Gun issues IF Dems gain control?

AZBuckSnort

AZBuckSnort

Very Active Member
Messages
1,075
If the Democrats gain control of the HOR &/or the Senate, what does it bode for gun owners and gun control issues?

Does a Nancy Pelosi (D-CA, San Francisco) led Congress make a move on writing stiffer gun control measures?

Does a Senate with Charles Shummer (The camel's nose is finally under the tent!), John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy and maybe a Harold Ford (all with well-earned F's from the NRA) and without George Allen, Jim Talent, Bill Frist (he's not running for re-election; however that seat is in jeapordy), & Conrad Burns (all A's from the NRA)make bold moves to contriol firearms through registration, new taxes, etc.?

What do you MM members think?
 
.........that the sky is not falling. There are some good reps but I refuse to vote party lines just because the NRA says so. Has the NRA ever given a democrat anything other than an F?
 
The NRA said if Clinton got elected our guns were as good as gone, after two terms I still have all of mine. the constitution will still be there to protect gun owners no matter who's elected.
 
"Has the NRA ever given a democrat anything other than an F?"

Yes, AZ Governor Janet Napolitano earned a B- and the opponent of the incumbent HOR District 3 candidate earned an A-.

So you believe that gun owners will be better off, better served, & more secure in their 2nd Ammendment rights with a Democrat majority House and Senate? Is that your stance and your sticking with it? If so, explain how, I'm curious?
 
Huntindude;

If you believe the "Constitution" will be there to protect your guns with a Dem. controlled congress, you are hiding your head in the sand. They have inacted so many laws already that it has poked holes into that "Constitution" it now looks like swiss cheese. Just pull your head out of the sandpile and look around to see how certain firearms have been restricted. They now even attack the ammunition and restrick it. There are major cities where it is nearly impossible to have a firearm in your business. There are cities and states that make it almost impossible for even a out of state police officer to be armmed.
The Dems in my state even tried a end run that would have banned semi-auto hunting rifles in my state, NRA helped us to get that thrown out AFTER IT HAD BEEN INACTED AS LAW.
Yea! You got your guns today, but keep on hanging with the liberal dems and you will not have them later, unless you do not mind becoming a OUTLAW by hiding them when the troopers come knocking on your door like they did in New Orleans.
What do all these anti gun laws have in common, even though they are spread out among the Federal, state, local areas? They were written by Dems and passed by anti gun Democrats 99 % of the time. Now those Dems. are members in congress with the same agenda they had while holding office in a state or local district.
Or have you not heard what the Dems are now saying about our Constitution, about it having been written over 200 years ago and it needs to be changed to keep up with the modern times. I will let you guess which amendment they want thrown out first or changed. If you guess the 2nd. amendment, you are right.

RELH
 
RELH you ought to know with your experiences with law enforcement no matter what happens criminals will have guns-I guess I'll just be a criminal.
 
D,

All I'm saying is the NRA will always want you to vote R. There are extremes on both sides that we need to watch out for. Make me a list of Dems that want to take away the 2nd amendment completely and I will promise you I will never vote for them. Just don't use the NRA or Bush as a reference, they are a little biased.
 
Zigga,

"Has the NRA ever given a democrat anything other than an F?"

Yes as a matter of fact several. The one I'm most familiar with was Charlie Stenholm. He was the Rep. from north-west Texas for many years. The NRA always gave him a "A" but I really think based on his voting record he should have had a "C".

The leaders of the current Democratic Party have said in many ways and many different times they plan to outlaw as many firearms as they can as soon as they can.

VOTE your heart, it matters.

Phantom Hunter
 
I'm not concerned at all. The House will probably be in the Dems control after Tues but the Senate will likely be 51(R)-49(D). I'm more worried about the condition and availablity of our public lands and natural resources than I will ever be of losing my guns. I guess if I lived in a state like CA where there is an active, vocal anti-gun crowd I'd think differently. Just my 2 cents.

