New Assault weapon Ban

Devil505 wrote:As a liberal Democrat (who own firearms but believes we need intelligent, common sense gun control in this country) I have no fear of the Obama administration trying to take away my 2nd amendment rights, & neither should you, imo.

You gotta be kidding, right?

Democrats are gun grabbers from the word "go". If they had their way we wouldn't be able to buy a pop gun.

Ah yes, I forgot.....you are an ex-FBI agent, right? Of course you have no fears. You are an insider! You are "trusted" by the dems.

"Intelligent, common sense gun control" as you put it, means only those able to be deemed intelligent and sensible, need to have guns, therefore, no republicans will be able to have guns since liberals view all others as clueless knuckle draggers.

I understand completely, Devil.

mikeandgerry wrote:You gotta be kidding, right?

Democrats are gun grabbers from the word "go". If they had their way we wouldn't be able to buy a pop gun.

OK...I'll bite Mike: Can you remind me of one Democratic President that took one firearm away from its legitimate, lawful owner? (I have a terrible memory)

BIG BEAM wrote:You mentioned that pro gun politicians offend you.I find now that almost ALL politicians offend me.Rhetoric is all I hear.I think that's because few in politics has any substance any more.The country's going down the tubes and the politicians are fiddling.It's the Rome thing all over again.
DON

The pro-gun position does not offend me. It's their other positions that I often object to.

Agree there is no substance anymore. I have more respect for the few Democrats who voted against the bailout than the 50 or so Republicans who voted for it.

The gun shop owners are probably secretly cheering for this legislation. When the first ban went into effect the value for the "banned" guns and magazines went through the roof. Availability was not an issue as long as you had the cash to pay for them. I can only guess this hysteria is yet again driving the costs through the roof.

Having said that any more gun laws are complete BS, they should try enforcing the one they have now instead of adding new ones. There are already plenty on the books.

This weapon buying panic will be a good thing for those who wait, many will sell some of these guns cheap when they get hard up for money.I got some good deals on impulse bought guns as they were the first to go when a guy needed fast cash. One gun I bought from a guy for half of what he paid for it with 850 rounds of ammo thrown in to boot.I am pretty sure he didn't even have it paid off on the credit card he used.

This is anecdotal evidence but a realtor I know told me the other day the he, his 2 brothers, his father and 2 brother inlaws all bought AR-15's together. They are still waiting to be "not disapproved." In the Peoples Republic of Maryland, you are NEVER APPROVED to purchase a gun. You are either NOT APPROVED or NOT DISAPPROVED. They can't bring themselves to APPROVE anyone.

You forgot one Pending This happends when the info the dealer gave the NCIC And the Buyer has a common name
or the S.S. number is close to anthother Person that is not allowed to own a Firearm .Then they have to go into research
to get more info on the buyer . The law states they have upto 45 working days to get back to the Firearm dealer.
with a Answer . Appoval or Denial

coalkirk wrote:This is anecdotal evidence but a realtor I know told me the other day the he, his 2 brothers, his father and 2 brother inlaws all bought AR-15's together. They are still waiting to be "not disapproved." In the Peoples Republic of Maryland, you are NEVER APPROVED to purchase a gun. You are either NOT APPROVED or NOT DISAPPROVED. They can't bring themselves to APPROVE anyone.

I would have them file a class action suit in federal court against Maryland demanding their Constitutional rights or to have Maryland show cause why they have not been approved.They wouldn't even need any attorney, just the $200.00 needed to file most suits.

Devil505 wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:You gotta be kidding, right?

Democrats are gun grabbers from the word "go". If they had their way we wouldn't be able to buy a pop gun.

OK...I'll bite Mike: Can you remind me of one Democratic President that took one firearm away from its legitimate, lawful owner? (I have a terrible memory)

President? The president can't take away guns but he can sign legislation. Nice liberal attempt to change the subject. You guys are good at that subterfuge crap.

It's the democrat-controlled congresses and the democrat court activists (on both sides of the bench) of the last forty years that are trying to take away arms from individuals or make it so difficult to own them or hold them in a usable condition that they are rendered useless. Any democrat president will certainly sign any legislation effectively controlling guns like they did in the Clinton years. Effectively that seals the deal. Thus, democrats are gun-grabbers. Do you really need this explained?

Thankfully, the last supreme court decision regarding ownership laws in DC have confirmed what liberals have challenged in the last twenty years, namely, that the second amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms. Now I suppose the trial lawyers and the liberal anti-gunners will be attacking ammuntion and gun manufacturers again.

One of my police buddies told me after the election, that if anyone comes to collect his personal firearms,, they [and he] are going down... !!

So if the police feel under pressure from our new administration, what should the average citizen gun owner feel ??

My local gun shop is running a land-office bussiness, running out of stock in both firearms and ammunition.


Greg L

My fear is that while everyone talks tough, when faced with the reality of confiscation, they are likely to cave in to authority, prizing their lives over their freedom. Only if people stand together will they succeed in retaining this right.

Join the NRA today, if you value your second amendment rights.

I'd suggest the GOA, and or the NRA. The NRA has actually not done so well.

Presidents salary seems a little high to me but I'm glad you got your free magazine.

http://gunguys.com/lapierresalary.pdf

This board member idiot thinks it is about hunting. Just a total idiot.


Supporting links

http://www.nrawol.net/

http://www.patriotpages.net/nrafraud.htm

Doesn't everyone realize that the government knows whats best for us . They are only trying to help . Why not ban chainsaws and axes as well .Oh that will be after they get the guns .

SAU wrote:I'd suggest the GOA, and or the NRA. The NRA has actually not done so well.

Presidents salary seems a little high to me but I'm glad you got your free magazine.

This board member idiot thinks it is about hunting. Just a total idiot.

I would agree that the NRA has its faults however, when gun-grabbing legislation is defeated, the press doesn't credit the GOA as being instrumental. They simply don't have the lobby that the NRA does. Big pay goes to big performers. I wish LaPierre was tougher at times but they have been effective in supporting the second and keeping it effective by defending against lateral attack.

That board member in the vid probably gave a lot of dough to the NRA to get his seat and was probably asked to shut up in the future. He doesn't get it. I am sure the reporter relished the opportunity to interview him.

I wish most gun owners would buy one less gun per year and give the money to the NRA and/or the GOA. I am sick of cheap gunowners. Anyone who professes to love the second amendment, and professes to defend it, who hasn't given more than their basic membership fee each year to the NRA, NRA-ILA, or GOA is full of baloney.

mikeandgerry wrote:President? The president can't take away guns but he can sign legislation. Nice liberal attempt to change the subject. You guys are good at that subterfuge crap.

OK Mike:

1. First of all, I don't understand why you feel the need to fling mud (name call) in most of your responses??? Why not just argue the question??

2. Name the last piece of Congressional legislation that was passed & signed into law by a President that actually resulted in the confiscation of any firearms from lawful owners? (my attitude towards the NRA is that while they have done much good in terms of firearms safety & education in this country, their main purpose is to represent the gun industry & cannot be trusted to provide a common sense approach to firearms ownership here. They are against almost any type of restrictions & are simply another industry lobby in Congress with a monetary agenda)