"common sense" new anti-gun legislation

Page: 123 > Showing page 1 of 3
Author
dpms
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3447
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
  • Status: offline
2008/05/18 10:52:53 (permalink)

"common sense" new anti-gun legislation

In today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
 
State rep David Levansky authors an article titled "Guns are killing us".
 
He has introduced legislation that turns law abiding citizens into criminals if they do not report stolen handguns within 72 hours.  In the article words such as "sensible" and "common sense" are prevelant.
 
Why not include stolen baseball bats and cars as well.  What is the difference.  All are capable of killing people.  Guns are the target and the NRA opposes this measure.
 
Also he tries to "justify" this legislation by saying that it does not affect hunters because rifles and shotguns are not included in the bill.  So, what about all of the hunters, myself included, that hunt with pistols??  I sure does affect me and others.
 
Typical ignorance that the anti-gun crown loves to see.  Rep Levdansky is a gun owner and hunter that is willing to compromise our rights with "common sense" legislation and "justification" that affects all law abiding gun owners.
 
There you go Drake and Silver.  Keep justifying gun rights and common sense legislation and now you may have the potential to be a criminal just because you own a pistol or possibly longguns in the future.
 
"Words" mean alot and this is evidence of such.
#1

76 Replies Related Threads

    thedrake
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 1948
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/11/14 22:22:18
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/18 12:58:05 (permalink)
    Please point out where we "justified" gun rights. You failed to in the last thread, where are you going with this one???
    #2
    dpms
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3447
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/18 14:25:10 (permalink)
    Remember where you said that we must justify why we carry so we do not look "crazy".  My arguement is that we should not justify anything when it comes to guns because it is our right.  Safety or otherwise.  It opens the door for compromise legislation.
     
    I argue that those words that I pointed out as dangerous for us as gun owners to use will be used against use now and in the future.  And I provide proof to that effect.
     
    My goal is for you to think deeper than you are when it comes to conversations about gun ownership or rights.  The movement is against us and it will only get stronger with time.
    #3
    spoonchucker
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 8561
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/18 14:38:01 (permalink)
    Can a baseball bat be traced back to you? I fail to see why anyone would be opposed to reporting a stolen handgun, (or rifle ) if only for the chance of getting it back. And certainly to reduce liability, if a crime is commited using a weapon that can be traced back to you. Seems to me, that anyone who would fail to do so, or purposely not do so, has an ulterior motive, or something to hide.
     
    Every "right" carries, and MUST carry reasonable restrictions on their exercise. Otherwise it would be impossible to protect society from abuse of those rights, and allow us to continue to maintain them AS "rights".
     
    Abuse a "right", lose a "right".

    Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

    Step Up, or Step Aside


    The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

    GL
    #4
    dpms
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3447
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/18 15:00:12 (permalink)
    Sorry to see that you do not see the big picture either, Spoon.
     
     
    #5
    SilverKype
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3842
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
    • Location: State
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/18 15:02:45 (permalink)
    I don't need a gun when archery hunting in PA because I do not feel a bear attack is something I should be concerned with.  It's "common sense" that surprising a bear is really the only way to be attacked, which is possible perhaps.  Perhaps one day I will run into a rabid bear, or one that has learned that humans mean food.  My mistake.  I get what I deserve.  It's "sensible" to think that carrying, I may end up in an accident with what I'm carrying, probably greater than the chance of a bear attack.  I must "justify" to myself that carrying is not worthwhile for the particular situations and environment I'm currently in.  Someday, maybe it'll be different.   Maybe all it'll take is having children.   That doesn't not mean I need to think deeper.  If you've got a problem with it, maybe you need to think a little less deeper (one tract minded).
     
    So now, dpms, what does you anal retention narrow-minded**** have to say about that?
     
