Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 2/12/2006 7:29:39 AM EDT
I say we should. Fuck it. Either we all understand what the endgame is or bend over right now and hand them the Vaseline.

Grandfathering is the surest way to screw your children and your children's children.

What say you?

Poll coming.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 7:39:57 AM EDT
If the elected officials don't want us to have certain guns, they should come get them. G/F existing and possessed firearms that are banned is a coward's way out. If the bans are really for public safety, they need to put some teeth into the laws and show some balls by taking the existing ones, for the children.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 7:41:31 AM EDT
what is so hard to understand about the phrase "shall not be infringed" ?
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 7:41:55 AM EDT
If so we are defeated either way, yes?
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 7:45:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DougR:
If so we are defeated either way, yes?


The whole point of grandfathering is to weaken the base of gunownership over time. Then, when our numbers are small enough, we are finished in one fell swoop.

Grandfathering only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 7:56:23 AM EDT
Straight to the endgame, huh?

This is something that neither side in the fight really want. It sits out there like a mutually assured destruction that no one wants to touch. The antis fight a war of attrition and the pro 2nd try to plug the dike as best they can, but there is no way to win this way. We are and have been losing ground over time (with some recent gains, granted). Even conservatives in politics are scared to push pro 2nd legislation for fear of political repercussions.

The antis have the media and we have each other. And when push comes to shove, what will we do? That's the real question isn't it?

I just don't see everyone running to the sound of the guns. For realistically, it would be civil war, but with no lines of demarcation. And while this is occurring, what of our forces abroad, and what will our enemies do while we are in this state of pandemonium?

I don't have an answer. I tend to agree with you, mainly because I see no way politically to return the 2nd (or the rest of gov't) to the way it should be, but it is a damned scary proposition you have made - one not to be taken lightly.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 7:58:30 AM EDT
I didn't vote. I agree with you, WG, and would like to see us put up a real fight to bring our country back from the brink but my kids and grandkids will have guns no matter what. I have provided for it.

And I don't think that even if they were NOT grandfathered it would make any difference. IOW, the majority of gunowners wouldn't do shit anyhow. So the only attraction to me in that would be to bring those small numbers of us willing to the fight sooner.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 7:58:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By DougR:
If so we are defeated either way, yes?


The whole point of grandfathering is to weaken the base of gunownership over time. Then, when our numbers are small enough, we are finished in one fell swoop.

Grandfathering only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today.



It allows the Fudds to think that they will never ban their 30-30 huntin' gun and thus splits gun owners into ever smaller compartments. That makes it easy to wipe out one compartment while the rest sit on their hands.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 8:05:53 AM EDT
The last three posts were excellent. I just thought you ought to know.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 8:42:03 AM EDT
The silence on this topic is deafening.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 8:49:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By DougR:
If so we are defeated either way, yes?


The whole point of grandfathering is to weaken the base of gunownership over time. Then, when our numbers are small enough, we are finished in one fell swoop.

Grandfathering only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today.




EXACTLY... it is a "divide and conquer" strategy.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 8:51:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TodaysTomSawyer:
The silence on this topic is deafening.


+1
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 9:08:03 AM EDT
We can only hope right now that they will stop putting grandfather clauses into future legislation. The idea of people having to surrender personal property or the authorities coming to confiscate said property would make things like a .50 ban or AWB that much harder to pass right now. Even if something passed without a grandfather clause it "might" be a good thing for SCOTUS to have to rule on it.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 9:14:37 AM EDT
Tell you what I'm going to do from this point on: Actively lobby for NO grandfather clauses in any pending/future gun legislation.

That ought to ruffle a few feathers on our side.

