You can type here any text you want

For Gun-Control Advocates (long)

Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

StageII86

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2002
Messages
458
My father sent this to me:

IT WILL SOON BE IN AMERICA!

By Robert A. Waters -

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half awake, and nearly paralyzed
with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.


Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choir boys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind ! word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both victims" have been arrested numerous times".

But the next day's headline says it all: Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so! confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term. How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons
and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead. The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school. For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?

The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA!

THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"..It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in
people's minds.." --Samuel Adams
 
The 'Not here' Mentality can't be ignorred

I say you're right as the tree huggers and such lobby these crazy things while the working majority are working hard to feed their family. I say that the politicians shouldn't treat us as mushrooms(Keep um in the dark and feed um full of sh*t) and try to blow these things by us. They can have my weapons when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers(I guess now i'm the eccentric nut).

Rich
 
I hate gun control, all it does is punish the law abiding citizen.

I will not give my gun's up! It is my right to protect myslef at all times IMHO, maybe thats why my H&K USP is sitting in my T-Type.
 
I wouldn't have the USP IN the T unless you were in the T with it. I say this after having my truck broken into last weekend in broad daylight (stole a $2500 stereo). I'm just glad my .45 Commander wasn't in there too.
 
That truely was a powerful story. This is why the filthy authorities want to track and terrorize its citizens. If there ever is a total gun ban here and they come to your house to take your guns, every American has the right to shoot them. The jack booted governtment thugs known as the ATF tried to do this on April 19, 1993 in Waco, TX. Thankfully, they were ment with superior force.
 
Yep and Janet Reno should have been charged and prosecuted for what happened in Waco. I dont want to have to shoot anyone, but if someone tries to take my weapon its gonna get ugly fast. Luckily I live in a state that beleives in the rights of gun owners, and allows me to have a cwp that says I can take my hidden Beretta just about anywhere I damn well please.
 
Originally posted by striker_29
Yep and Janet Reno should have been charged and prosecuted for what happened in Waco. I dont want to have to shoot anyone, but if someone tries to take my weapon its gonna get ugly fast. Luckily I live in a state that beleives in the rights of gun owners, and allows me to have a cwp that says I can take my hidden Beretta just about anywhere I damn well please.

Exactly. Reno should have been tried on some serious issues. I'm not defending David Korish or the Branch Davinians (as they were nuts), but they had no right to go in there like that. Even worse was the Randy Weaver case in Idaho where the government killed his wife and son for no reason.
 
Here's my .02
I believe in gun "laws" that protect the "lawful" owners of those guns and the law enforcement agencies.

ie, i have no problem with X day waiting periods to buy hand guns or anygun for that matter.....if you have an arguement against that...by all means...lets hear it...
i dont see a reason ALL guns should or could not be registered......ALL cars are....all Houses are (so to speak)....registering a gun again can be used to protect you....or hurt you...if you use it in the wrong way....

now if you want to carry a concealed weapon...i see no reason why you cant, if you take a safety course, and have NO record....sure why not...(in florida you can get this permit for 100 bucks and a course) however you can not take your gun into any govt building (reason should be obvious) or into any alcohol serving establishment...again, that all makes sense.....

now i see the point made that once you start "taking" freedoms away its only a matter of time before they are all gone....but thats kind of up to us isnt it...we ALL have to register our cars, we ALL have to get a lisence to drive it...hell some states you cant get that until you are 18....yet you can own a gun at age whatever?????? does that seem right?

my over all point being that gun "control" laws are a great thing...if you are a law abiding citizen with a little bit of training...you should be allowed to own and carry whatever you want...
 
How many criminals do you think will register their guns? Not one. If my house is broken into and my "registered" gun is stolen, do you think the thief will register it? Registering guns will do nothing but give the government a list of gun owners to harass. The way to reduce gun violence is to punish criminals. The way to reduce criminals is to teach people work ethic and make them responsible for their actions and get rid of permanent welfare.
 