    I've attempted a thousand times to explain myself but you just don't get it.  I do agree with you about rights but you just keep laying it on, something that is not about rights.  Not because it's "justified" but because you just don't get it.  You used the wrong approach in the beginning and you are as well now.  If you are picking words out of the dictionary that anti-gun people use and tell hunters that they should not, because you feel your rights will be endangered because of it, you've got issues.  If I want to use those words, I will, and there is nothing you're going to do about it.  The way you interpret them is something I'm not in control of, and at this point, don't care how you interpret them. 
     
    Good day!!! 

    My reports and advice are for everyone to enjoy, not just the paying customers.
    #6
    dpms
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3447
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/18 16:30:40 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: SilverKype

    I don't need a gun when archery hunting in PA because I do not feel a bear attack is something I should be concerned with. 

    So now, dpms, what does you anal retention narrow-minded**** have to say about that?

     If I want to use those words, I will, and there is nothing you're going to do about it.  The way you interpret them is something I'm not in control of, and at this point, don't care how you interpret them. 


     
    I don't care if you choose to carry or not carry.  That is your perogative.  You have started these discussions trying to justify to others why it is not necessary for them to carry because of reasonable threat.  That is my problem.  You have backed off of that postition as of late for good reason.
     
    I will not get into insults as you have chosen to do.
     
    About the words you choose when it comes to gun control.  I have provided a current piece of legislation, and if you study all anti-gun legislation, the words you choose will appear in most if not all of it.  As I said to Spoon, I am sorry you do not get the big picture and are so vehement in your discussions that do nothing to further the right to keep and bear arms and only provides openings for the antis to walk through.
     
    Let the name calling continue, it gives much more weight to your arguement.
     
    #7
    SilverKype
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3842
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
    • Location: State
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/18 17:00:21 (permalink)
    Remember WHO started the name calling and labeling at the very beginning of the other thread.  The thread didn't turn until then.  Go look.  I'll play your way.  You take it where you want it to go but don't whine when you struggle to handle it.  If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.  Don't forget that.  I see the big picture.  I see that a treestand fall is a far greater occurance than a bear attack, especially in this state.  I did not state you should not carry, I stated far greater threats that could occur that should be priority.  The narrow-minded do not see that.  The narrow minded do not see the big picture.  You can't get out of that realm and I don't suspect you never will.  Your argument "because it's my right" opens doors for the anti's, not my discussion of priorities to safety. 

    My reports and advice are for everyone to enjoy, not just the paying customers.
    #8
    dpms
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3447
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/18 19:10:19 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: SilverKype

    Remember WHO started the name calling and labeling at the very beginning of the other thread.  You take it where you want it to go but don't whine when you struggle to handle it.  If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

    I see that a treestand fall is a far greater occurance than a bear attack, especially in this state.  I did not state you should not carry, I stated far greater threats that could occur that should be priority. 


    Never called you a name(petty your accussations).  I did label you as leaning towards the anti agenda. 

    My position has remained constant.  I do not care if someone carries or not and I respect that decision.  I won't look for fault in why you choose not too and you should not look for fault in why I or others chosse too.

    Yes, tree stand falls are a greater occurance than bear attacks in any state.  Who cares.  You say again in the post that I am responding too "I stated far greater threats that could occur that should be a priority".

    So, in effect, carrying a pistol for protection should not be a priority while we are hunting.  Who are you to tell others that? 

    I don't care of you do not carry, I do not care if you do.  Don't tell others how to prioritize thier right to do so.  As a gun owner yourself, it bewilders me that you do not see how you are potentially damaging that which you believe.
     
    By the way, the heat does not bother me.  It sure looks to be bothering you by the nature of your responses.
    post edited by dpms - 2008/05/18 19:12:04
    #9
    thedrake
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 1948
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/11/14 22:22:18
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/18 19:28:28 (permalink)
    Once again I will use an example to explain my thoughts....
     
    My father is a newspaper editor. He uses his right to free speech every single day. If someone questions why he wrote certain thoughts in his editorials or books, did they try to make him justify his right to free speech? You and I both know the answer is NO. They simply questioned his thoughts or actions. Our earlier debate is the nearly the same.
     