Screw it. If the other side is so convinced my gun is so harmful to public safety, why let me keep it?
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 9:15:29 AM EDT
The "Grandfather" clause is the legal equivilant of K-Y which is why it's a slippery slope.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 9:39:20 AM EDT
My big fear: NFA
There is a push to not ban .50 cals, but to put them on the NFA, just like was done with 20mm and Striker 12s.
Then they put semi-auto "assault weapons" on NFA.
Then they do a Kali on the MGs, DDs, and let us keep our guns, but once we die they have to be turned in.
And so on, and so on, until we are disarmed.
It is working in Kali people - "Well I still have my registered AR15"

So, I say should we have a new AWB, I hope it has no grandfathering.
Let's cut through all the bullshit - get right to the endgame.
Eventually, the anit-gunners will get greedy, and force their hand.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 9:51:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
My big fear: NFA
There is a push to not ban .50 cals, but to put them on the NFA, just like was done with 20mm and Striker 12s.
Then they put semi-auto "assault weapons" on NFA.
Then they do a Kali on the MGs, DDs, and let us keep our guns, but once we die they have to be turned in.
And so on, and so on, until we are disarmed.
It is working in Kali people - "Well I still have my registered AR15"

So, I say should we have a new AWB, I hope it has no grandfathering.
Let's cut through all the bullshit - get right to the endgame.
Eventually, the anit-gunners will get greedy, and force their hand.



They will the next time the Left gains power. I would bet on it. I think they are way more sick of all this incremental BS than we are and watching while the Right (so to speak ) has assumed power over the past decade has been more than they can bear.

Yeah, next time around they are going to crank up the heat on us frogs way more than they have in the past. I ain't getting any younger but I doing the best I can to stay in shape, and in practice. I'll be ready.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 9:57:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 9:59:27 AM EDT by Pointman_M4A1]
instead of bitching about it on the internet, do something about it.

Get off your asses and vote, write emails, letters etc. let the politicians know that we will not tolerate their bullshit anymore. There are always going to be "guns are evil/meat is murder" types out there.

The best tree hugger, will still be tied to the tree when it goes through the lumber mill.

Pro is good and Con is bad, then CONgress is the opposite of PROgress.

I highly doubt that anyone would really act in the face of gun confiscations and bans, I think that the sheeple are too stoopid to care. I hope I am wrong.

Link Posted: 2/12/2006 10:10:22 AM EDT
No GF. Get down to business, aka, "Put up or shut up."
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 10:12:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 10:28:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Pointman_M4A1:
instead of bitching about it on the internet, do something about it.

Get off your asses and vote, write emails, letters etc. let the politicians know that we will not tolerate their bullshit anymore. There are always going to be "guns are evil/meat is murder" types out there.

The best tree hugger, will still be tied to the tree when it goes through the lumber mill.

Pro is good and Con is bad, then CONgress is the opposite of PROgress.



The political process is FUBAR'd. I also write letters and contact my elected reps. You should see the last letter I got back from one of my senators outlining why guns are evil. What a POS. Fact is, he is socialist left wing POS who pisses all over the Constitution and this country every chance he gets. And as long as our own congressmen piss on the Constitution there will be only one solution.
Hell, as it is, they are currently selecting another electorate. I like the way that was put by someone else here sometime back.


I highly doubt that anyone would really act in the face of gun confiscations and bans, I think that the sheeple are too stoopid to care. I hope I am wrong.




A small proportion for sure but some would.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 10:32:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:
Most of these laws would not be legal without the grandfathering clause. That's their "out" for avoiding problems with the constitution.

-Troy


Agreed.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 11:49:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
And I don't think that even if they were NOT grandfathered it would make any difference. IOW, the majority of gunowners wouldn't do shit anyhow. So the only attraction to me in that would be to bring those small numbers of us willing to the fight sooner.



I don't know, but do you think that small number of us is getting larger or smaller as time progresses?

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Winston Churchill
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 11:52:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 11:54:16 AM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By RED_5:
what is so hard to understand about the phrase "shall not be infringed" ?



OUr rights weren't lost in a day, and they won't be regained in a day.

Do ya think the Allies intended to win the war on June 6, 1944?

Well, we as gun owners BETTER wrap our minds around the concept that we MUST accept legislation that is LESS than ideal and restores a few freedoms, or we'll never see restoration of ANY freedoms.

Take what we can get now, and we'll fix the un-ideal things later on.

Link Posted: 2/12/2006 11:56:56 AM EDT
If it comes to bombs and bullets over the ballot box, its already over.....

I aslo wish people would stop using that "what say you" line from LOTR.....
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 12:02:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SnoopisTDI:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
And I don't think that even if they were NOT grandfathered it would make any difference. IOW, the majority of gunowners wouldn't do shit anyhow. So the only attraction to me in that would be to bring those small numbers of us willing to the fight sooner.



