User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/8/2006 11:12:01 PM EDT
[#1]
we're allowed to own and carry guns?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 6:04:42 AM EDT
[#2]
the answer is yes
ETA: well in a sense they've already taken away our right to bear arms. It's considered a PRIVILEGE by the government, you see.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:08:14 AM EDT
[#3]
They can try.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:39:53 AM EDT
[#4]
I am sure if the Gov't EVER tried to disarm Americans, it would be the second revolution!
There is NO WAY it would happen. 1st if they took the civi's weapons, the terrorist would have free game on this country. Not enough Mil. or LEO's to handle them. 2nd. Congress would need to hold a special election to replace the members that are AWOL or MIA . 3rd. We have more guns than they do, which would lead to the #1 above. They know this, and only let stupid azz Kaliphornians make their own beds. If we get attacked in a "Front line" type of war, they'll start in CA and the North East. Let em try to start in the south, every redneck would be scrambling for a "good spot" on the end of the peirs. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:15:05 AM EDT
[#5]
dubious about that. people in this country are too well pampered by gov to truly care about their rights anymore. They whine and complain but that's about it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:19:12 AM EDT
[#6]
too bad that rifle is showing signs of govt. workings, no flash hider/bayo lug/collapsable stock 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:26:01 AM EDT
[#7]
I think it would only happen if there was a change in govt. like a new govt. with a new constitution was created after a state of chaos, then they could be confiscated, but not under the current working govt. -mark |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:42:29 AM EDT
[#8]
It won't happen all in one shot. It will be as a result of numerous gun bans spread out through time. Getting to the point where all you could own would be a Registered air rifle.
We're seeing it now. They ban something till someone says ouch. Then they lay off for a while. Then ban something else. Overall, if you look at now and 1960 there have been guns that we can no longer have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:50:16 AM EDT
[#9]
The .gove does not have to take our 2nd amendment rights away, we pretty much piss them away little by little each year. Look at CA, NY, NJ and IL just to list a couple. What every happened to open carry in TX? With over 75,000,000 gun owners, you would think the politicians would be pandering to us as a voting block. Obviously that is not happening. Gun owners do not as a rule vote, or vote pro 2nd amendment. There are enough gun owners in CA to overturn every firearm restriction they have on the books, but they don’t do it, they keep electing the same anti gun bullshit artist, and feel good about it.
Every person that can have a CHL, should get a CHL. If 10% of Texans had a CHL, the politicians in TX would step very lightly around 2nd amendment issues. Every gun owner should join the TSRA or the NRA. The TSRA first because as seen in CA and the like, it is the states that can become the most restrictive. At the very least, every gun owner should be registered to vote, keep informed of what is going on, write letters and emails to representatives, and vote. And when the people we elect don't protect our rights, get them the hell out of office as soon as we ca |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 10:17:19 AM EDT
[#10]
yup |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 10:18:34 AM EDT
[#11]
that and it isn't full auto |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 10:39:49 AM EDT
[#12]
you'd get better feedback to this question if you post in in the General discussion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 11:35:09 AM EDT
[#15]
I can move it there......... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 12:04:20 PM EDT
[#16]
The irony of that photo is staggering. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 1:02:32 PM EDT
[#17]
Yep. Hmmmm the NFA act of 1934. Pretty much ended *legal* civilian ownership of full auto, short barreled, large weapons, etc... with a MASSIVE $200 tax per item... much more than anyone in their right mind would or could pay at that time. Sure, 1934 was a long time ago, right? Well, it was 72 years ago. Before that, gun rights were pretty much just that, gun *rights*. Is 72 years THAT long ago? Not in my opinion. That is a very short time as far as cultural change goes. Hmmm, the GCA act of 68. That seems like forever ago.... right? Nope. That was only 38 years ago.... and 34 years after the first major legislation. Yikes.... Hmmm, FOPA 1986. (now lets not start a conversation about whether FOPA was good or bad - this is just about banning guns) That pretty ended ANY new production fo civilian owned full-autos... and began to drive the price of such existing weapons to a point that the average American cannot afford such. Hmmm, that was only 20 years ago. A blink. 1989 and 90 import bans. 1994 AWB ban. See where I am going? They regulated supressors, full auto, lengths of weapons, several handgun restrictions, import restrictions, feature based bans, named weapon bans, registrations...... all within the last 72 years... within a single lifetime of many people. "Is there any chance of our government taking away our right to bear arms?" Sir..... they already ARE. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 2:38:08 PM EDT
[#18]
+1. We don't have a right to do so. It's a privelege, like driving a car. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 2:39:01 PM EDT
[#19]
Fucker beat me to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 2:40:25 PM EDT
[#20]
GUNNEY..Your 2 cents worth is 10 X's in the black. The more we help/teach others about fire arms the better off we will all be in the long run. I got into shoting in 1959 (16) while living in some nasty housing across from MCRD gate 4 in S. Diego. This Marine the I used to baby sit for was a rifle instructor and not only took me to the ranges to shoot, but taught me more about the M1 Garrand/ 1911 than one can just wish for now adays.
When I joined up 17 Jan 61, I shot expert from day one. Shot a 90 on my first 1000 yd line. Sea story are a dime a dz; However , I make a effort help and/or teach any shooter something good at least once a week...................  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 2:45:16 PM EDT
[#21]
+1 to almost all of what you posted. I used to vote on this issue, that issue, this other issue...... but now I pretty much vote single issue, if they have made their stance known (esp by voting record).
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 2:58:20 PM EDT
[#22]
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, along with the recent
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Clearly establishes the individuals right to “Keep and Bear Arms”. It does not however stop the government from legislating where we allowed to keep them and who we are allowed to bear them against. Without every gun owners constant vigilance on this matter our individual right to “Keep and Bear Arms” will be, in time, legislated into oblivion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 3:21:17 PM EDT
[#23]
tagged
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 4:04:12 PM EDT
[#24]
I may have missed it but the next step in the attritional process to deny us guns rights is the fight against the .50 and it is just one more step toward what....making us safer...
  The scarey thing is we have to hope that us "single issue" voters are putting people into office that won't negotiate our 2nd amendment rights out the friggin window  JOIN NRA AND TSRA!@!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 5:02:44 PM EDT
[#25]
it's being done as we speak only rich people can have certain types of guns and a CHL is "hipocrasy". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 5:28:21 PM EDT
[#26]
Watch for the UN to try and trump our constitution with a treaty to ban privately owned guns. Wayne LaPierre has all ready had several debates with NGOs on it And if you don’t think our politicians would sell us out think again
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 6:24:08 PM EDT
[#27]
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 7:21:48 PM EDT
[#28]
I purposely posted this to watch the "look at the rifle" responses. This photo is from the site of a guy (Oleg Volk) who lived in the USSR under communism and Lives for the 2nd amendment. www.a-human-right.com Yes it's what we used to call a Postban weapon. Dudes, I love y'all as patriots and friends, but you're focusing on the hardware, not the message. It was a firearm purchased during the ban and can now be modified to be a "no ban" but the message of the picture is still clear. IMHO 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:07:48 PM EDT
[#29]
Nice to see someone else pimping Oleg, I don't do so nearly often enough. I do, however, pimp the hell out of one of his partner/affiliated sites, flashbunny.org. They have great short Flash animation "movies" which quickly/effectively make pro 2A/RKBA/freedom points that even most liberals can't deny the truth of. Great for converting people away from the dark side. Also, I don't know if Oleg's an arfcommer, but I know flashbunny's owner or webmaster is. Not a 10,000 post-count guy, but a good, longtime, low post count contributor. hijack off. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:13:37 PM EDT
[#30]
I just dont agree. To focus on the irony of the pitcure, is also to focus on the message.
That's true. But it is a side discussion worthy of note, otherwise, you wouldnt have used that pic. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:57:59 PM EDT
[#31]
I generally agree with you, but we are slowly turning the tide. "Shall issue" CHL in 36 states and non-renewal of the AWB are important steps in the right direction. The Dems have all but admitted that gun control is dead on the federal level. Also, remember "Handgun Control, Inc." they changed their name because they pretty much gave up on banning handguns. We can still win this one with the ballot box. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 3:48:15 AM EDT
[#32]
how can you tell its not full auto from the picture? 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 5:44:25 AM EDT
[#33]
frog, swim in here a while, it's a pan of nice, room temperature water.....
TXL |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 6:21:42 AM EDT
[#34]
assumption. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 6:43:02 AM EDT
[#35]
+1 But only if you vote, and encourage others to do so! It astonishes me how so many people who have so much at stake fail to vote, or who pay voting lipservice and vote only every 4 years. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 7:27:33 AM EDT
[#36]
-1. I doubt it. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 12:46:21 PM EDT
[#37]
Do you vote? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:15:57 PM EDT
[#38]
You see we have certain unalienable rights. One of those rights is the right to keep and bear arms. No document can give nor take away such inalienable rights. The government therefore can not take awy your right to bear arms no matter what a piece of paper might say or not say. They tried to ban full autos once but Supreme Court said that was not consitutional. Taxing them is OK. Then they banned the acceptance of the tax. That is unconstitutional. It is also the violation of an inalienable right. You still have the right whether the govt tells you the right exists or not. If they ban all guns you still have that right as much as you have the right to not be a slave or tortured or told you can not speak your thoughts in public. What the government will do to you to violate your rights is different than whether or not they exist. Rights are RIGHTS not privilages.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:35:04 PM EDT
[#39]
Wow. I agree with everything you said. This is some kind of first.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:45:56 PM EDT
[#40]
+1. Well said, DevL. Some folks have called me on or asked me about when I put RKBA/2A side-by-side (much as I did in my first post on pg.2), since they "mean the same thing". They, in fact, don't. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 2:18:11 PM EDT
[#41]
so if they did try to take them all at once and there was a giant civil war, Which side would the military be on? Which side would they be fighting for the rights for?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 7:13:58 PM EDT
[#42]
That's one of those "wait and see" questions.
(Doubtful it'd be a "clean" answer, with 100% choosing one side or the other.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 9:49:50 AM EDT
[#44]
yup, every chance I get |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 5:19:11 PM EDT
[#45]
The declaration of independents is the only place that lists unalienable rights; those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right to bear arms is in the second amendment to the constitution. You see it was not originally in the constitution. Originally there was no right to bear arms it was added. And it can be taken out of the constitution with another amendment. But getting an amendment ratified is not easy. One way the federal government restricts our rights is with the general welfare provision. One of the resposibiltys that the constitution gives the federal government is to “promote the general welfare”. This is the most abused part of the constitution. The federal government has used it to take over any states right they want. If you can get the Supreme Court to find that guns are a threat to the “general welfare” then the federal government could regulate guns |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:19:53 PM EDT
[#46]
it's not out of there. that's the point. and it is to be obeyed but is not. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:50:03 PM EDT
[#47]
I'm not the only one to notice the hypocricy! LMAO |
||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