    If I question why someone would want to carry in the woods while they are archery hunting, I am not questioning their right to do it, I am questioning their reasoning, or actions. Questioning their right, would be the question: "why should you be allowed to carry a gun during archery season?". I did not ask that question.
    #10
    dpms
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3447
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/18 20:29:04 (permalink)
    Drake,
     
     Your analogy is a good one and I appreciate the civil discussion. 
     
    In your scenario, they are inquiring about something he might have said or what he was implying.  Looking for clarification if you will.  Words can mean different things to different people as evidenced in this thread.
     
    Someone that chooses to carry a concealed weapon is doing so for personal protection from immediate life threatening harm to oneself or others. That is the only reason.  To do otherwise is an offense that is punishable.  We do not know if that situation will ever occur or when it will occur but we choose to be ready if it does.
     
    Carrying a handgun for protection is not a matter of interpretation which is the basis of your example. In my opinion that is the only justification that is needed if you fully support that right. 
    #11
    MuskyMastr
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3032
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/06/30 17:39:29
    • Location: Valley of the Crazy Woman
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/19 02:54:39 (permalink)
    Guys the point here is that this proposed law is a bad thing.
     
    If you are on vacation and your house is robbed and you return home 3 days later, you are a felon, the way the law is written.

    Better too far back, than too far forward.
    #12
    SilverKype
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3842
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
    • Location: State
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/19 08:24:01 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: dpms

    ORIGINAL: SilverKype

    Remember WHO started the name calling and labeling at the very beginning of the other thread.  You take it where you want it to go but don't whine when you struggle to handle it.  If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

    I see that a treestand fall is a far greater occurance than a bear attack, especially in this state.  I did not state you should not carry, I stated far greater threats that could occur that should be priority. 


    Never called you a name(petty your accussations).  I did label you as leaning towards the anti agenda. 

    My position has remained constant.  I do not care if someone carries or not and I respect that decision.  I won't look for fault in why you choose not too and you should not look for fault in why I or others chosse too.

    Yes, tree stand falls are a greater occurance than bear attacks in any state.  Who cares.  You say again in the post that I am responding too "I stated far greater threats that could occur that should be a priority".

    So, in effect, carrying a pistol for protection should not be a priority while we are hunting.  Who are you to tell others that? 

    I don't care of you do not carry, I do not care if you do.  Don't tell others how to prioritize thier right to do so.  As a gun owner yourself, it bewilders me that you do not see how you are potentially damaging that which you believe.

    By the way, the heat does not bother me.  It sure looks to be bothering you by the nature of your responses.



    You called me a virus within.  Did you forget already?  Apparently.  What a surprise..  You opened the door.  You keep it civil, I will to.  You don't, I won't either.  Remember that.

    Who am I to tell others?   Your speaking to someone who participates in teaching your kids and grandkids about SAFETY while afield.  Black bears are not on the top of that list.  Not pointing a barrel at someone and wearing a safety harness are a PRIORITY.   So yes, I AM someone to tell folks about safety.  Who are you to tell me not to focus on safety as a priority?   Would you focus on the subject of carrying a concealed weapon at a hunter education course or bowhunter education?  No, you would not.  Why?  Because it's not a priority.  If it was, the game commission would make an attempt to add it to the agenda and spend a great deal of time on it..  So are you labeling every instructor, director, regional director, the game commission, student, etc... as a virus because safety is the focus and carrying is not the priority?  One tract minded.  Are you beginning to "get it" yet?  It's really not about your concealed weapon and your rights.  They are a separate issue.  It's about safety.  It bewilders me that you cannot interpret the difference between safety and rights.  If I want to question carrying, I'd say "Why shoudl you be able to carry."  But I did not. 

    btw...who am I to tell others?   Ever hear of the first amendment?  Why are you questioning my rights?  oh my goodness, the horror!!  Boy, you just stuck yourself with that one. 
    post edited by SilverKype - 2008/05/19 08:25:36

    My reports and advice are for everyone to enjoy, not just the paying customers.
    #13
    SilverKype
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3842
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
    • Location: State
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/19 08:24:58 (permalink)
    .
    post edited by SilverKype - 2008/05/19 08:25:13

    My reports and advice are for everyone to enjoy, not just the paying customers.
    #14
    thedrake
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 1948
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/11/14 22:22:18
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/19 09:15:02 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: dpms

    Drake,

    Your analogy is a good one and I appreciate the civil discussion. 