"Whatever you are, be a good one."
- Abraham Lincoln
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-03-06 AT 08:55AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-03-06 AT 08:54?AM (MST)

As Sarah Brady stated

"This is the opportunity we have been looking for"


You bet your ass if the dems control the house and senate there will be more and more gun control measures being brought up every day.



When will ya'll FOOLS wake up - DMAN, ZIGGA, T, huntindude
 
The NRA gave a A to NM govenor Richardson which is a DEM.

So yes some DEM are not anti-gun but make your way to Washington and that is where Kennedy, Pelosi, and Clinton take over.

There has only been one Dem stand up against that group and there voting habits. And everyone knows what happened - the Dems have shunned him.

If the Dems would not be so far left it makes you sick. Siding with Sorros, Clinton, Kennedy, Pelosi then I might be more in the middle - But come on guys.

Do you guys really agree with the Dem party with those people running things and telling other Dems to vote with them or they are out?
 
Don't get me wrong I know there are many who would take every gun away even muzzle loaders but the mind set that any gun law passed is the begining of the end would be the same as saying if they take away crack your prescription drugs will be next. many Americans want tighter gun laws and the republicans will drift that way sooner or later if that's what the polls tell them to do. the only way to win this is to change the minds of voters who are on the fence about guns by letting go of things like armor piercing bullets and assult weapons a little bit at a time so we don't look like a bunch of idiots. go ahead and hold to the " give'em an inch and they'll take a mile " attitude and they will take a mile, that you can count on. because in the end it isn't the democrats or the republicans running the show it's the American voters and the anti gunners will out vote us someday if we give them reason to.
 
>>the mind set that any gun law passed is the begining of the end would be the same as saying if they take away crack your prescription drugs will be next.

Dude,

Your logic is flawed, crack is already illegal.

Any law restricing gun ownership is a step in the direction of making law abiding gun owners criminals.

California required registration of their verison of "assult weapons" years back promissing not to require turning them in. A few years after, guess what...turn in all your SKS detachable box magazine rifles.

Gun laws do nothing but restrict freedom. What makes people think that gun laws will convince criminals to turn in their guns ?

Here's a great quote from a Democrat on gun ownership:

"On CBS's "60 Minutes" on February 5, 1995, Senator Dianne Feinstein declared, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright [firearms] ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it." "
 
Whaaaaa,Whaaaaaaahhhh!!!! Booohoooooooooohooohoooo -friggidy friggin hooooooo!!!!

Clinton didn't touch my guns, that's all I know. You're going to have to do better than that.
 
Dman,

>>Clinton didn't touch my guns, that's all I know.

Do you remember the Crime Bill, signed into law by President Clinton on 13 September 1994 ? The pre-ban/post ban fiasco ? That came about during President Clinton's Administration.

>>You're going to have to do better than that.

How's this:

"Under the Clinton administration, BATFE began creating computerized records of the forms from retired dealers. This computer database violates the 1986 law against creation of gun-owner registries"

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200401270928.asp
 
Another moronic piece of Bush legislation. The DC sniper case was solved in large part due to that Clinton legislation. I for one am skeptical of anyone who is afraid to put their name down as owning a particular weapon, it makes it look like you are hiding something.

"And, the Bill banned the manufacture of 19 specific types of deadly assault weapons, while simultaneously protecting hunters' rights by exempting over 650 hunting rifles."

-quote on Clinton Crime bill. If you read, it actually protects the use of specific hunting weapons legally. Just two weeks ago during modern deer season I heard automatic gunfire during the day several different times. I also know of other incidents where elk and deer were fired upon with these weapons, shot over 50 times with .50 cal. fire. If you are going to tell me that the right to do that should be protected under hunting firearms laws, I will take exception.
 
Great debate - I don't think we will have a whole lot to worry about. It is darn hard to overturn a constitutional ammendment.
The current Supreme Court is not one to change the constitution and does trend to literal interpretation on most cases, especially on gun ownership. Remember the San Fran gun ban? They CA. superior court shot it down in a hearbeat. Not even a very strong descenting opinion. They knew it would just be a waste of time if it went further up.

http://www.stopsanfranban.com/

UTROY
Proverbs 21:19 (why I hunt!)
 
