In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Salzo and other hardcore constitution folks, help!
Big Sky Redneck
Member Posts: 19,752 ✭✭✭
I went to another forum I post on run by OOIDA and posted the warnings posted here about the upcoming screwing we are about to get. Here is a reply from one of the bullheaded members. I lack the communication skills necassary to give this guy the butt reaming he needs. How about you guys going off on him and I will C&P back and forth since you need to be a member of OOIDA to access the message boards. Give it to him good and I'll be sure it gots there[:D]
quote:I am PRO GUN, but I do not see any use for any type of military style guns period. Assault weapons should be distroyed. Beside, what can a assault weapon do that a good 30 06 with a good scope can't...
quote:I am PRO GUN, but I do not see any use for any type of military style guns period. Assault weapons should be distroyed. Beside, what can a assault weapon do that a good 30 06 with a good scope can't...
Comments
Down state the a lot of the gun club members are in favor of the AWB being renewed and strengthend as long as they can keep their deer guns.
I have talked myself blue in the face with these people about what is at stake and all to no avail. The one club where I still belong I was asked not to bring the subject up again at any of the meetings.
The AWB will stand in a new and more restrictive form. The sheeple have spoken.[V]
Pack slow, fall stable, pull high, hit dead center.
quote:Hold on, I received a postcard from the NRA urging me to write senator Dayton of Mn to support the bill. Also Senator Frisk if one of the co-sponsor's. Not sure where you got your information, but if you go to Google.com and enter in s.659 you will get a bunch of hits. My undestanding was the bill was more about lawsuits, however I have been duped before.
Maybe you can cut and past the below link.
http://www.heritagefund.org/common/legal/docs/S659.pdf
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
I am PRO GUN, but I do not see any use for any type of military style guns period. Assault weapons should be distroyed. Beside, what can a assault weapon do that a good 30 06 with a good scope can't...
OK, lets take this argument and look at ot closely, then lets look at what constitutes an "assault" weapon to the anti-2nd ammendment crowd.
1st: What can a good assault weapon do that a scoped 30-06 can do.
Well other than shoot more bullets and a faster rate of fire, not much.
Point for your side
Now, what do "they" define as an assault weapon - under current law if you have a pistol grip, bayonet lug or the capacity to hold a magazine cappable of holding more than 10 rnds and /or a muzzle brake then you have an assault weapon. Sooo, if we take a standard 30-06 rifle, put a mcmillen stock on it add a aftermarket eagle mag that holds 20 rnds and a muzzle brake, your standard bolt action rifle is now an "assault" weapon and is hence illegal. Think not, well think again and call or write Senator Fienstein or any of the other sponsers of the bill and ask them. The configuration listed above is common on target rifles(minus the magazine) but would be illegal with just that addition.
Under the peoposed new "assualt" weapons bill your beloved semi_auto rifles and some shotguns(those that could hold more than 5rnds, even plugged) will be illegal, so will over 150 new rifles and pistols listed by make. These include all hi-capacity handguns, any gun that can hold a magazine that accepts more than 10 rnds will be illegal.
The possesion or sale of any magazine that holds more than 10rnds, whether currently legal or not will be banned.
Do you own any such handguns?, if so better prepare to turn them in or become a common criminal. Once again, dont take my word for it ask your Senator.
Now, lets address you precious 30-06 bolt action rifle, scoped you say? well, its possible that that rifle will be classified as a "sniper" rifle. It uses military surplus ammo, is designed to kill at long ranges and can be modified in many different ways. Crazy?, read the text of the bill to outlaw "sniper" rifles, any weapon desigen to or that accepts surplus military ammo will be individually scrutinized to determine if it meets the criteria of a "sniper" rifle. Oooh, bet you dont like that, your gun isnt a sniper rifle is it? Hmmm, might be, yep, it is, so its banned. Not as farfetched as it sounds is it?
You really should aquaint yourself with the current and proposed legislation before making a statement such as the one quoted above.
You too have a lot to potentionally lose if this passes.
The anti-2nd ammendment crowd does not want to just stop the catch phrased "assualt" weapons from being sold or owned, it is their stated goal to disarm america. If you think I am wrong just look at Seantor Fiensteins comments on passage of the first bill, "If I could have passed a law that banned eveyone of them, all guns, Mr and Mrs America turn them all in, I would have".
If you as an american value your bolt action rifle then you should support any americans right to own any firearm they choose.