    In your scenario, they are inquiring about something he might have said or what he was implying.  Looking for clarification if you will.  Words can mean different things to different people as evidenced in this thread.

    Someone that chooses to carry a concealed weapon is doing so for personal protection from immediate life threatening harm to oneself or others. That is the only reason.  To do otherwise is an offense that is punishable.  We do not know if that situation will ever occur or when it will occur but we choose to be ready if it does.

    Carrying a handgun for protection is not a matter of interpretation which is the basis of your example. In my opinion that is the only justification that is needed if you fully support that right. 

     
    The right to carry a handgun is not a matter of interpretation.
    Reasons to carry will be interpreted by each individual differently. Yes, most will carry to protect themselves from people. Some will carry to protect themselves from bears. Some will carry just because they think it's cool. Some will carry just because it is their right. And in archery season, some will carry because they want to sling lead at deer.
    #15
    dpms
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3447
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/19 09:52:20 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: SilverKype


    Who are you to tell me not to focus on safety as a priority? 
     
    They are a separate issue.  It's about safety.  It bewilders me that you cannot interpret the difference between safety and rights. 



     
    I never told you safety should not be a priority and I applaud your for educating others on safety. 
     
    And you are right.  They are seperate issues and that has been my constant position.  You say safety should trump carry and the priority should be safety not carry.  Who is not seperating the issues?  Not me.
    #16
    dpms
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3447
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/19 10:51:59 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: thedrake


    The right to carry a handgun is not a matter of interpretation. 

    Some will carry just because they think it's cool. 

    And in archery season, some will carry because they want to sling lead at deer.


    Correct, it is not a matter of interpretation.

    Hmm...  Criticizing gun owners...........  For actions that they have yet to commit.  Which shows that you are apprehensive about this piece of legislation which does nothing but advance our rights as gun owners.  And you wonder why I question your committment to the advancement of gun rights?
    post edited by dpms - 2008/05/19 12:12:36
    #17
    SilverKype
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3842
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
    • Location: State
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/19 11:25:24 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: dpms

    ORIGINAL: thedrake


    The right to carry a handgun is not a matter of interpretation. 

    Some will carry just because they think it's cool. 

    And in archery season, some will carry because they want to sling lead at deer.


    Correct, it is not a matter of interpretation.

    Hmm...  Criticizing gun owners...........

     
    Now drake can't call out criminals because they are "gun owners"  ??
     
    LOL
     
    Funny!!
     
    You think it's okay for a hunter to shoot at a deer in archery season with a pistol?   That's not a hunter to me.  That's a criminal.

    My reports and advice are for everyone to enjoy, not just the paying customers.
    #18
    SilverKype
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3842
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
    • Location: State
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/19 11:33:38 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: dpms

    ORIGINAL: SilverKype


    Who are you to tell me not to focus on safety as a priority? 

    They are a separate issue.  It's about safety.  It bewilders me that you cannot interpret the difference between safety and rights. 




    I never told you safety should not be a priority and I applaud your for educating others on safety. 

    And you are right.  They are seperate issues and that has been my constant position.  You say safety should trump carry and the priority should be safety not carry.  Who is not seperating the issues?  Not me.

     
     
    You may need a refresher.

    Go back and read the other thread.  Look to see how often I use the phrase "in terms of safety."
     
    Right there, is the separation of safety and rights.  But you continued your rant.  So yes, I'd have to say it was you that continued to mix the issues.  I stated the separation multiple times.