I don't know, but do you think that small number of us is getting larger or smaller as time progresses?






I honestly don't know.
Unquestionably that number has diminished substantially over the past century. As for recently, the last decade or so, I am not sure. Maybe a little larger. Maybe.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 12:04:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By RED_5:
what is so hard to understand about the phrase "shall not be infringed" ?



OUr rights weren't lost in a day, and they won't be regained in a day.

Do ya think the Allies intended to win the war on June 6, 1944?

Well, we as gun owners BETTER wrap our minds around the concept that we MUST accept legislation that is LESS than ideal and restores a few freedoms, or we'll never see restoration of ANY freedoms.

Take what we can get now, and we'll fix the un-ideal things later on.




What do you mean by that?
If you mean that we should accept small gradual intrusions into the 2nd in order to hold onto any RKBA then I would say I could not disagree more. And it is hard to imagine what else you could mean by that.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 12:09:15 PM EDT
After thinking it over I bit.

I do not support grandfathering at all.

Grandfathing is what allows them to chip away at are rights, rather than forcing anyone to decide Guns or No Guns, its a way of avoiding the JBT's going door to door, it keeps everyone from fighting with bullets, a fight they know they would lose.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 12:12:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:


The political process is FUBAR'd. I also write letters and contact my elected reps. You should see the last letter I got back from one of my senators outlining why guns are evil. What a POS. Fact is, he is socialist left wing POS who pisses all over the Constitution and this country every chance he gets. And as long as our own congressmen piss on the Constitution there will be only one solution.
Hell, as it is, they are currently selecting another electorate. I like the way that was put by someone else here sometime back.

I have had the same experience. I.E. doesn't want to ban guns that hunters or "sportsman" use but doesn't feel the need to allow ARs, AK's.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 12:21:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Pointman_M4A1:
instead of bitching about it on the internet, do something about it.

Get off your asses and vote, write emails, letters etc. let the politicians know that we will not tolerate their bullshit anymore. There are always going to be "guns are evil/meat is murder" types out there.


I've been serving on the front lines in this battle for a dozen years and spoken before numerous committees on the matter.

I've cast votes in places and at levels most only dream about.

When I say I will lobby firearms legislation, I mean it.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 12:41:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stottman:
If it comes to bombs and bullets over the ballot box, its already over.....

I aslo wish people would stop using that "what say you" line from LOTR.....


I've never seen LOTR, so blow me.

Link Posted: 2/12/2006 3:29:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:
Most of these laws would not be legal without the grandfathering clause. That's their "out" for avoiding problems with the constitution.

-Troy


Most of these laws aren't legal anyway.

The one that irks me the most, though, is the "police exception" in so many laws. I cheered when I learned that that Lautenberg DV law was being used to nail cops, since (a) so many cops think they're above all laws anyway, and (b) they've been conditioned to think that they can support any crap they want to against the rest of us because they'll be exempted.

Ending grandfathering and ending exceptions for police are two necessary things IMHO.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:18:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

What do you mean by that?
If you mean that we should accept small gradual intrusions into the 2nd in order to hold onto any RKBA then I would say I could not disagree more. And it is hard to imagine what else you could mean by that.



Nothing of the sort.

I'm saying we CANNOT reject new legislation becasue it doesn't go far enuf in restoring our freedoms.

We need to be willing to chip away at restrictions of our freedoms, rather than DEMANDING all our freedoms be restored immediately (which will NEVER happen)

For instance -

If we have a bill that restores one freedom, but doesn't reverse a grandfather provision, we should support that bill, restore the one freedom and then worry about the grandfather clause later.

Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:28:12 PM EDT
Very interesting concept.

Grandfathering is a way the Libs can use to create a gray area that will make bans more palatable. Maybe if people thought "If this legistlation goes through, I lose this investment because some wonk POS in the .gov doesn't want me to have it..."

I voted yes. No more gray area that makes Joe Hunter feel warm and cozy. It's all or nothing time.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:35:59 PM EDT
I don't care if they grandfather shit or not. They ain't gettin' my guns either way.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:47:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:
. It's all or nothing time.