Selective registration/confiscation,banning is only the first step, if the anti crowd succeds it will only embolden them to go after more in the way of gun control. Ever been to a gunshow, you can kiss them goodbye, if the proposed legislation is passed in order for a gunshow to be held everyone , I mean everyone who either attends, buys, sells or sets foot in the door will have to be personally informed of the firearms laws, if just one person is not the show can be cancelled and the promoters and dealers fined and worse.
Dont take my word for it, ask your senators.
If the proposed "assualt" weapons ban is passed, imports of firearms will stop, parts for existing imported firearms cannot be imported either. You own any firearms not made in the USA, well you never will if this passes. CZ makes a mighty fine bolt action 30-06 but sorry you cant buy one.
Its not about "who needs an assualt weapon" or "what can it do that a bolt action cant" its about our rights. If you allow them to whittle them down a little at a time, when will it stop? Before it gets to your precious bolt action?, You better hope so, but if you truely believe that then I have a very nice bridge I would like to sell you.
GO ahead and live in the dark about the true aim of the anti-gun crowd, when they come for your favorite dont come belly aching to use because we wont have anything to defend your rights with.
For a true look at what they want to do look no further than California, the majorty of handguns produced today cant be sold there, most semi-auto rifles(not just assault weapons) cant be sold there, look in shotgun news or on the auction sites and see how many dealers cant sell almost anything to people who live there.
This can and will happen in your state if you continue to have the mindset you currently do.
Good luck and remember, when they come for yours dont come crying to the "assault" weapons crowd.
Cant happen to you, right? right? You really want to take that chance?
The scoped 30-06 bolt action rifle very well could be classifed as a destructive weapon with the renewal of a tougher AWB given it's range, destructive firepower and the use of a cartridge that was specifically designed for and used by the military to kill people. "No way, that's a deer rifle", says my gun club AWB supporting buddies. Heaven forbid for those who own a BAR or Remintong 742 semi-automatic deer rifles. [:0] Hey, how about this argument fellows "Who needs a semi-automatic high powered rifle to hunt deer?"
Pack slow, fall stable, pull high, hit dead center.
They just don't get it.
jl45
You can buy meat?[:0]
Where? how?, all this time wasted hunting deer[:o)]
JuJu(saving up for some meat)
We Americans fought to keep our personal weapons at the time and should do so now as King George also said why do they need arms?
jl45
you said that so great! hope he uses it in that uneducated[:D] forum.
The problem is that a working knowledge does not give one a reply to what was said on the other thread. There is nothing in the Constitution which refers to any specific weapon. You can state that the reason for the 2cd amendement was to have an armed citizenry, one that was capable of military action. The amendment was not to for hunting or sport shooting. If you read the 2cd amendment it says : A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
In brief you need an armed citizenry to form a militia to protect any free state- state here not meaning a specific state but a general principle-- even if the protection is from our own government, either
state or federal. The right of the people to defend their "free state" depends on being armed.
If the right to be armed starts being limited you get the camel's nose problem. Once regulation begins it rarely stops.
Some idiot will then write, does that mean that we should have machine guns or cannons or tanks. The answer is why fear a law abiding citizen having a cannon? Most people do not go berserk with weapons, so what is the big deal?
But you cannot find the explination of the 2cd amendment in the Constitution, that has to come from the study of the times. Most people do not do that and if you try to explain what was really going on they just say that is your opinion. You cannot break through that level of stupid.
rcdis
I view the second amendment not as an enumeration of a right, but as a prohibition on the government. I view all of the amendments in this manner. Unfortunately, most read the amendments as a kind of guide, and the government can infringe on those rights enumerated, if the infringement is "reasonable". To me words mean something-and if the constitution says trhe government can not do something, that means, they can not do something.
Take the issue of the 1st amendment and religion. The congress is prohibited from establishing and prohibiting religion. A federal court says a school can not have prayer in the classroom, because it violates the first amendment. If you read the 1st amendment, you will see that it is impossible for a school district to violate the 1st amendment. You will also see, that prohibiting a school district from prayer is clearly a violation of the first amendment. But what do we hear about this violation? Well, the government isnt saying they cant pray, they are only saying they can not have organized prayer in school. THe government isnt saying you cant exercise religion, it isjust saying you cant do it in school. The first amendment does not say, that we can pray, but the government can decide when where and how it is appropriate. The 1st amendment prohibits the congress(feds) from getting involved with religious manners. The first amendment prohibits them from making these decisions.