    My reports and advice are for everyone to enjoy, not just the paying customers.
    #19
    SilverKype
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3842
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
    • Location: State
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/19 11:40:47 (permalink)
     
    Here's your refresher on the separation of the two.
    ---------

    Safety:

    If I go to the supermarket and a walk down da hood, in terms of safety, which one will I more likely need protection.  We all know the answer to that.

    Right:

    If I go to the supermarket and a walk down da hood, in terms my right to carry, which one will I more likely need protection.  It doesn't matter because it's my right. 

    They are separate intentions with separate meanings.  You cannot and I think you will ever be able to understand that.
    post edited by SilverKype - 2008/05/19 11:41:48

    My reports and advice are for everyone to enjoy, not just the paying customers.
    #20
    dpms
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3447
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/19 11:53:29 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: SilverKype


    Now drake can't call out criminals because they are "gun owners"  ??

    LOL

    Funny!!

    You think it's okay for a hunter to shoot at a deer in archery season with a pistol?   That's not a hunter to me.  That's a criminal.


    He can if they commit the act.  Speculating on what happen may shows a lack of committment to the advancement of gun rights.  Again, trying to justify why this legislation is not good. 

    You are right, they would then be a criminal.  See we do agree sometimes.
    post edited by dpms - 2008/05/19 12:16:22
    #21
    dpms
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3447
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/19 11:55:28 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: SilverKype
    -------

    Safety:

    If I go to the supermarket and a walk down da hood, in terms of safety, which one will I more likely need protection.  We all know the answer to that.

    Right:

    If I go to the supermarket and a walk down da hood, in terms my right to carry, which one will I more likely need protection.  It doesn't matter because it's my right. 

    They are separate intentions with separate meanings.  You cannot and I think you will ever be able to understand that.


     
    Never disputed that those two scenarios are seperate.  Again we agree.
    #22
    SilverKype
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3842
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
    • Location: State
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/19 12:51:59 (permalink)
    Two agreements in a row.  Wow, we are rolling right along.
     
     
    Let me use MM's post as question to you:
     
    If you are on vacation and your house is robbed and you return home 3 days later, you are a felon, the way the law is written.
     
    I'm not totally sure what law he is refering to, although I remember some of it, I'd like to see the bill to read again.  I'm not sure if his interpretation is correct or not.  Let's assume that it is.   Would you support this bill if infact MM is correct in saying a gun owner is a felon in this case?

    My reports and advice are for everyone to enjoy, not just the paying customers.
    #23
    dpms
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3447
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/19 13:10:47 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: SilverKype


    Let me use MM's post as question to you:

    If you are on vacation and your house is robbed and you return home 3 days later, you are a felon, the way the law is written.
     
    I'm not totally sure what law he is refering to, although I remember some of it, I'd like to see the bill to read again.  I'm not sure if his interpretation is correct or not.  Let's assume that it is.   Would you support this bill if infact MM is correct in saying a gun owner is a felon in this case?

     
    If I remember what the representative stated in the article about the bill, gun owners would have "three chances".  Not sure what is meant by a chance though.  Say a gun was stolen  and the owner was not aware of it being gone maybe.
     
    The intent of the bill is to weed out "straw purchases".  People with criminal records buying guns from those able to own them.  If that gun is used in a crime, the original owner can just say it must have been stolen from me.  This law is meant to prevent that.
     
    With that being said I would not support any legislation that could potentially cause me to be charged with a crime, due to the actions of others,  as a legal gun owner. 
    #24
    Dr. Trout
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4417
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
    • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/19 15:02:46 (permalink)
    WOW this is confusing..... 
     
    gun owners not agreeing on anti gun bills...
     
    sounds just like the deer situation.....  :)
     
     
    WARNING...
     
    when hunters (or gun owners) start disagreeing --- this is bad --- 
    it's the begining of the end of such.....and plays directly into the plans of those that wish to do away with folks having guns.... 
     
     
    take away the deer... rabbits... pheasants... squirrels.. and the question is then why do folks need guns at all  (i.e. NO HUNTING).... that too must be remembered because, it too, is a part of THE BIG PICTURE...
     