Dman, so you believe the laws passed down during the clinton admin. will protect your hunting rifles. I may be more of an expert on that then you.
I am one of those ex-firearms dealers that submitted my records to ATF as required by law when I quit gunsmithing. I remember the head of ATF telling congress that they would not be complying a computerized list of the firearms sold and to who they were sold too. This came about because NRA backed Repubicans were fearful that ATF was compling data records in the event they needed to confiscate those firearms in the future. You can see the gov. does not trust you to turn in your firearms if they pass laws banning them, they want the list when they come knocking. Anyway, the Clinton appointed head of ATF stated to congress in a open hearing that no record would be complied and the dealer records would be distroyed after 30 days.
Well here comes the lie catcher. While conducting a major theft of numerous firearms from a citizen, he was unable to provide me with detailed information on his gun collection so that I could enter them into the NCIC computer as stolen firearms hoping for them to show up later in a check by a patrol officer. The citizen did tell me that he had purchased about ten of the guns from a sporting goods store that had went out of business about 2 years prior to the theft.
I made phone contact with ATF in Wash. D.C. and talked to a sweet southern voice by the name of Betty Lou. I explained my problem, she assured me that was no problem. I received a fax that contained copies of the dealer record of sales for every firearm that citizen had bought from that "Out if Business" sporting goods store. I not only got the serial numbers I needed, but a full detailed description of every gun including barrel lenght. Now you know why I do not TRUST certain persons in our goverment that lie to people like you every day to make you believe what they want you to believe while they are preparing to take away your guns.
As for protecting your hunting rifles, they were protected also in CA. until a slick bill writing expert wrote out a new description that was supposed to pertain to only "ASSAULT WEAPONS" for his Dem. leader who sponsered the bill for adoption. The description was so vague that no one caught it until Gov. Gray Davis, another Dem. signed it into law. The NRA took a look at it and discovered that the description would also include any centerfire semi-auto rifle that has a detachable mag. That would include the Browning, Rem. 7400 and several other hunting rifles. This law was only reversed or changed after a write in by numerous county sheriff's that stated they felt it was not needed and would not aid in crime prevention. I was the one who wrote the letter for my sheriff and it was sent in to the state attorney general. Do you still believe there is not a underhanded conspiracy out there to take away your hunting firearms by dems in our government. I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee before you make a serious mistake by hiding your head in the sand. I do not give a damn if you vote for a Dem. you just need to be sure that the one you vote for is not lying to you about taking away some of your freedoms that you enjoy. I do the same no matter what party they belong to. I am Rep. but have voted for some Dems in the past, but they were far and few because of their party agenda and if they catered to it.

RELH
 
Zigga..

"All I'm saying is the NRA will ALWAYS (my emphasis) want you to vote R".

In WY the NRA has endorsed, for reelection, the current Deomocratic govenor.

You just lost what little credibility you had.!!

from the "Heartland of Wyoming"
 
Though Roy may be correct for now, I do think that our greatest fear comes from the courts. Liberal judges appointed by Democrats could very well be the demise of private gun ownership in America.
 
Look, for starters being long winded does not an expert make. Secondly, really not trying to be rude, but between the run -ons and typos you lost me. As far as who's head is in the sand, it's been the Bush plan for the North American union, which calls for a replacement governing doc for the constitution just to correct your phrase about Democrats pursuing that end -not accurate. I do also know that it would not hurt my feelings if ALL auto and semi auto RIFLES were banned. Real hunters can hunt without them and no Democratic president in recent times has threatened to take away manually loaded hunting rifles and as an "expert" in local hunting and fishing legislation, it's just not on anyone's agenda either. These freak everyone out scare tactics just don't work on the informed. I sit through conference after conference every month on these issues at the government level and what you state about some kind of conspiracy is just not accurate with regard to the Democratic party. I count several Democratic and Republican senators, governors and representatives among my acquaintances and friends.
 
With everything in the world as screwed up as it is I wouldn't worry about either party putting gun control at the top of their list. Bush will leave the next president and congress with plenty to occupy their time.
 
kilbuc,

Please give us some information on the Democrat's opponent. He or she must have been a real doozy. Also, let us know how much money the NRA gives Reps compared to dems. I am a little shocked that they have anything to do with a dem. Thanks for the correction.
 
Dman,

Apparently you've never cooked frogs.

Your boast that you are friends with several senators, governors and kings just knocked you down a few more notches on my campfire invite list.

The second ammendment has nothing to do with hunting. Including hunting in a gun rights argument is a red herring.

JB

I recommend to all retiring FFL holders to have unfortunate office fires.
 
>> Another moronic piece of Bush legislation.

President Bush legislation ? What are you talking about ?

>> The DC sniper case was solved in large part due to that Clinton legislation.

How did President Clinton's legislation solve that ?

You have no idea what you are talking about.

>> "And, the Bill banned the manufacture of 19 specific types of deadly assault weapons, while simultaneously protecting hunters' rights by exempting over 650 hunting rifles."

Hmmm, so it's ok to ban some weapons ? How is a semi-automatic, magazine fed, flash supressor, bayonet luggled weapon any more "deadly" than a "hunting rifle" ?

You are spouting the anti-gun mantra.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.


>>Just two weeks ago during modern deer season I heard automatic gunfire during the day several different times.

So...what does this mean ?

>>I also know of other incidents where elk and deer were fired upon with these weapons, shot over 50 times with .50 cal. fire.

Are you saying someone used an automatic or a ".50 cal" to shoot a bunch of Elk and Deer ? I'm pretty sure that's already illegal, so why do we need more laws ?

>>If you are going to tell me that the right to do that should be protected under hunting firearms laws, I will take exception.

You've lost it Dman. Did I or anyone here say anything of the sort ?
 
Dman;

You have lost total credibility as far as I am concerned. You are not a dupe as I first believed. I have come to the conclusion that you are so far in left field that you are just part of the problem along with the likes of Kerry, Clinton, Boxer, Feinstein and a host of others that would deprive us of our rights.
I will never again reply to any of your posts, due to the fact you will not accept any facts that may disagree with your opinion. You change subjects, and beat around the bush when confronted with the naked truth.

Addios and good riddance.

RELH
 
It's my opinon that any Dem. in control will stiffen gun control or eliminate guns completly!!! And they will go after hunting.


That's just my opinon..... But who am I?
 
What's an "assault rifle"? Don't we already have very clear restrictions on fully automatic firearms? If by "assault rifle" you mean a firearm that looks "military" or is predominately black in cosmetic configuration and color, well, the appearance of the firearm shouldn't be a factor in determining it's legitimate sporting uses and, therefore, the public's right to own and use the same.

Armor piercing ammunition is already controlled and many states clearly prohibit their use for hunting. If you're refering to controlled expansion projectiles like the Fail Safe of Triple Shocks, I suppose some "well-meaning pol" just might label them as "cop killers", rather than superior bullets for big game hunting that most of us would call them.
 
There are 2 concepts that sportsmen need to recognize and appreciate in order to preserve gun ownership rights as well as our hunting heritage.
1) Policy changes incrementally. The Second Amendment won't be overturned, it will just be whittled down a little at a time.
2) Party affilitation means less and less. Don't rely on a party to preserve gun ownership rights or heritage. Take our Congressman Otter, for example. He'll vote to keep your gun rights but turn around and privatize your public land; and the NRA endorses him!!
 
That's nearly the only intelligent post I've seen on this thread, that isn't BS and partisan propaganda. Party affiliation doesn't have anything to do with it. This whole post is flawed in logic, I wouldn't pretend to try to change the mind of the synaptically challenged. RELH, I haven't seen you on this site until recently, you don't seem very productive, other than to bash others opinion constantly when it does not jive with yours, or throw your ego around. You've made your share of extraordinary boasts yourself, as far as that goes. As far as losing any credibility, you won't heart my feelings, I just don't agree with your politics. Partisanship has been driving this country apart for the last several years and I'm tired of it. People like you AZ and D13r just contribute to this problem and if you don't post to my threads, I'll be just fine with it! My one, informed point was that I do personally know people who would be the "Dems taking guns away" and it is just not true, end of story.
 
One last thing on this. A lot of you on this thread feel you've got all your ducks in a row on this topic. Having some experience with politics I can tell you that it is blowing your own foot off to take up a hard stance against any party, rather that trying to work with them first, though I know that is contrary to the philosophy of the current admin that we have become used to. I guarendamtee you that if the Dems took over house/ senate and thoughtfull people were to come forward with common sense gun initiatives that didn't rob people of ownership they would be listened to. You would be dismissed completely however with some of the positions taken on this thread and rightfully so. Just yesterday I was at a friend of mine's large gun shop (buying a S&W 9mm for my wife) and he is not at all concerned about any major changes, because he knows better.
 
D,

I think the fine art of debate may be lost on you, but, just in case there's a last, tiny thread of life of it left within you, explain or describe please the last firearm restrictive legislation offered up by a conservative member of the republican party? For that matter, please enlighten all here of the last piece of firearm restrictive legislation offered up by a conservative democrat?

It's easy to bash, heckle, insult, skewer, & denegrate others of a different opinion, or perceived opinion. Look, you did it to me just because I posted this thread. You have failed to offer any kind of thoughtful response. You assumed my post was written to incite or illicite a particular response, well sir, it was not. Try re-reading the serious questions I originally posted and perhaps a thoughtful response may leap from your angry mind.

I kinda thought my questions were similar to ones that might be posed if a group of us were sitting around a campfire in a deer camp somewhere discussing the upcoming elections. In reality, it appears if you were there, I guess the discussion would deteriorate rapidly in to a name calling spectacle with you stomping off to call one of your political buddies to report our conversation to the office of Homeland Security and claim we were in violation of some provision of the Patriot Act!

Thoughtful posts offering up honest opinions and /or clear statements of facts are always going to be received, at minimum, with respect, and perhaps even adopted. Pointing fingers with an air of superiority make you look, well.....silly.

Jim
 
Dman, you say if the Dems take over the house and senate and thoughtfull people come forward with common sense gun initiatives that didn't rob people of ownership they would be listened to.

Do you honestly believe the Dems have or will ever come forward with anything that has a thoughtful or positive and common sense approach on gun issues or initiatives that will not take away guns from law abiding people? They are so extremly bent on their agenda to have complete gun control over the people they can't think of anything that has to do with common sense and this has shown since Clinton was president.To be that blind is troubling.
The common sense initiatives have always come from the other side because they know what will work and what will not. The Dems believe that no guns mean no crime. Just look at the UK and Australia and question their "common sense." The Dems approach is no different.

And for those who don't think the NRA does that much for us?
Here is a quote from Bill Clinton refering to the failure in the 1994 elections?

"The fights I fought...cost a lot. The fight for the assault weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress.
The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the house." 1/14/95

Hmmmmmm. Guess that meant gun owners were afraid of something and there was enough of them to do something about fighting for their 2A rights.






"RKBA....ALL THINGS CONSIDERED"
 
I think the Democrats will sponsor a smorgasbord of anti-gun initiatives if given the chance. What might be in the mix? How about something to rescind or weaken the protection for firearms manufacturers, the "protection of lawful commerce" law or whatever it was called that protects firearms companies from frivolous but expensive law suits that seek to level financial responsibility on them for firearms used in crimes? How about a new ban on "assault rifles?" How about some kind of limitation on rate of purchasing fire arms -- one firearm maximum per month or whatever?

No informed person believes there remains any "low hanging fruit" gun control laws remaining to be harvested. No person who long analyzes experience believes, I think, that additional gun control laws at this point materially promote public safety. Sponsoring gun control legislation is Democratic posing, playing to their constituency. Of course they will enact further gun control laws, the more the merrier. No question.

Because in my view there is no "low hanging fruit" gun control laws remaining to be harvested -- the no brainer laws have all been enacted already -- any additional laws are just further constrictions, enfeeblements, and waterings down of our second amendment rights. I'm not sold on ANY new gun control laws, and it doesn't matter whether these new gun control laws are directed to weapons I have no interest in or use for, I'm against them. Enforce the laws on the books and there will be plenty of authority to control criminals.