Here's my 2 cents...

First, let me remind you that I am only 18 so my experiences are somewhat limited in this area.

I believe that the all out banning of firearms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. However, I don't see the need for anyone to own an AK-47, AR-15, M-1, 50 cal sniper rifle, or any other assult rifle. There's no justification for having an arsinal that could overtake a small country. Whats the purpose?

I do believe that any citizen that has not had a problem with the law should be able to have a rifle or shotgun. Hell, I don't even see a problem with having a hand gun, IF YOU PROVE YOURSELF RESPONSIBLE. Now I know that most crimes are comitted with hand guns, but if the average Joe can't own a hand gun, then he is at a disadvantage because, odds are, the criminal does have one.

This is definatly a complicated problem of which there is no simple solution. Maby we'll figure it out someday.

BOOSTD

P.S. Great Quote!!
 
What's an assault weapon???

Why is my Colt Ar-15 an "Assault weapon", and my single shot .22 is not?? Believe me, I can assault someone with either one.

By grouping firearms into certain categories, the anti gun lobbyists use the "divide and conquer" method. Rather than try to ban ALL guns at once, which they know they have very little chance of, they just pick away at the "groups". Assault weapons ("Too much firepower!!"). Sniper rifles ("Too accurate!!!"). Military reproductions ("Too easy to get!!!"). Saturday Night Specials ("Not accurate enough!!!"). Handguns ("Too easy to conceal!!!"). In fact, the anti-gunners only call it "gun control " because that's their first step, control. Next is elimination.

The Brady Bill is the accepted definition of an "assault weapon".
In the picture below, can you find the "assault weapon" by Brady definiton??
http://images.cardomain.com/member_img_b/267000-267999/267013_64_full.jpg
If you said "all of them", you're wrong. In fact, only one is an assault weapon according to the Brady Bill. It's the AR with the scope on it. You might be saying to yourself, "Hmmm....I see 2 AR's. Aren't they both assault weapons?" No.

Certain features cause a weapon to be considered an assault weapon. In the case of the 2 AR's, the one with the scope is considered an assault weapon because of it's bayonet lug and flash suppressor, in conjunction with the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

Lets look at these two heinous, evil features which cause this firearm to be deemed an "assault weapon":

Bayonet lug (attachment point): If I have a rifle, why the hell do I want to get close enough to stab someone? 'Nuff said.

Flash suppressor: They really don't work anyway.

The feature they overlooked was the fact that I can spray 30 rounds as fast as I can pull the trigger. If I have a Beta C-Mag, it's 100 rounds.

BUT WAIT!!! You're probably thinking, "That other AR takes a 30 round mag too!" Sure does. "That makes it an ASSAULT WEAPON!!" Sorry, no cookie for you on that one.

And there's where the answer to the riddle is: THEY'RE ALL ASSAULT WEAPONS, HERE IN THE REAL WORLD. The moronic Brady Bill does not stop the manufacture of weapons that accept a 30 round magazine, it does, however, stop the manufacture of 30 round mag weapons with useless bayonet lugs, flash hiders, pistol grips, and collapsible/folding stocks.

You see, they pass the anti "assault weapon" brady Bill to "stop the needless killing of our children". What they keep secret is that they DO NOT want the gun laws they pass to actually accomplish ANYTHING, and they hope and pray that the "senseless, preventable violence" never stops.

See, ever time they pass a new law, and later on it has NO EFFECT on anything, the anti-gun communists say "See, gun control DOES NOT work, we NEED to ban ALL guns NOW, FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!" And it becomes one more arguement for the total abnning of firearms.

Do you know how many people were prosecuted under "the tough new Brady Bill"? As of about '98 or so, it was a staggering 7 . And only 2 were convicted.

So the next time you hear your elected officials talk about the "tough new gun control law" they just helped push through that's going to "save the children", take a good look at it. It's probably a law saying you can't have a Daffy Duck sticker on your Barrett .50.

Scott
 
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"----Adolph Hitler 1935
 
87blackbuick, it's interesting that you bring that up. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA68) uses nearly identical wording as Hitler's GCA of '35. Just lost a few "der"s and "EICH!!!"'s in the translation. :)

Scott
 
Carman!

What about imported military-style rifle slings? We can't have them coming into our country! Someone may want to go and do a drive-by whipping.

Serioulsly, there is really no such thing as an "assault" weapon. These weapons are essentially equivilant to an auto-loading deer rifle in terms of their effectiveness as a killing machine. But, firearms such as these produced (here) or imported in this "military-type" configuration often scapegoats for the anti-gunners to use in the plan Carman described above.

With the current political situation, I can't see our freedoms being any more impeded on when it comes to firearm ownership and "rules." However, 4 years ago, I could have easily believed if you told me that the Clinton administration was coming to get my gun. We just have to keep in tune with what is going on amongst the anti-gunners and pay attention to what they are attempting to lobby. Also, support the NRA, they are the only ones who pull for us against this legislation.
 
I believe that the all out banning of firearms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Congrats, I see as a recent high school graduate you must have failed vocabulary. Which part of "infringed" dont you understand?

However, I don't see the need for anyone to own an AK-47, AR-15, M-1, 50 cal sniper rifle, or any other assult rifle.

Well, lucky for you, I dont see the need for you to own a car that can go 3 times the legal speed limit. I'll be stopping by your house to install a speed limiter that will limit your car to 65mph. In addition, we'll be putting an electronic tracker in your car to monitor you just in case you DO go above the speed limit... after all, none of this should bother you if you're not going to break the law right?

As a matter of fact... I dont see the need for lavish Fur Coats, or Ferarris... I dont see the practical purpose behind a 4k diamond ring either for your wife...

Dont see the need you say? Good, me either. Lets do it for the poor... Lets do it for the kids!! We can spend that money to put poor city kids through college!

Correct me if Im wrong, but I dont believe it's phrased... "A well fed American being necessary to the security of a free state, the Right to Hunt Deer shall not be infringed".

There's no justification for having an arsinal that could overtake a small country. Whats the purpose?

...ugh...

:rolleyes:
 
Ahhh.. a subject near and dear to my heart.

Most of the important points have been addressed, but there are a couple of things that need to be illustrated.

In response to Mr. Durden's comments about registration, I would be in complete agreement if it were a simple cut and dry issue. However as with most things, what is and what ought to be are quite different. Those people that are staunch proponents of registration see it not as an end in itself but as a means to an end, specifically the elimination of handguns and pretty much anything else that isnt 100 yrs old or slightly more ominous that a pellet gun.

Those that would object to this rationale must ask themselves an important question. The common argument dealing with the registration of cars and the process by which you obtain your liscence is a favorite among those who support registration. However they only address half the issue. Ignoring for a moment that firearm ownership is a SPECIFIC right granted to the people while car use/ownership is not, part of registering my car means that I can drive it anywhere I want to in the United States free of intervention providing that I obey the law.

Therefore, those that wish to register firearms must be willing to allow people the right to carry their weapons on their person free of the same intervention that is granted to drivers. Without sounding presumptious, Ill bet my car my gun and my dog that the Sarah brady's and other reg. proponents of the world would curl up and die before they would concede to anything like that.

As for what should be legal and what not i.e. "assault" weapons and such... those of us who have experience with all things tactical will be the first to tell you that a relic or antique in the hands of a proficient marksman is far more dangerous than the latest most state of the art "assault" weapon owned by John Q public.
 
I see that liberals like myself are in the minority on this board. Well, "to each, his own."

I can see where you are comming from on the issue of assult rifles. To me it seems very easy to distinguish a normal gun from an assult rifle. Think, "was this gun designed to kill people?" I highly doubt that the inventer of the Tommy Gun or the AK-47 was ONLY trying to find a better way to hunt deer!!:rolleyes: If the intent of a certain gun is to kill people, then why would a law abbiding citizen have the incredible need to own one?

Speeking of owning a gun... lets take a look at the 2nd amendment...shall we?

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

From the way I interprite this amendment, it looks like the only people who are allowed to own a gun are those who are in the Militia. Do we have a Militia today? Sure we do. Its called the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Cost Guard, National Guard, and the Police. From the looks of it, only those who are in the armed forces or the Police are granted the right to own a firearm. Maby we should stop fighting for the right to own a AR-15 and just be glad we have the right to own ANY gun. For those of you who are in the armed forces or the police, you have earned the right to own any gun you want. So if any of you is or have been in the armed forces, then I am behind you 100%. For the others, don't bit the hand that feeds you.

Happy Shooting,
BOOSTD
 
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." - John Adams

"The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power.

Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world...

The first step in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come is to teach men to shoot!" - Theodore Roosevelt
 
Originally posted by BOOSTD
I can see where you are comming from on the issue of assult rifles. To me it seems very easy to distinguish a normal gun from an assult rifle. Think, "was this gun designed to kill people?" I highly doubt that the inventer of the Tommy Gun or the AK-47 was ONLY trying to find a better way to hunt deer!!:rolleyes: If the intent of a certain gun is to kill people, then why would a law abbiding citizen have the incredible need to own one?

Along the same lines... if the intent of a GN is to speed, then why would a law abiding citizen have the incredible need to own one?

This country isn't supposed to be based on needs. We dont elect our representitives to legislate my "NEEDS". I elect my representitives to represent me and protect me from people who want to dictate what I "need". They all take an oath when they enter office to uphold the Constitution, above any sort of wishes others might have to dictate my "needs".

Guns certainly can kill things, and in the wrong hands those things can be people. However, a semi auto rifle like an AR15 is any bit more lethal then a Remington 7400 "Deer Slayer", then consider this...

Human: 150-250lbs
Deer: 400-700lbs

Speeking of owning a gun... lets take a look at the 2nd amendment...shall we? "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

From the way I interprite this amendment, it looks like the only people who are allowed to own a gun are those who are in the Militia.

The statement "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State", does nothing more then give a reason, it does not change the meaning of "The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

"Because I'm getting tired, I'm going to bed". Nomatter what the qualifier, I'm still going to bed. Since we can't call up Tom Jefferson and ask for an explaination... all we can do is infer the meaning from other documents written at the time... start with the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.

States do not have "rights". The Military does not have "rights" granted by the Bill of Rights. Only so recently did people have such an interpretation. There isn't a single Supreme Court case that backs up that interpretation... even "US vs Miller", which many gun control organizations point to as justification that the US Government can restrict firearms.

THE PEOPLE, just like THE PEOPLE in the first Ammendment, means you and me.

Do we have a Militia today? Sure we do. Its called the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Cost Guard, National Guard, and the Police. From the looks of it, only those who are in the armed forces or the Police are granted the right to own a firearm. Maby we should stop fighting for the right to own a AR-15 and just be glad we have the right to own ANY gun.

The specific purpose of the Second Ammendment is that of balance of power. The right to bear arms was put in place along with other rights... (free speach/press, assembly, etc) because the founding fathers of this country knew and understood that the people need to retain it as a last resort to keep the government of their choice.

Edited for Tactfulness... because I was brought up to be blunt...
 
I know an instance that I would like to have an "assault weapon". The riots in LA when they gave the Rodney King verdict. If I were a business owner and roving gangs of looters came to my business, I would like to have an "assault weapon" to protect my life and my property. There was nothing that the Police, Military, or all of those unarmed liberals out there could do but cower and hide as mad droves of criminals acted at their will with no regard to law. If a large group of those thugs were approaching you at that time and there was a table of weapons laying there, which weapon would you grab? If you grabbed the phone and dialed 911, you would have been that truck driver or worse.
 
Back
Top