    Believe me ... if sportsmen did not agree almost all the time on not allowing ANY changes to the 2nd amendment we would not be able to have/own ANY guns to protect ourself from ANYONE -- ANYTIME -- including your home....... 
     
    It's the hunters that have always spear-headed the right to bear arms....
     
     
    PLUS ---- There are more than just the one bill this thread started
    in fact there are over 30 in progress in Pa alone.....
     
    and yes.. don't report the lost/stolen gun and you are guilty...
    you are now a criminal....
     
    and forget leaving/having any weapons at your camp.....
     
    If stolen you may not get back to camp for weeks.... or maybe even over winter..... NOW YOU ARE IN REAL TROUBLE..
     
    especially if some one used the stolen weapon for a crime in the area your camp is in....
     
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    I carry because -- 
     
    #1.. the constitution says I can and I CHOOSE TO... 
     
    #2... for protection.....
     
    Protection ???.. you ask.. YEP..
     
    protection from anyone or anything than may harm me or my loved ones....
     
    be that in the woods... in the hood...at school... or at work.... be that from drunks, criminals, bears, bobcats, snakes, pit bulldogs, thieves, rapists.... 
     
    to make it about archery season is a cop-out on what the antis are really trying to do with these bills..
     
     
    "Don't worry about the criminals... they'll always find ways to get guns to help commit crimes.... we can't stop that...."
     
    make it so hard on the legal folks they won't want to or need to have guns....
     
     
     
     
    Vote for OBAMA AND SEE HOW FAST WE LOSE OUR GUN RIGHTS....
    #25
    spoonchucker
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 8561
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/19 20:08:35 (permalink)
    "Vote for OBAMA AND SEE HOW FAST WE LOSE OUR GUN RIGHTS.."
     
    I thought he was running for president, not king.


    Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

    Step Up, or Step Aside


    The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

    GL
    #26
    S-10
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 5185
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/19 20:34:29 (permalink)
    The NRA-who doesn't care if you are Repub or Dem but only cares about your record on gun rights considers Obama a bigger danger to law abiding gun owners than Clinton. In the latest issue of American Hunter they have his record on firearms issues and it's not pretty if you a gun owner.
    #27
    spoonchucker
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 8561
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/19 20:46:48 (permalink)
    My point, is that he would not have the authority to unilaterally take away your gun rights. If he tried he WOULD have SOME support, but not enough legislators would take THAT risk.
     
    My point to dpms, is that as gun owners we should support laws that make it easier to prevent guns getting into the wrong hands, and to identify those who use guns illegally,( I'm not say THIS law in particular does that). Failure to do so could make it easier for those on the fence to support banning ownership all together. I AM looking at the big picture.
     
    The NRA's mantra has always been "enforce the laws on the books now". But more often than not they are not being enforced because loopholes, that they ( the NRA ) supported make them un-enforceable.

    Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

    Step Up, or Step Aside


    The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

    GL
    #28
    S-10
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 5185
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/19 20:59:47 (permalink)
    I love it when liberal Dems try to spin your position on gun control. Blaming the NRA for not enforcing gun laws on the books is a new twist to me although not surprising as every other spin has been tried over the years. The only anti gun senator I have any respect for is Dianne Feinstein-- at least she was honest when she said if she had the votes she would force everyone to turn in their guns. If those idiots would only realize that position is probably the only thing keeping them from owning both houses and the oval office. Clinton tried to BS us, Kerry tried to BS us and now it's Obamas turn. I'll cling to mine and vote Mccain.
    #29
    spoonchucker
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 8561
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: "common sense" new anti-gun legislation 2008/05/19 21:04:48 (permalink)
    Is not legal guns sales at swap meets, (without) change of registration, a loophole that allows folks to circumvent background checks? And does not the NRA lobby to KEEP that loophole open?

    Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

    Step Up, or Step Aside


    The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

    GL
    #30
    Page: 123 > Showing page 1 of 3
    Jump to: