No Way Obama GDG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M Remington

Bob, I don't think we've been in any danger of losing our 2nd Amendment rights.

I don't consider background checks an infringement, I don't consider registering guns as an infringement, I don't think banning assault weapons is an infringement, I don't think banning armor piercing ammunition is an infringement. I would call those common sense laws.

And Patrick. . no, I'm not from Austin. I'm an outdoorsman and a gun owner. But, I see no need for uzis and banana clips.

---

While fully automatic assault style weapons are already under strict control the the jump from assault weapon to my duck gun is going to be next. then my hands guns then long rifles and then what ever is left. Myself, I dont want a semi auto AK-47 but I dont wish any law abiding citizen have the right to legally own one taken away. I would much rather the lowlife thug that use them to harm someone and the liberal judges that let them go free actually get put away for a long time. How about mandatory 25-50 years to any POS that uses a gun while committing a crime. Why punish law abiding responsible folks for the actions of a few.

During my quarter century as a cop, I NEVER encountered any fully automatic weapons, except those that my and various other agencies had for their SWAT teams. No legally held fully auto weapon has ever been used in a crime. The people who can legally own them are not going to do anything to jeopardize their ownership...They were regulated by the Gun control Act of 1936, so thats a record of long standing. I never encountered an armour piercing bullet on the street either.

IF you read some of the definitions of 'assualt weapons' they can cover my Ruger 10-22 or my 1100. It depends on whether some rabid anti gunner like Charlie Schumer is doing the defining.

Some of the definitions of 'armour piercing' ammo cover any bullet capable of piercing a cops soft body armour. Not only does that include military AP but some loads for my .44 S&W and most ammo for rifles used to hunt whitetails, moose, bears etc.

The use of assault weapons and AP ammo was never an issue or concern with me. I always much more worried about a punk with a .25 or an old single barrel break top popper gun that was sawed off.

I believe that if you can pass the background checks and want to own a bazooka, or machine gun or a Tiger Tank and use it for lawful purposes, thats OK with me. When the Charlie Schumers and Barbara Boxers take those away I am sure they will eventually come for my over and unders.


FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS

The same or similar analogies could be applied to most types of government infringement (LAWS) .The laws relating to the operation of a motor vehicle are prime examples.

Driving is a privilege my a$$ regards

john

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john fallon

The same or similar analogies could be applied to most types of government infringement (LAWS) .The laws relating to the operation of a motor vehicle are prime examples.

Driving is a privilege my a$$ regards

john

---

Just waiting for helmet laws for cars. Speed governed to 60 MPH, built in breathalizer. Hands free this regards.

The 2nd amendment does not cover motor vehicles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M Remington

So if we follow your logic, does the ACLU protect basic freedoms, as well?

---

I am a white, conservative, Christian, heterosexual and male…not sure the ACLU offers or cares much for me....as a matter of fact I think the ACLU is more about destroying my civil liberties.

So the answer to your question is no...you would have to twist my logic to arrive that conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun_Dog2002

Perhaps you should heed the warning on the label....



/Paul

---

label of what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Gutermuth

The 2nd amendment does not cover motor vehicles.

---

No Bob but the Bill of rights should/does cover it under the unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

john

Votin' freedom first. Semper Fi regards.

Hey Pat answer me this please, why is it that when the Republicans or the Democrats carry on and say they will protect your rights such as the right of free speech you all go crazy and applaud them for being such good civil libertarians but when somebody chooses to exercise that rightlike say to demonstrate at say a National Convention there called extremists or loons. The point is EVERYBODY has those rights, not just the ones you might agree with.