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.

All your guns are belong to us!

FMJFMJ Member Posts: 25 ✭✭
Government buying back all guns for 50.00 dollars each starting January 1st. 2002.
«1

Comments

  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    FMJ- Details please.
    Happiness is a warm gun
  • FMJFMJ Member Posts: 25 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    just trying to raise an eye brow
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    You certainly raised mine. Dont scare me like that.
    Happiness is a warm gun
  • FMJFMJ Member Posts: 25 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    it could all happen just that qiuck. Support NRA . Vote Pro gun politicians into office.[This message has been edited by FMJ (edited 12-18-2001).][This message has been edited by FMJ (edited 12-18-2001).]
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    FMJ- It can happen, especially if you support the NRA
    Happiness is a warm gun
  • old single shotsold single shots Member Posts: 3,594
    edited November -1
    Salzo- If i shouldn't support the NRA, then who do you suggest? Handgun Control perhaps?
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    oldsingleshots- If you think that HANDGUN CONTROL is the only alternative to supporting the NRA, then continue contributing to the NRA, or switch to HANDGUN CONTROL. One will just get us to complete loss of gun rights faster than the other.
    Happiness is a warm gun
  • old single shotsold single shots Member Posts: 3,594
    edited November -1
    Salzo--You don,t seem to be a big fan of the NRA.Maybe for good reason, I don,t know.I will admit I don,t agree with ALL of their views but, what do we have that is better?I would really like to hear your thoughts on this.I know you and i are on the same side so i am willing to listen. Old ss
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    OldSingleShots- Ill try and be concise with my perspective.First off, I do not hate the NRA, I am actually a member.I do not blame them for their positions of compromise. They are trying to do the their best to preserve the second amendment. It is the American people who are the problem. It seems to me that the NRA is the one organization that considers the political reality of a gun issue, and they try and get the best deal, considering the political climate.This "compromise" is eventually going to be the down fall.A few examples:Rick Santorum, Senator of my state of Pennsylvania, gets an A plus rating from the NRA. The GOA gives Rick a C. The GOAS rating of Rick is certainly more accurate, but the GOA does not have the muscle of the NRA. So around election time, when all of the pro gun folks of Pennsylvania were deciding who to vote for in the Senate race, they looked to the NRA to tell them who was good, who was bad, who was ugly. The NRA told the people of Pennsylvania that Rick Santorum is an A plus candidate. Most gun owners would assume without actually looking at Santorums voting record, that he is progun, and pro second amendment. He is not. He just does not vote as often against the second amendment, but he does vote against the second amendment.So what does this false grading do? It allows Rick, with approval from the NRA, to continue to vote against the second amendment, and gun owners. The NRA has given him license to vote against guns, and still have incredible support from the NRA, and all of the gun owners of PA. The PA gun owners do not look to see how Rick votes, that is what the NRA is for, and they say he is swell.Now alot of people willl say that he is better than the alternative candidate, and that might be true. But that does not make him an A plus, because the other candidate is a true D or F. But I am not so sure the other candidate will be worse. Rick has us on a path towards loss of second amendment rights, but it is just slower than the "anti gun" candidate. With the compromising Rick has done, the left will get what they want with respect to annihilating the second amendment eventually. It will just take a little longer, but the left has patience.So tell Gun owners that Rick is actually a C. What will happen? Some of us hard core types will not vote for Rick. Rick can lose because the true second amendment supporters will not vote for Rick. If Rick wants to run again, he will have to seriously reconsider how he abandons the base of the party. He will have to come hard right.Republicans in general feel that they have to come to the middle, to get elected or stay in office. What they never seem to realize is that the members of the party who actually have strong convictions and principles, will not vote for the candidate just because he is in the same party. The result of this "coming to the middle" usually gets the other candidate elected. Withness the recent Governor race in New Jersey. Schundler came out as a conservative,pro gun and pro life. He had a descent amount of people supporting him. He decided to abandon his pro life and pro gun principles, to try and get voters from the left. What happend to Brett? He did not get the middle of the roaders, because they did not believe him,. and those on the right would not vote for him because of his flip flop. He would have been better off staying right, and drawing the middle roaders in, then go middle and lose not only the middle but also the right.
    Happiness is a warm gun
  • jeenyesjeenyes Member Posts: 330 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
  • SimpsonSimpson Member Posts: 13 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    My house, Mabe.........My dog, probably not........my guns, never.....
  • Judge DreadJudge Dread Member Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Its like a slow rape ...inch by inch getting it in until no ammo,no guns,no free speech and if you speak it amounts to "dung" ,let the other guy do it for you ,let the other guy DIE for you ,even our leaders are doing that ,let the Northen aliance fight for youlet the Curds fight for you ,and later treason, 600,000 civilian curds died in the hands of Sadam army soldiers ,america did nothing , Or YES ! they did The sanctions ! Over 1,000,000 civilian children have died for lack of medicine wile Sadam still builts the weapons and palaces ...And AMERICA DOES NOTHING ! Is that SOMETHING ?! AAAAAHHHHH! Took away the citisen guns in afganistan now the warlord soldiers can rape and pillage unstoped ,NO WONDER They want the TALIBAN BACK! ....
    _%_S
  • RugerNinerRugerNiner Member Posts: 12,636 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'm going to check into this closely. It sure wont hurt to belong to two groups, but I wish all 2nd Amendment groups would get together and fight as one. They could still stay independent and fight for our rights as a whole.
    Remember...Terrorist are attacking Civilians; Not the Government. Protect Yourself!
    Keep your Powder dry and your Musket well oiled.
    NRA Lifetime Benefactor Member.
  • B.C.B.C. Member Posts: 1 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I am new to this sight, but not to fighting for my rights! I simply want to say that the organizations hound you for $$$ after they receive your name and address, they all compromise to some degree also. I am discouraged with the whole bunch, but they are all we have at the moment! It is my belief that EDUCATION to society is the best tool, taking the time to talk one on one and educating all we come into contact with.
  • Zach21035Zach21035 Member Posts: 2 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thank you, Judge Dredd. Your coherent and intelligent commentary has been noted. I'm sure that if you delivered that speech on the nightly news, everyone in America would suddenly want to undo all the bans in place on weaponry. They'll feel safe knowing people like you have weapons. Really.
  • badboybobbadboybob Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Zack you will soon learn that judge dread does not speak coherently or logically. It's best to just ignore his tantrums.
    PC=BS
  • sans911sans911 Member Posts: 11 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I think maybe Zach was being a little bit facetious(sp)? Anyway, I support both the NRA and the GOA. I think they both help. GOA is a little more hard line, no compromise. The NRA seems to give a little at times. Between the two I think we do advance our position. Look at the recent court decisions.I also think that more pro gun people are elected because of them.
  • FightBack45FightBack45 Member Posts: 14 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Another organization to take a serious look at:


    "America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership"
    Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
    www.jpfo.org





    It never ceases to amaze me how any self-respecting Jew, or member of any other group who have been enslaved or been killed by the thousands, can be in favor of any laws or rules that restrict their ability to protect themselves and their families.
  • daddodaddo Member Posts: 3,408
    edited November -1
    fmj- you posted this a long time back, but looks as though it still works.
    I have'nt any guns worth $50.00. Maybe a plastic water gun. They better get more $$$$. On second thought they are'nt for sell.
  • n4thethrilln4thethrill Member Posts: 366 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    if you don't think it could happen look at Australia

    you can be king or street sweeper but everyone is going to dance with the reaper
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    My firearms are not for sale, nor will they ever be. I believe that under no circumstances should we negotiate with groups like The Brady Campaign to Undermind American Values, or whatever the hell they are calling themselves this week. To negotiate is to lose, to defeat is to win. Kind of makes you wonder what group of people Sarah Brady wants to exterminate, doesn't it??? With all the people who died at the hands of gun control, who does this witch have in mind???

    >>>DOWN WITH BRADY LEGISLATION!!!!!

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    -Gunphreak
  • Rob GreeneRob Greene Member Posts: 102 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Only fifty bucks?? No thank you. If I ever decide to sell my weapons I'll do it here at gunbroker.com. At least I'll get more than fifty bucks for them! By the way, where would the government get the money to do this? By raising our taxes? Talk about double jeporady!

    **It is your right to posess a firearm. In case of questions, please refer to ammendment 2, United States Constitution.**
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Raise our taxes... that's a good one. Almost as if they are wishing another Boston Tea Party.

    Too late to negotiate with them, too early to shoot the bastards....

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    -Gunphreak
  • White347LXWhite347LX Member Posts: 17 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:
    Raise our taxes... that's a good one. Almost as if they are wishing another Boston Tea Party.
    Death to Tyrants!!!

    -Gunphreak


    I heard on the radio today a neat little idea,
    "The King taxed us two weeks pay out of a year and we went to war with him, now we give 5 months pay to the federal government..."
  • carbinekingcarbineking Member Posts: 60 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'm with salzo, I personally think the NRA is doing almost as much harm as any anti-gun organization at destroying 2nd Amendment rights. I guess politicians need rich and powerful lobbyists either way though, and gun owners need some sort of lobbyist. I wonder if anything today would be different if that 1980s assassination attempt on President Reagan never took place?
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    My guess would be, "No." If it wasn't one thing, it would be another, and plenty of other things have happened that would lead others to believe guns are bad.

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    -Gunphreak
  • jimkanejimkane Member Posts: 1,534 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    when they come for my guns they can have its bullets first

    Live for Peace, prepare for War
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'll second that one....

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    -Gunphreak
  • hunter86004hunter86004 Member Posts: 1,222 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    First off, I'm a life member of the NRA. That said, what do all the anti gun groups and the NRA have in common? Answer: they all have lawyers. Is it the best interest of all these lawyers to get the Second Ammendment mess settled once and for all? Not if they want to keep their jobs! When was the last time the NRA gave enough legal talent or funds to guarantee that a strong case went to the Supreme Court? Surely in the last 50 years there was a case that would merit S.C. review, but everyone cites a machinegun case from the 30's. Would you need the NRA's ILA if the S.C. declared that we have a right to own any kind of gun we want as long as we were "law abiding, not crazy, a drug user, etc.". All state laws in conflict with their decision would become void. Now, you've got a zillion lawyers looking for some other blood in the water. Sorry boys, I've watched the NRA and the gun manufacturers sell us down the river in '68 and I don't see anything on the horizon that would indicate that the NRA does much more in the legal field than they did then. They just want more in pledges.
  • dads-freeholddads-freehold Member Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    greetings, sorry guys, salzo and hunter86004 are on solid ground here , the nra has a vested interest here, they make millons , (maybe billions) and they can't get a case before the high court? no they keep their jobs by agitation not by a definitive win. their compromising is the hand writing on the wall. respt submitted dads-freehold

    rodney colson
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    That's correct. Meanwhile, on the HCI/AGS/VPC front, they have all the same types of lawyers, plus propagandists and elitist backing to rid our country of handguns. One thing those hypocrits fail to mention is that they DO want guns, just not in our hands, that's all. While the Feds and Law Enforcement, well, the dirty ones, anyway, tell you registration is essential to solving crimes in forensics (truth is that is it one of the most useless tools used in apprhension of a violent criminal, because most firearms used by criminals are STOLEN, or the person was apprehended, meaning the use of registration is not near as important as fingerprints or witnesses), the Brady Campaign to Undermine American Values, or whatever the hell they are calling themselves this week, tell the truth on why registration is a good thing. Ask the subjects, I mean people from the Sozialist Republik of Kalifornia why registration is used. Those who complied with the law will tell you why. Because, like the gun-grabbers hoped, it led to confiscation from a class of people who abide by the laws. Somehow, punishing citizens for the acts of criminals is like killing the pig because he might have seen the fox entering the hen house.


    Gun control isn't about guns. It's about control.

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    -Gunphreak
  • AtmusAtmus Member Posts: 3 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    never did i think i would see a Zerowing refference in a guns forum...

    who knows, maybe the govt wants the guns 'For great justice'
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    What "Great Justice" would that be???

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    -Gunphreak
  • AtmusAtmus Member Posts: 3 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:
    What "Great Justice" would that be???


    None, actually... but the thread title 'All your guns are belong to us' is a play off of an old sega game, that was horribly translated from Japanese... so much so that many forms of 'All your base are belong to us' (the original quote) have been used on the net for years. 'Do it for great justice' and 'someone set us up the bomb' are others
  • Rifleman.308Rifleman.308 Member Posts: 101 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    This may get me shot full of holes, but now that I've posted more than 15 times I feel I can pass on my world view.

    MY belief (that being this one man's belief), is that the government will never succeed, legally or practically, in taking the guns of the populace. Our representatives can enact laws limiting certain facets of ownership but creative citizens will always find legal ways around those laws. The assault weapons import ban of 1989 and the "evil features" assault weapon ban of 1994 are perfect examples. Just open a Shotgun News or go to GunBroker and see how many now "illegal" guns, magazines, etc., are available for legal purchase.

    Certain battles can be expected to be lost, such as the ban on private ownership of Class 3 weapons without full registration. I, for one, don't need a machine gun, because my semi-auto knockoffs of full-auto military rifles would do the trick just fine, should push come to shove.

    The problem with the doomsayers is that they GENERALLY (i.e., not in every case, but often) fail to take into account the sheer number of privately held firearms in this country. Consider that number (hundreds of millions?) in relation to the number of police officers and weapons they have on hand. (For the record, I have family members who are officers and very good friends who are officers, and I know for a fact that they would quit before enforcing any law which would require them to take all guns from the citizens they are sworn to protect.) Taking into account such debacles as Waco, Ruby Ridge, the L.A. bank shootout, it is obvious that the number of LE personnel it takes to take down one, two, or even a handful of determined, armed citizens (or criminals, as the case may be) presents a ratio that indicates the job can't be done by domestic LE alone. Who do you think would win?

    That leaves the military. Absent a full-fledged insurrection, the chance that politicians will vote to amend our basic constitutional framework, so as to deploy the military to go house-to-house to disarm the populace, is exceedingly small. Am I saying that the National Guard has never leveled arms at citizens? No. What I am saying is that our representatives are, first and foremost, political animals. They recognize that gun owners, as an identifiable segment of the population, are far stronger politically and in spirit than those groups who have been gunned down by the National Guard (i.e., hippie college students, allegedly "wacked out" religious groups, etc.) in the past. With some exceptions, politicians respect the resolve and "teeth" of individual gun owners. This country will have to be torn apart before our government will ever send the military into the cities to disarm the populace.

    What is left? The only way the population could be disarmed would be if the population voluntarily gives up its arms. Hence, the lead entry on this thread claiming a buy-back. If gun ownership were made illegal, would you give up your guns? The politicians, believe it or not, are smart enough to know that passing a law that will never be honored is worse than passing no law at all. Furthermore, much is said about the U.S. Supreme Court not weighing in on the Second Amendment for the last 70 years. The fact is that, if it were to do so, it would recognize that the reference to "the People" in the Second Amendment must be construed in accord with its many prior rulings over the last 70 years, clarifying that "the People" referenced in all of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights means the INDIVIDUAL citizens of the United States. In short, absent abandonment of the rule of stare decisis (meaning a later court's respect for a prior court's ruling on a legal principle) the Second Amendment is fundamentally safe. Again, it would take a widespread domestic insurrection or war on American soil before the politicians and courts of the land would veer so radically. The only people who would voluntarily give up their guns are the law abiding citizens, and the likelihood that the citizenry as a whole would, by law, be required to do so is slim to none.

    Nonetheless, I still promote voting, and I still promote membership in an organization to anyone who will listen. I do so because the so-called "fringes" of the Second Amendment are becoming tattered. I enjoy semi-automatic rifles and handguns. I have never committed a crime with one nor do I intend to. I therefore should not have my right to own such firearms taken away because some criminal has not shown the same respect for the law that I have shown. How many rounds my gun will shoot, and what the thing looks like, are not, in my opinion, something that should be legislated. Laws which seek to accomplish these purposes, however, should not be viewed as an attempt to ban all gun ownership, nor should they be viewed as a credible foreshadowing that such a ban is likely. I believe that Sarah Brady and her friends know this, and that's why you haven't seen any major anti-gun legislation in almost ten years. She's shot her wad, so to speak, and organizations like the NRA and GOA have rallied in the individual states.

    After all this wind, what's my point? If you like semi-auto firearms, then use the legal processes of voting and group membership to enhance your voice in your government. If your focus is on preventing the government from taking your guns, you're wasting your time. It's not gonna happen.

    But, that's just my opinion. As Lee says, tell me if you think I'm wrong. I won't be offended.



    Edited by - Rifleman.308 on 08/02/2002 12:16:49

    Edited by - Rifleman.308 on 08/02/2002 15:04:38
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Rifleman,

    No, I'm not going to shoot you full of holes, or anything you say, for that, matter. I will, in fact, agree with you on every point.

    But while doing so, you are aware there are certain people within our country that have been brainwashed into believing guns are evil, and others that want to keep the normal people, like most of us, in our place. By fixing non-existing problems, like "assault weapon" bans, hi-capacity mag bans, and any other legislation, their intent should be fully displayed.

    Whether they'll ever get away with it, that's another story.

    Watch the UN, too. Their policies would have us all turning them in, and as long as our country continues involvement with them, we are not out of the woods, yet.

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    -Gunphreak
  • Gordian BladeGordian Blade Member Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    gunphreak, well put. Also, remember that the anti-gun groups are smart enough to remember the old saying, "Softly, softly, catchee monkey." They go after one small segment of the gun owners at a time, and many of the others say, "Well, they're not taking away the kind of guns I like."
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Exactly. We turn a blind eye to this, it will come to bite us hard.

    Anti-gunners will not rest until all of them are gone except criminals and military/law enforcement have them. Of course, they'll still be there, but we, as people, won't have them. Once a law is made, getting it off the books is next to impossible.

    Anti-gunners demonize all guns, also. All actual assault rifles are nothing but trouble in the wrong hands, semi-auto paramilitary guns are assumed to be machine guns, due to their appearance, handguns are the favored tools of drive-bys, robberies, and violent criminals, bolt action rifles are sniper weapons, short barreled shotguns are weapons of destruction, long shotguns cause hunting accidents, and .22s are the most dangerous, because you wouldn't suspect them of being capable of killing someone. Anti-gunners also demonize gun owners, like all of us, and dare put us in the same categories as terrorists, criminals, rapists, thieves and otherwise abusive people.

    On our side, all we ever do is demonize antigunners for being idiots who apparently watch too much TV and do too many drugs. We demonize the famous movie actors/actresses, politicians, and activists, because they are hypocrits. Dianne Feinstein of the Sozialist Republik of Kalifornistan, a well-versed anti-gunner, who says she will always fight for the removal of firearms of all types in society, is also the same Dianne Feinstein who is, herself a concealed carry permit holder in Kalifornistan. How about Sarah Brady of HCI, who we all know is doing her part to eliminate guns of all types from society, also, bought a high powered rifle with scope for her son for Christmas in 2000. Rosie O'Donnell, who plays on our alleged stupidity to pump us full of garbage, who knows absolutely nothing about the true history of our country, who with her own sleight of hand writes things as she goes along, who believes all guns are bad, yet she has hired armed bodyguards to protect herself and her family.

    Why??

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    -Gunphreak
  • lokdok1lokdok1 Member Posts: 383 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I wanted to say everything you guys just said, but I didn't, because of my unfortunate rhetorical bankruptitudity.

    Bartman
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The truth is like a virus. Once it spreads, it is impossible to cure, and with truth being widespread, like an epidemic, those malefactors we call politicians will seek at all costs to "cure" it.

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    -Gunphreak
Sign In or Register to comment.