We should NEVER accept MORE gun restrictions.

But we better understand the reality we'll ONLY win back our freedom piecemeal.


Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:48:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

What do you mean by that?
If you mean that we should accept small gradual intrusions into the 2nd in order to hold onto any RKBA then I would say I could not disagree more. And it is hard to imagine what else you could mean by that.



Nothing of the sort.

I'm saying we CANNOT reject new legislation becasue it doesn't go far enuf in restoring our freedoms.

We need to be willing to chip away at restrictions of our freedoms, rather than DEMANDING all our freedoms be restored immediately (which will NEVER happen)

For instance -

If we have a bill that restores one freedom, but doesn't reverse a grandfather provision, we should support that bill, restore the one freedom and then worry about the grandfather clause later.




That doesn't make any sense to me.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:51:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

What do you mean by that?
If you mean that we should accept small gradual intrusions into the 2nd in order to hold onto any RKBA then I would say I could not disagree more. And it is hard to imagine what else you could mean by that.



Nothing of the sort.

I'm saying we CANNOT reject new legislation becasue it doesn't go far enuf in restoring our freedoms.

We need to be willing to chip away at restrictions of our freedoms, rather than DEMANDING all our freedoms be restored immediately (which will NEVER happen)

For instance -

If we have a bill that restores one freedom, but doesn't reverse a grandfather provision, we should support that bill, restore the one freedom and then worry about the grandfather clause later.




That doesn't make any sense to me.



Which part? The part about supporting bills that don't reverse grandfather provisions (which would be the only part of a bad law that we wouldn't want reversed)?

Just smile and nod.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:52:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 4:54:12 PM EDT by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By macman37:
. It's all or nothing time.



We should NEVER accept MORE gun restrictions.

But we better understand the reality we'll ONLY win back our freedom piecemeal.





You sound like the Brady Bunch in reverse.

Begging for your "freedom" one scrap at a time is conceding that you are at their mercy.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 5:01:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
You sound like the Brady Bunch in reverse.

Begging for your "freedom" one scrap at a time is conceding that you are at their mercy.



Well, unless you are gonna shove a rifle barrel up DiFi's snout, you ARE at her mercy.

Whether you want to admit it or not.

Link Posted: 2/12/2006 5:02:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

What do you mean by that?
If you mean that we should accept small gradual intrusions into the 2nd in order to hold onto any RKBA then I would say I could not disagree more. And it is hard to imagine what else you could mean by that.



Nothing of the sort.

I'm saying we CANNOT reject new legislation becasue it doesn't go far enuf in restoring our freedoms.

We need to be willing to chip away at restrictions of our freedoms, rather than DEMANDING all our freedoms be restored immediately (which will NEVER happen)

For instance -

If we have a bill that restores one freedom, but doesn't reverse a grandfather provision, we should support that bill, restore the one freedom and then worry about the grandfather clause later.




That doesn't make any sense to me.



How can you not understand that?

I think you understand it, but you don't agree.

Link Posted: 2/12/2006 8:15:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:
I'm saying we CANNOT reject new legislation becasue it doesn't go far enuf in restoring our freedoms.

We need to be willing to chip away at restrictions of our freedoms, rather than DEMANDING all our freedoms be restored immediately (which will NEVER happen)

For instance -

If we have a bill that restores one freedom, but doesn't reverse a grandfather provision, we should support that bill, restore the one freedom and then worry about the grandfather clause later.




What?
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 8:24:22 PM EDT
They need to let me have my castle before they try to disarm me, Im still renting...
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 8:53:46 PM EDT
I agree with the idea that G/F is a sure way to screw my kids out of their freedoms. I get sick to my stomach when I read these threads because it is pretty clear in the Constitution what the founding Fathers had to say about firearm possesion. I cant wait until I am out of Law school so that I can do something to help fight the crazy Diane Fiensteins in this country.

James
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 8:56:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

What do you mean by that?
If you mean that we should accept small gradual intrusions into the 2nd in order to hold onto any RKBA then I would say I could not disagree more. And it is hard to imagine what else you could mean by that.



Nothing of the sort.

I'm saying we CANNOT reject new legislation becasue it doesn't go far enuf in restoring our freedoms.

