[blucoondawg]

Originally Posted by markw2011

This is what really gets under my skin

"Feinstein's office stressed the fact that the new assault weapons ban will not restrict the ability of hunters to use such weapons for sporting purposes by offering an exemption for those weapons as well as allowing weapons legally possessed before the enactment date of the bill to be grandfathered in."

The second amendment has nothing to do with "Hunters". I'm sick of hearing the "we don't want to take guns away from the hunters" line.

They use this "hunters clause" in order to get a large part of the gun owning community to go along with the ban. I have heard many people in the last 2 months, even before the Sandy Hook shooting, say "gun's aren't the problem, Obama hasn't and won't ever come after your or my rifles and shotguns, it's the guns that hold a lot of ammo that are the problem, these guns are made to kill people, they have to get rid of those." I have heard this over and over again from fellow gun owners and hunters and this is the biggest problem facing the 2nd amendment right now, otherwise pro 2A folks who are willing to side with the antis and compromise 30 round mags and ARs simply because they have no intersest in them and they watch too much of the mainstream media. They likely also vote Democrat and live by the creed "they'll never take your guns, it can't happen here", mostly because that's the line of crap they're fed by their union leaders.

[dog2000tj]

Originally Posted by Gone_South

Why not just ban crime?

You sir ... are brilliant!!! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before??? Might I suggest you run for office

[axxe55]

Originally Posted by Gone_South

Why not just ban crime?

Originally Posted by ResidentialPyro

Ding, ding ding, We have a winner!

you both know that just reeks of common sense!

isn't that what these bans are for? to protect us from being subjected to criminal attacks and make us feel all warm and fuzzy? hmmmm.........nahhh...they're trying to control us!

[axxe55]

Originally Posted by blucoondawg

They use this "hunters clause" in order to get a large part of the gun owning community to go along with the ban. I have heard many people in the last 2 months, even before the Sandy Hook shooting, say "gun's aren't the problem, Obama hasn't and won't ever come after your or my rifles and shotguns, it's the guns that hold a lot of ammo that are the problem, these guns are made to kill people, they have to get rid of those." I have heard this over and over again from fellow gun owners and hunters and this is the biggest problem facing the 2nd amendment right now, otherwise pro 2A folks who are willing to side with the antis and compromise 30 round mags and ARs simply because they have no intersest in them and they watch too much of the mainstream media. They likely also vote Democrat and live by the creed "they'll never take your guns, it can't happen here", mostly because that's the line of crap they're fed by their union leaders.

there are a large number of people who only have firearms for hunting and by saying this, you are quite correct, they are just trying to get a huge number of gun owners on board to agree that we need an AWB to prevent crime and that it would be a positive step forward in reducing crime. also by doing it, they are trying to break our ranks and divide us into two different types of gun owners and then they pit one group against the other to further divide us. if they divide our ranks, then they can and will gain more power over us as those trying to defend the 2nd amendment.

[Brue182]

I have said it before Obama got re-elected he doesn't give a f***. He is now working on what will be his "legacy" ie what will he be remembered for and what will sell more autobiographies later!

[jackrich3]

Heard a govt "spokeswoman" yesterday demanding that we ban high velocity clips.

Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

[Chainfire]

In his first four years, Obama made no moves to enact legislation restricting your gun rights, and would probably prefer to ignore it for the next four years. If we get a new set of gun laws, it will be through the congress, because the American people demand it.

Would he sign restrictive legislation, you bet, in a heart-beat. (shhhhhh! he doesn't like guns) As the Executive that is his only real power, to either approve or veto legistlation.

Place the burden where it belongs.

Now, when we elect Hillary Clinton, four years from now, all bets are off.

[dog2000tj]

Originally Posted by jackrich3

Heard a govt "spokeswoman" yesterday demanding that we ban high velocity clips.

I hope they do ... I don't have any

[blucoondawg]

Originally Posted by Chainfire

As the Executive that is his only real power, to either approve or veto legistlation.

Maybe someone ought to tell him that.

[blucoondawg]

Originally Posted by Chainfire

Now, when we elect Hillary Clinton, four years from now, all bets are off.

"We" won't elect Hilary Clinton in 4 yrs, you might, not me. In 4 more years that bag of leather will be so haggard looking even the lame media won't want her on their tv screens lol.