazed at the whole thing after believing for years that gun ownership in Mexico was non-existent. That is hardly the case.
All this flies in the face of news articles published by the U.S. media in the last week or two. Mexico's gun problems are a direct result of gun runners buying "assault weapons" in the U.S. and taking them into Mexico to arm drug cartels, says the U.S. media and government.
That is a bunch of government and media nonsense. The cartels aren't arming themselves from U.S. gun stores with semi-auto AR15 and AK47 rifles. They've moved on up. Not to completely dismiss arms moving into Mexico from the U.S., but it is not as it seems when the U.S. media tells the story.
The firearms moving across the border are semi-auto rifles and handguns sold to middle class or wealthy Mexicans seeking personal protection from criminals that have no connections in Mexico with gun runners. For the most part the wealthy in Mexico are targets of criminal elements, so they have no intention of connecting up with them to buy a self-defense firearm. You're better off buying a weapon from someone within the Mexican government than buying it from the criminal element, namely a drug cartel.
Cartels buy their arms from countries around the world, most any place where military weapons can be purchased on the black market, or from countries wishing to destabilize North America. They arm themselves from a worldwide black market of full auto military weapons including grenades, land mines and RPGs. They also "procure" their weapons from the less than savory from within the Mexican military.
The drug cartels can easily afford to fly their weaponry into Mexico using their own fleet of aircraft on to remote airfields, or land them on remote Mexican shores from their fleet of vessels. They do it with drugs all of the time. Drug cartels buying semi-auto AR15 or AK rifles from U.S. gun dealers is viewed as a joke by Mexico's drug cartel, most Mexicans, and unfortunately by the Mexican government.
The only people fooled by all the political rhetoric are Americans listening to the likes of Attorney General Eric Holder and other anti-gun politicians.
Mexico has a gun problem, just like they have a drug problem and both the U.S. and Mexican governments are trying to place the blame on U.S. gun owners.
U.S. gun owners aren't the problem. Mexico is the problem. The government is corrupt from the lowest level law enforcement officer shaking down American tourists for traffic violations, to officials and politicians highly placed within the Mexican government, including elements within the military. Everyone knows it. Everyone in Mexico knows it. Every law enforcement official in the U.S. knows it, and everyone in our government knows it. And anyone who has worked for any length of time within border cities and lived in the local community knows it. This is taking a Mexican problem, blaming the U.S. by turning it into a crisis in order further an agenda, and Eric Holder and President Obama knows it and they are taking advantage of it.
The next time you see a news report of illegal full-auto weapons and grenades being found here in the U.S., you know where they came from. It wasn't from a gun store in Tucson or Phoenix. The administration is right that gun trafficking along the U.S./Mexico border is a problem. Not only do we have drugs and illegal aliens coming in our southern border, but we also have military arms and explosives coming into our country illegally as well. That's the issue and our government is being disingenuous in its argument.
This AP news report published today is typical of what is going on. It is disgustingly biased and flat wrong: AP report for Detroit Free Press
Don't believe me and what I say? See what the Latin American Herald is saying about a recent arrest of cartel members and their weaponry in Mexico. No, the items listed weren't purchased at a gun store in Phoenix or Tucson. Grenades and RPGs are illegal in the U.S.
GunNewsDaily authorizes the distribution of this commentary providing that GunNewsDaily.com is recognized as the originating source.
This is not said disrespectfully Teresa LOL ...well duh.. :laugh: :laugh: That story illustrates why I can't understand why there is any thought in peoples minds that gun control will fix ANY kind of crime problem. I don't see why people can't get their minds around the fact that criminals don't care if it's illegal to have. Like some guy fixin to murder somebody is gonna say "oh hell, this gun is illegal for me to have....I don't want to kill somebody with an illegal weapon!"
I don't even remember who told me this first but was talkin about lockin or not lockin the door when you are gone, they said "all a lock does is keep an honest person honest, a criminal will just bust the door"
I listened to two college students debating a bill in Texas that would allow concealed carry on college campus there. One guy had been at Virginia tech and his girlfriend had been killed there and he was against it. The other guy was from Texas and said if somebody had had a weapon that day, somthing could have been done. There were legitimate points made about level of maturity and things escalating unnecessarily, but if a TEACHER had had a legal gun that day they would have had the maturity and judgment needed to know when and when NOT to use it. I honestly think that is an option to stop some of the insanity.