Relative to shooting a game animal 50 times with a .50 cal . . . this sounds unbelievable to me. The only .50 cal rifle I know of is the BMG and it costs how much per round, $5? Someone is going to burn $250 pouring .50 cal BMG rounds into an elk? Someone has a shoulder that can sustain firing 50 rounds of .50 cal BMG? Nevertheless, "wanton waste" laws have been enacted by some states which would provide an effective legal means to punish those who would perform such an unlikley act.
 
Gun control is just stupid any way you slice it. As an American I should be able to own any kind of gun I want. If I want an M1A1 I ought to be able to buy it.
 
"thoughtfull people were to come forward with common sense gun initiatives ". Isn't this an oxymoron? What further gun initiatives are needed? Criminals are not forced to adher to
"initiatives". Only the law abiding honest gun owners adher to
these laws that democrats yes the democrats try to stuff down our throats. Read Feinstein, Pelosi, Kennedy et al.
 
As I stated, Clinton's 1994 legislation protecting the use of over 600 firearms, while banning relatively few assault weapons is exactly what I'm referring to. I took up hunting during the Clinton era, so he must have been doing somewhat of an OK job in not restricting firearms to the extreme. I disagree with the statement that you can "control, or regulate" people's actions as a reason to still put in to production fully automatic weapons for mainstream use. It is fairly difficult to make from scratch or for the common thug to buy from overseas an automatic rifle. As far is pistols go, I think most of us know you can make one from scratch relatively easy, so there would be no point to banning them -not the case with fully auto rifles. I would say though, that I would not support any type of restricting legislation on bolt action or lever action hunting rifles ever.
 
202,
It's guys like you who are the reason we can't own any type of gun we want.


Just kidding.....sort of.
 
Thats OK Dude. I thought that was funny.
I just do not see how banning any gun is going to keep them out of the hands of criminals. After all is that not who gun control should be aimed at? Honest hard working folks like you and I should not be punished due to the actions of some criminal.
I really don't believe a civilian should own an M1A1. I just said it for shock effect. LMAO
 
-Sometimes I do wish I had a 50 cal mounted on the front of my rig during heavy work commute days -I don't think I'd ever have to fire it, but it would sure clear a path.
 
Dman,

A little short on the facts the restrictions that the clinton had for "assault weapons" was not against fully auto rifles. Fully auto rifles where still made and avaliable.

the so called "assault weapons" that were banned where the ones that looked like "assault weapons" they were all semi-autos.

It also restricted magazine clips for pistols.

As stated before the ban did not effect many of the fully auto guns that were avaliable then and now. It just takes money and the correct paperwork to obtain them.

Why the ban occured was the misinformation that was fed to the public by the democratic leadership to infrige on the 2nd amendment.


There are many uses of guns out there that are not related to hunting. However you think that as long as it does not effect my "hunting guns" I can go along with infringment on the 2nd amendment.

However, it seems that the majority on this site and the majority of hunters get the fact that if you do start to take away small parts of the 2nd amendment it will not be long until it is completely gone. See the UK and Austriala history. Canada is closley following - which is sad.

your facts posted eairler about the police and the encounters with "assualt rifles" as far as the percentage of the "assualt rifle" encouters seems pretty small. I would think that the majority of the encounters the police have is with pistols -
Why take the small % first? Perhaps to lead into taking more - and more - and more?

I take my 2nd amendment rights very seriouly - not only for hunting - but for self defense - and recreation.
 
"it makes it look like you are hiding something"

Yes. My firearms, from anyone who would want to revoke my right to have them and to use them to provide for and protect my family.
 