We need to be willing to chip away at restrictions of our freedoms, rather than DEMANDING all our freedoms be restored immediately (which will NEVER happen)

For instance -

If we have a bill that restores one freedom, but doesn't reverse a grandfather provision, we should support that bill, restore the one freedom and then worry about the grandfather clause later.




That doesn't make any sense to me.



How can you not understand that?

I think you understand it, but you don't agree.




No, it doesn't make any fucking sense, G-man.
Just drop it.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 10:09:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By Stottman:
If it comes to bombs and bullets over the ballot box, its already over.....

I aslo wish people would stop using that "what say you" line from LOTR.....


I've never seen LOTR, so blow me.




I always think of Bill O'Reilly when I hear that.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 10:33:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TodaysTomSawyer:
...and we have each other.



We do? Sorry, the second I read that I instantly heard those hunting rifle owners that you hear saying "Nobody needs a semi-auto." i.e. Our worst enemy.

~Dg84
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 11:14:43 PM EDT
I also agree that the g/f is bs and I don't support it. I don't really know what a realistic answer to this problem is. I do think that we have enjoyed a short period of success, but with the way this election year is shaping up I am affraid that this could soon change. As long as the media is so left it is going to be hard to convince people to side with us. Face it the American public believes what it is being told and does not research further on the issues then the evening news, or some blurb on CNN.
I agree that we do need to fight this through the ballot box, promoting a positive image, lobbying, ect. I don't think that the courts will do us any favors. There have been cases that could decided this issue in our favor which the Supreme Court has declined to hear. Why would they decide to help now?
Remember no matter how good, logical, or researched an argument that can be made at the end of the day it is still a judge, a human with all the prejudices that entails, which decides whether or not you win or lose.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:37:43 AM EDT
Don’t see the point of this issue.

If we can stop the grandfathering of firearms in proposed legislation, why not just stop the legislation instead?

And when the late, unlamented AWB was in place, I certainly don’t recall anyone here demanding the grandfather provisions be eliminated!!
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:44:06 AM EDT
Who voted NO???

Link Posted: 2/13/2006 3:04:02 AM EDT
You know what they'll "grandfather" next? Your GREAT-GRANDFATHER'S BOLT ACTION DEER RIFLE.

Here's how they'll do it. (Try not to retch or smash something). Watch for the ignorance and mistakes that only somebody who knows nothing about guns could make.


Let's call it an excerpt from the "2006 Public Gun-Safety and Armed Terrorism Prevention Act".


1) "The definition of 'sniper rifle' or 'assassin's rifle' shall include all firearms or other projectile weapons intended for exceptionally precise launching or firing of a projectile capable of typically causing serious wounds or death, accurate destruction of a target from extreme distances, the consistant firing of a projectile that strikes within 2 minutes of angle of the calculated impact point, or posessing any of the following features or capabilities:

A) The capability to fire a cartridge with a case featuring a shoulder or neck
B) A chamber exceeding 1 inch in length
C) A barrel or action built from material capable of withstanding impulses during firing of more than 10,000 psi
D) The functional capability to fire a projectile in excess of 1,000 feet per second
E) Any inherent optical sighting or enhancement device capable of providing more than 1/3rd relative lux intensification, more than 1.5 times image magnification, internal capability to adjust for elevation, distance, wind, or other environmental conditions, or that provides calculation or estimation aids or guides
F) The capability to mount or provisions to add the capability to mount any device as outlined in subsection E
G) A bipod, tripod, buttstock leg or leveler, cheek rest, fluted barrel, 'heavy' or 'bull' barrel, a barrel longer than 26", or a muzzle break or recoil reducer

2) The manufacture or importation of all firearms posessing any of the characteristics mentioned in part 1, or posessing more than 3 of the characteristics as outlined in subsections 1-A through 1-G, shall henceforth be prohibited.

3) All existing firearms posessing any of the characteristics listed in part 1, or posessing more than 3 of the features in subsections 1-A through 1-G, shall be required to be registered with the BATFE as 'Precision Rifles', under the provisions added to the National Firearms Act by Section 8 of this bill (see below), covering Precision Rifles, Mountable Telescopes, and High Velocity Firearm Ammunition.




That, people, is the sound of liberty choking to death.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top