There is no foot note at the bottom of the bill of rights/prohibitions, or in the constitution, that says these rights can be limited if it is "reasonable", or that the rights can be exercised, only if the government thinks these rights are appropriate. The whole point of the bill of rights was to remove the federal government from the business of rights all together-and now we have to prove why a right is necessary to the federal government, for the federal governments approval to exercise that right.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
_________________________________________________________
Sometimes, when someone is talking to me, my mind drifts off and I
start thinking about guns I'd like to own.
I did not have one.
I said nothing when they took our right to have a machine gun.
I did not have one.
I said nothing when they took our right to have an assault rifle.
I did not have one.
I said nothing when they took our right to have a handgun.
I did not have one.
OH MY GAWD...They are coming to take our HUNTING rifles.
Please will someone help me?
Why didn't somebody say something to stop this?
They have made it VERY clear that they want ALL your guns.
At what point WILL you say something?
The gene pool needs chlorine.
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Rugster
"Toujours Pret"
Two: A right is either a right or it is not. The Founders believed rights were given to us by God. Hence, only God can take away rights. Rights existed/exist before, in spite of, and whether or not a government exists. The purpose of government is to secure these rights.
Three: Rights cannot be compromised or they are not rights.
Four: Rights are not predicated on their utility. In other words, the right to keep and bear arms does not depend on what the particular arm is. It simply is a right.
Four: The left is deceptive. An "assault weapon" is a military weapon
with selective fire capability. Except for certain very strict
exceptions, these are not sold to the public anyway. So this
issue is a red herring.
Five: The Left uses this issue to get the real pro-gun people, not
the posers, to accept the notion that their rights can be
limited for utility, i.e., a 30-06 with a scope is better than
_______________(fill in the blank). They are deceiving you.
They could care less whether this or that firearm is better than
another for hunting anything. All they care about is getting you
to accept limits on utility.
Six: At the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, any weapon
owned by any America could have qualified as a "military style"
or "assault weapon." In fact, in the 1700s when England moved to
subjugate Scotland, they declared all weapons "military style"
and hence banned. These weapons included swords, knives, dirks,
firearms, etc...
Don't fall for this trick. They are not pro-gun, they lie. And a right does not depend on whether it is better for duck hunting or target practice.
P.S. Yeah, I'm hardcore Constitutionalists...just like the Founding
Fathers. Everyone should be!!!
His post;
On behalf of "Guys Like Me".. How many bullets does it take to kill something whether it be a deer or a man ?
I'm not for any more rules but your spouting off examples and laws and this and that doesn't convince me of any "NEED" to have any type of assult weapons. Why stop at assault weapons, why now have a 50 cal machine gun in every home ? There has to be a cut off point some where.
The second ammendment was been very abused in my opinion on both side of the spectrum. Keep in mind that back then when the constitution was written, all they had was muzzel loaders.
The way this topic is being presented reminds me of the reaction about the HOS... yes it does..LOL The sky is falling ..the sky is falling and I won't be able to get up... hehehehe
I don't know.. maybe its just me, but why would any body need to have a gun that carry's more then 6 shots anyhow...
I don't care one way or the other about gun shows, some people I've seen at them kind of scared me to be honest... The thought of some wacko with a AK47.. well there has been plenty of news stories about those guys.
And finally.... You keep bringing up the malitia... are you a member of one ? Do you think that any malitia would have a chance against the US Military..?
Look at Iraq, those people there are or would be equal to any malitia we could ever come up with... I guess what I've saying is, times have changed and the only way anybody is going to win any internal war would be politically. Vote Green Party
me again, atleast I can spell Militia[:D][:D]
It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.
Actually I am, and you are too whether you like it or not. The first continental congress defined the Militia as "every able bodied man and boy" and that "each home should be armed".
You did pay attention in history class didnt you?
quote:I don't know.. maybe its just me, but why would any body need to have a gun that carry's more then 6 shots anyhow
Lets see, if you only need one shot to kill a man or a deer as you put it then why to you need 6 shots, why not just one? You referenced that the 2nd ammendant was written during the time of muzzleloaders, well thats pretty much what the antis want, for us to own nothing but muzzle loaders. Lokk at the facts and you cant deny it.
quote:Keep in mind that back then when the constitution was written, all they had was muzzel loaders.
Ok, with that logic then only linotype printing presses and documents written with a quill pen are covered by the first ammendment.
quote:How many bullets does it take to kill something whether it be a deer or a man
The answer would be that it takes as many as it takes, the issue is not how many bullets it takes, the issue is our rights as guarranteed by the constitution. You fail to grasp that concept and continue to fall back on the capacity of the magazine.
quote:I'm not for any more rules but your spouting off examples and laws and this and that doesn't convince me of any "NEED" to have any type of assult weapons
Funny your spouting off about how rounds does it take to kill a man or deer doesnt convince me that you need a high powered SNIPER rifle like that bolt action 30-06 that is scoped. How far do you need to shoot to be able to kill man or a deer?
quote:I don't care one way or the other about gun shows, some people I've seen at them kind of scared me to be honest
All the more reason to be able to purchase any firearm we wish to own. Lots of bad people out there in the world today. So, since you dont care about Gun Shows the thousands of us who do are ir-rellavant, is that it, only your wants and needs are considered?
quote:The way this topic is being presented reminds me of the reaction about the HOS... yes it does..LOL The sky is falling ..the sky is falling and I won't be able to get up... hehehehe
I assume that was attempt at levity, sorry you need more practice. I fail to see the humour in any of this. If you think its all a big joke then I say again ask the folks in california. When CA first proposed the statewide band on SKS rifles, a semi-automatic firearm that only holds 10 rounds and which is over 50 years old they stated "There will be no confiscation , we just want to register them so we know how many there are". The folks said , oh thats fine then, the sky isnt falling so they approved it. 2 years later CA said, you know what, we dont want anybody to have one of those evil guns so they are now banned. You have 6 months to turn them in to authorities or we will arrest those who have them and we know who does because we had you register them 2 years ago. Sorry but the sky did fall on CA, perhaps your head is too dense to feel your rights caving in on you.
quote:The thought of some wacko with a AK47.. well there has been plenty of news stories about those guys.
Know what scares me more than that, the thought of some wacko with a high powered scopped 30-06 sniper rifle. Been plenty of stories about snipers on the news lately. Might need to write my senator and tell him while he is banning assault rifles he should ban those high powered scoped sniper rifles that can use military surplus ammo.
Oh too late, the proposed legislation, again look it up, has a provision that any weapon(thats any weapon, semi-bolt or single shot) that can fire military surplus ammo will be reviewed on a case by case basis to see if they should be banned as a sniper rifle.
Say goodbye to your precious 30-06 bolt gun, that evil sniper rifle, you know its capable of killing someone a mile away, it needs to be banned.
quote:I'm not for any more rules but your spouting off examples and laws and this and that doesn't convince me of any "NEED" to have any type of assult weapons. Why stop at assault weapons, why now have a 50 cal machine gun in every home ? There has to be a cut off point some where.
My goodness, you do live in a state of dellusion dont you. If examples and laws doesnt convince you then I would certainly hate to have you on a jury. What do you base your decisions on, a random throw of the dice or what? Your response to this issue is just like the liberals who want to erode our rights, are you a closet liberal?
Or perhaps you are one of those individuals who doesnt care what laws they pass as long as it doesnt affect you personally then you dont care what happens to anyone else.
quote:I am PRO GUN, but I do not see any use for any type of military style guns period
No your not, you are pro your guns, pro whatever it is you want to own. You could care less about anyone else wants. Yep you are a liberal in a pro-gun wolf suit.
quote: I guess what I've saying is, times have changed and the only way anybody is going to win any internal war would be politically
Finally something we agree on, to bad you wont help the real pro-gun crowd with their political war in trying to save our rights.
Oh well, I am truely going to enjoy seeing you post when "they" start talking about banning your bolt gun. It would be funny if it wasnt so sad and so close to occurring.
Its not paranoia if they really are out to get you, oh one more thing, Chicken Little was right --- The sky is falling, just open your eyes.
Have a good day
Keep up the great work - I for one, support you and all gun owners 100%.
John
My Prayer: Dear Lord, Please let me be the kind of person my dog thinks I am.........
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
For 7mmNut: I am glad you started this thread. There is a wealth of intelligence and knowledge among the members of this forum. The other posters made such good arguments that I am printing a copy of this thread to use in promoting the truth about the Second Amendment. Great job folks.
Welcome to the board.
JuJu(not normally this curt, but jeees)
JuJu(any decaf in the house)