30" a habit of yours is taking people out of context and not reading posts accurately. I DID NOT SAY THAT CLINTON ONLY BANNED AUTOMATIC RIFLES -you need to read more closely if your going to quote people. Secondly, you keep yammering on about the 2nd amendment and the question I originally posed is really not a question of the 2nd amendment but one of ethics -if you have any. I stated that blasting away at game animals in fully automatic mode is unethical. However we could acheive an end to that is what I would support and again, I don't think it can be done by putting a "shock collar" on every hunter as a fail safe against unethical behavior. The ONLY answer is to keep automatic weapons out of the woods on game day -maybe that's a possible alternative. Gun checks at all NF/ BLM, entry points. Then you'd still have them for target practice. That still won't help the police however, so again, what's your solution to that issue???
 
It is already a law in Wyoming and is illegal to carry full auto weapons in your vehicle in the woods during hunting season. I have never heard of anyone being ticketed either where I live because people know it's illegal and most full auto weapons owners will not put themselves at risk and take any chances of losing those expensive firearms.






"RKBA....ALL THINGS CONSIDERED"
 
Thanks to Relh and others in providing sanity in this debate. This has been one hell of a frustrating read.

I've learned during many years of working with collagues who were Democrat anti-gunners that it is a waste of time to debate gun issues with them.

Interestingly enough, here we have Dems, who favor certain guns (the type they use) but don't tolerate what other recreational shooters use.

Finally, IMHO every gun owner should support the NRA for it is the only effective group protecting your gun rights.And, getting back to a previous post, this thread made it obvious that there are some frogs in this group who just now voted to have the heat turned up further. As for me, I jumped out years ago and will never again vote for any Democrat - least of all for one of the female gender.
 
Dman: I'm not buying that it is a common problem that hunters are blasting away at game animals with semi-automatic rifles. Notwithstanding, some states have a "wanton waste" law on the books that can be applied to prosecute those who wantonly destroy game animal meat by blasting away with semi-automatic weapons. We don't need to ban semi-automatic rifles to deal with this extremely rare and uncommon problem. Apply wanton waste laws.

Also, I'm not buying the "blasting away in fully automatic mode" depiction either. I'm assuming you are speaking inexactly, but I'm going to explicitly address this. "Automatic" fire is only used correctly to refer to fully automatic, machine gun, pull back and hold the trigger and the gun keeps firing until the magazine empties. Since 1934 (or thereabouts) machine guns capable of automatic fire have only been allowed to citizens who pay a rather pricey federal licensing fee. I do not believe that any federally licensed machine gun owner would ever take their machine gun to the hunting woods and blast away at game animals.
 
Or from New Orleans Mayor and other officials who wants to round up firearms as they did post Hurricane Katrina. Imagine the headache it would be recovering your cherished firearms from New Orleans police after this event? Imagine the care that these people would lavish on your cherished firearms? Everytime I shoot my rifles I clean their barrels and wipe down all their metal work with an oily rag. I run an oiled patch through the barrels if I will not be shooting that rifle again within the next couple of weeks. After this, I rub down all the wood on the stock to remove the places I have smeared oil on the wood. I install the trigger lock. I then place the rifle carefully in the gun cabinet. I can just imagine these gun grabbers throwing the guns in a corner like cordwood.
 
End of story: Democrats are, as a group, anti-gun. I do not support any new gun control laws: the well considered gun control laws were enacted long ago, all the new laws merely chip away and diminish our rights. As a consequence, I won't be voting Democratic any time soon. I think the Democrats are fools to go down the anti-gun path, but so long as they keep doing that, I will steadfastly refuse to vote for them. And I'm not changing my position on this based on campaign promises and talk. I've got to see Democrats walk the talk on being gun friendly before I change my view on this.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_5017.jpeg
Screenshot_20210802-093249_Photos.jpg
20200913_152750.jpg
C5F6BB20-EF26-4BEB-A237-5DB9B3432E68.jpeg
BE81F38D-DD3F-4258-A42C-3BBEA92A29E3.jpeg
IMG_20231121_132553.jpg
Screenshot_20200911-070145_Video Player.jpg
IMG_2384.jpeg
20231121_110427.jpg
Sweet Wallhanger
C634FFEF-383D-4720-BAC8-5D03201A0270.jpeg
7B5DEB73-963F-4183-A2E0-E6A711B8BCC0.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom