Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: My Thoughts on the Future of the 2nd Amendment

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    nowhere, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    (I've sent this to several Congressmen & women, and posted it on a few message forums.)

    -------------------------------------------

    If a gun-control advocate manages to be elected as America's Chief Executive, it could very well be time to say good-bye to one of our Nation's founding principles; the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, as outlined under the Second Amendment. And so it goes, other Constitutional Rights will be legislated out of existence later, and we will be without recourse; as our means of resistance will have been removed from the equation (willingly!).


    The Declaration of Independance states why our Second Amendment is so completely vital and necessary:
    "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


    The Constitution does not grant us the right to free speech, or the right to keep and bear arms. The most important document in the Free World only states that those rights are given to us by God, and are intrinsic to humanity; and that those rights & freedoms shall not be infringed upon, through acts of governance or tyranny.
    Without the means to resist, what recourse do we have against a government that has become contrary to the ideals & rights that we hold so dear?
    When a large-scale natural or man-made disaster occurs; the general good order of society breaks down, and State/Federal government agencies are unable to respond effectively; who will provide protection to our families against opportunistic criminals?
    And during a time when society is relatively stable, what stands between an opportunistic criminal and a law-abiding citizen, if that citizen's means (and right!) to defend him/herself has been excised by the government?
    One of my favorite quotes is: "Why do I carry a gun? Because a whole cop would be too heavy!"
    But the first steps to abolish these rights have been taken long ago, and continue to be pursued by those who seem to take America's past & present struggles for granted.
    The most frightening and disturbing gun-control bill that has passed into law since the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban, is HR2640; otherwise known as the "NICS Improvement Act of 2007". HR2640- http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-2640


    Almost immediately after the Virginia Tech massacre, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy; the most rabid anti-gun politician besides James Brady, Sen. Patrick Leahy, and Sen. Charles Schumer, introduced this bill on 11 June, 2007.
    Section 102(b)(1)(C)(IV) in HR2640 provides for the dumping of raw medical records into the NICS system. Any citizen that has been "adjudicated" as being "mentally defective" will have their 2nd Amendment Rights removed. Forever.
    Those two terms have been radically redefined by HR2640. The first, to be "adjudicated", in the past could only happen in a court of law with all the protections of due process; including the right to face one's accuser. Now, an adjudication in HR2640 would include a finding by a court, commission, committe, or other "authorized person"; namely, a psychiatrist.
    The second term, "mentally defective" in the past meant that one adjudicated as being "mentally defective" was "not guilty by reason of insanity". But under the Veterans Disarmament Act, "mental defects" has been stretched to include anyone whom a psychiatrist finds to be a danger to self or others, no matter how large or tiny a threat it is. And being diagnosed with PTSD is considered a "mental defect" under HR2640, hence placing thousands of American Veterans on the federal gun-ban list; the same list onto which convicted murderers, rapists, and other felons are placed.


    In print & in theory, provisions in this law allow for a veteran who's name has been place on the NICS list to seek an expungement. However, there can be no expungements at or under the federal level. This is due to the expungement procedure being blocked for over a decade by one of McCarthy's buddies; Sen. Charles Schumer, who instituted a "funds cut-off" in the NICS system.
    Before this bill became law, the only way in which a veteran could be stripped of his/her 2nd Amendment Rights would've been being adjudicated/convicted in a court of law as being a criminal. There had to have been a trial with full due process, rather than a psychiatrist simply concluding that a veteran has developed PTSD.
    According to McCarthy, her bill was necessary to keep guns out of the hands of people like Seung Cho, who was found by psychiatrists in the past to be mentally defective. Americans throughout the nation did not question the negative impact her bill would have upon veterans, as the majority only focused on the fact that Cho was not somehow steered by the government from his course after being found mentally ill. The anti-gun establishment could not have hoped for a worse tragedy that would play off of the national sorrow, and media knee-jerk reaction, that in the end would guarantee the bill's passing into law.


    Three Republicans (Rep. Michael Castle (DE), Christopher Shays (CT), & Lamar Smith (TX) ) also co-sponsored HR2640, but I could find no recorded justification of their sponsorship. I've talked to several Veterans Administration case-workers who were fully aware of this bill, and very surprisingly, fully supported it. Their reasoning in doing so is that supposedly the Veterans Disarmament Act would prevent veteran suicides. Yet there has been no factual evidence that removing a gun from a suicidal person's possession, or the ability to legally buy a gun, would prevent them from carrying through. It has been proven that people diagnosed with PTSD commit violent crimes at the same rate as people without PTSD. The vast majority of World War 2 and Vietnam veterans (or even violent crime & Sept. 11th victims) have long been able to own firearms and work normal jobs without becoming spree killers or suicide victims. A diagnosis of PTSD alone does not immediately connotate suicidal or violent tendancies.


    Another strike at the 2nd Amendment, this time on the State level, has been enacted by the State which is the current champion of anti-gun policy.
    Ah-nold the Governator has signed into law a bill that requires the "microstamping" of matching serial numbers on bullets & brass, and then entered into a database containing the details of the buyer. Ammunition not microstamped is illegal to own, and must be turned in for destruction. Another requirement of this is the manufacture of firearms that microstamp a serial# onto the brass shell each time it is fired; even though the technology to accomplish this doesn't exist, and would not be possible on some guns such as revolvers. In any case, criminals would quickly learn to use revolvers, or simply collect the fired casings from the crime scene. Many criminals do so already, even before this microstamping existed.
    Similar bills have already been introduced in several other States, Tennessee & Mississippi being among them. And illustrating the hidden agenda followed by anti-gun proponents, these bills are being pushed through ten States by a lobby-group called "AmmunitionAccountability" for the benefit of manufacturer ACS, or "Ammunition Coding Systems". Obviously in bed with the many anti-gun advocates, the lobbyists & ACS stand to make millions of dollars if their bills pass.
    Not only is this an attempt by companies & individuals to turn a profit, it has been embraced by anti-gun advocates as an alternative to a blanket gun-ban: "If we can't ban the firearms, then ban the bullets they shoot!"
    These proposed laws would instantly criminalize a huge portion of American citizens. It would also effectively cripple or destroy many ammunition & firearms manufacturers, as well as the handloading industry. Thousands of Americans would lose their jobs; and since the price of "lawful" ammunition & firearms would rise significantly to reflect the increased technical difficulty & cost inherent in developing & retooling assembly lines, many citizens would be unable to afford both firearms & ammunition.


    This back-door approach at total gun-control is largely off the radar of most Americans & their representatives in the government. The mass-media will not report these attacks on our Constitutional Rights, as the mass-media itself is largely on the payroll of anti-gun advocates, both private & public.
    Law-abiding, gun-owning citizens are very seriously concerned about the continued preservation of our Constitutional Rights as a whole, and seem to be the only demographic who fight & vote for the Constitution as a whole. Whereas moderates, independants, liberals, & socialists only focus on those rights which apply directly to their own party line or interests. They are wholly unfazed by the prospect of abolishing one or more of the Constitutional rights; as long as it doesn't affect the individual or party agenda.


    The subject of gun-control has been largely untouched by almost all of the Presidential candidates (the past exceptions being Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, & to a lesser extent, Fred Thompson). However, the ailing economy is at the forefront of nearly every campaign on both sides; and the firearms industry ties into our economy in a very big way.
    And yet another Assault Weapons Ban has been introduced (currently in committee- Judiciary, subcommittee on Crime, Terrorisim, & Homeland Security). In addition to the aforementioned Veterans Disarmament Act and Ammunition Accountability Act, HR1022 is far more sweeping and suffocating than the 1994 Clinton/Brady AWB, which expired in 2004. And to no surprise, this one is also the afterbirth of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (busy year for her & her cronies).
    This new proposed law, titled the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007", in conjunction with those other laws I have discussed here, would all but destroy the 2nd Amendment, as well as cripple a large segment of our economy.
    HR1022- http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-1022


    The Nation's economy, which has seen many businesses remove their operations to foreign shores, has maintained this very vital & growing indigenous industry. I know a lot of law-abiding & tax-paying Americans who own firearms-related businesses that are enormously concerned about the threat posed by gun-grabbers, and justifiably so. Since the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 expired in 2004, the firearms industry has been booming; but if H.R. 1022 & the AA-bill come to pass, the industry will cease to be a major source of stability in our shaky economy. And it (or a later facsimile) will become so, especially if Clinton or Obama are elected. Even John McCain stands with the gun-control advocates on a number of things (assault-weapon bans being one), and H.R. 1022 has a good chance of being signed in one form or another if McCain wins the general election.
    The anti-gun movement is still fixated on "assault weapons", even though it has been proven many times over that military-style semiautomatic rifles account for less than 2% of all violent firearms-related crimes nationwide.
    There were ridiculous provisions in the '94-'04 AWB, such as the sale & ownership restriction of any semi-automatic rifle with the means to equip a bayonet; the restriction of magazines larger than five rounds; and the ban of any imported semi-automatic rifle bearing a pistol-grip and standard stock which were manufactured with less than 3 US-made components. Such imported firearms required that the stock instead be a "thumbhole" sporter stock. These restrictions present in the '94-'04 AWB have been expanded to encompass nearly every semi-automatic firearm in existance.


    Since when has there been a factual, recorded incident involving a drive-by bayoneting? Or a bayoneting with an "assault rifle", period?
    Even sound suppressors are covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as being destructive devices, and aside from the homemade variety (easy to do, and highly illegal), can only be sold to civilians if they pass an expensive, time-consuming, rigorous and extremely strict screening process. Even if a citizen completes the requisite Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms paperwork, FBI background checks, and obtains permission from their local Sheriff/Police Chief, NFA/Class III weapons often cost well over $8k-$15k!
    A majority of the most rabid gun-grabbing lawmakers, lobbyists, and citizens have no idea what actually constitutes an "assault weapon". Even the author of H.R. 1022, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D.-NY), has absolutely no clue as to what her own proposed piece of anti-Constitutional drivel actually details. She is simply acting as the mouthpiece for groups & lobbies like the Joyce Foundation, Brady Campaign, AFL-CIO, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Federation of Teachers, National Organization for Women, etcetera….
    In this video from MSNBC, Carolyn McCarthy describes a "barrel shroud", and why it constitutes an assault weapon.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

    Yet another example of the ignorance ("Heat-Seeking Bullets"???) exhibited by gun-control advocates is this video; featuring a representative of the Freedom States Alliance, who is pushing another back-door assault on our Second Amendment.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ
    The anti-gun lobby is collectively foaming at the mouth over HR1022 & similar bills, and so are the liberals (60 cosponsors) in Congress. While it is still sitting in subcommittee, it will gain support with every school shooting and high-profile murder by firearm. The sad bit is that there are plenty of uninformed & propagandized Americans who sincerely believe, that even with the massive illegal immigrant invasion, rising crime, terrorism (at home and abroad), and a shaky economy, gun-control is the right thing to do!
    A taste of the future with gun-control advocates having their way was given to us during the Katrina disaster.
    Citizens were stripped of their firearms "for their own protection" by police; and as such were then made defenseless against possibly armed looters & criminals.
    There are many, many cases of lawfully armed residents successfully defending themselves; killing or injuring would-be burglars/robbers. These criminals are often armed as well; and have no compunctions about removing witnesses to their crime, should a confrontation occur. A recent quote that I've heard is this;
    "Armed robbery is only a trigger-pull away from murder."- a Police detective on a Discovery Channel crime show. That quote is very true.
    If a burglar/robber is slain or wounded & arrested in the course of a crime, the homeowner has performed a service to their community; and avoided the terrible ordeal of being a defenseless (and possibly dead/injured) victim in their own home.
    A huge joke among those of us who proudly and lawfully own firearms are the ADT/Brinks commercials on TV. Home-invaders are dangerous criminals and often armed. It is ridiculous to assume that one would simply break a window and flee if an alarm sounds. If a confrontation with a home-invader occurs, waiting for the security service to first call the victim, then contact police, and finally wait for law-enforcement to arrive can have deadly consequences. Chances are good that responding LEOs may not have any idea of what they are responding to, as they were contacted not by the victims, but by a third-party who was notified by a simple flashing alert on their computer screen; especially if the residents did not answer the security service's call. The seconds/minutes it takes for ADT/Brinks to conduct this phone-tag add to a busy LEO's response time.
    But I can already hear the gun-control advocate's retort;
    "Think of the children! Guns kill kids, because kids like to play with things! If there's no guns, kids won't accidentally shoot themselves or others!"
    These are flimsy & ridiculous reasons to not have a gun in the house; or as a lawful concealed-carry piece, for self-defense and/or hunting & recreation. Ignorance is the flaw in the gun-control movement's reasoning; and ignorance is not an excuse to remove other citizen's rights, simply to theroretically protect them from themselves.
    As a kid, rifles & pistols were either within my reach or I knew where they were kept. But I was taught very thoroughly about the rules & dangers which accompany any gun. I never touched a firearm unless I was given permission and was under direct supervision. This is the story with many responsible gun-owners; we all developed a deep respect for firearms, due to the proper education given to us by our parents. With any child; teaching safety, the reinforcement of potential consequences, and familiarization with firearms will firmly plant the knowledge that guns are not toys.
    I remember as a kid, handling a gun even while under the supervision of a parent or responsible adult, made me feel somewhat nervous or uneasy. I felt the potential danger inherent in a firearm, and I was acutely aware of how to properly handle and operate one safely. This is something that all kids should feel when looking at/handling a gun; the deep respect (and fear) of the weapon.
    But firearm education doesn't have to stop with children. Many adults who have never even seen a gun up close and who don't know much about either guns or the laws & rights covering them, can benefit greatly from proper guidance and education.
    Again, I hear the gun-grabber's retort; "Guns allow suicidal or mentally disturbed people to hurt themselves or others! Guns are responsible for the Virginia Tech massacre!"
    Schools & their teacher associations at all levels are pushing anti-gun propaganda onto the children and young adults of our Nation. And it is becoming very effective, as increasing numbers of parents are relying almost completely upon those educational institutions to teach (and even raise!) their kids from day-care/pre-school onward. That said schools are already "Gun-Free Zones", they are becoming ever larger targets with each child & parent subverted; and each gun-control law put onto the books. Gun-control advocates had won a huge victory with HR2640; passed in an attempt at preventing school/workplace massacres. That law, combined with HR1022 & the Ammunition Accountability Act, means there will be no need for firearms education; as firearms (all but the most ineffective or expensive) will be removed from the hands of law-abiding citizens, and made available only to criminals & terrorists.


    For our Nation to continue in such a fashion is fairly insane! Proof has been made crystalline clear that there is a massive threat from terrorists against our schools. Our national media outlets have conveniently ignored and/or forgotten about the lessons of the Beslan school siege & massacre! And the fact that blueprints & detailed plans for assaulting American schools were discovered in Iraq was only briefly covered by the media! The relative success & brief sensationalized coverage of the Beslan massacre served to enbolden terrorists everywhere. And our lawmakers insisting on designating Gun-Free Zones do little except create openly advertised Victim-Only Zones. People intent on committing atrocities know where they will encounter the least resistance, and a what we in the military call a "target-rich enviroment".
    But still, I have heard very little from law-enforcement, Federal, or State planners that they are even attempting to avert or deal with a Beslan-style or another VA Tech tradgedy at home. It seems that the American government at all levels has returned to the Ostrich Plan; falling back onto a policy of reaction, rather than action.
    It's not that I think that defense & law-enforcement should make their plans & capabilities in dealing with another Beslan transparent; I think that those agencies should at least make it known that in one form or another, they are ready and able to defeat an organized terrorist or criminal attack on one of our educational institutions. Such a limited disclosure would definitely be a deterrent against all but the most determined attacker.


    Without the right & ability for the average citizen or civil servant to protect themselves or help protect others until authorities arrive in force, a massive attack on an educational institution by terrorists becomes a "when" situation, not an "if" scenario. The police departments in most small towns, and even larger ones, are rather glaringly unprepared if asked to deal with such a situation; especially when confronted with an enemy who does not intend on taking hostages, only killing as many innocent Americans as possible.
    Likewise I doubt that any of our police forces, regardless of size & sophistication, would be able to deal with two or more simultaneous, organized criminal or terrorist attacks in the same (or adjacent) municipalities; at least without military aid/intervention. And according to the detailed plans recovered in Iraq, that is exactly what the terrorists have in mind for us; a simultaneous assault on multiple American schools

    Regarding lone individuals like Seung-Hui Cho, did the he conduct his attack using "assault" weapons as described in the Clinton-era AWB, or the new H.R. 1022 bill? Other than his firearms being semi-automatic, they were devoid of all the evil features that assault weapons are described as having. With the Columbine killers, Klebold & Harris, they were indeed using a large-capacity semi-auto pistol detailed as an "assault weapon". However, the Clinton AWB did nothing to prevent that firearm from being obtained by those two individuals.
    And would've Cho or Klebold/Harris succeeded as horribly, if at all, had a student or faculty member been lawfully carrying their own defensive firearm? I highly doubt that he would have.
    Since then, many Virginia Tech students & faculty have stated that they'd wished someone who was carrying their own firearm was present at the time. In other colleges across the nation, students & faculty have begun to lobby for the lifting of restrictions on lawfully-carried firearms on campus. Some schools have even taken steps to allow handguns on their campuses if possessed by trained & registered faculty/students.

    The resulting argument from gun-grabbers is that if such were the case; that some students & faculty were lawfully armed, law-enforcement would have a much larger problem in discerning who is the attacker, and who is an armed civilian.
    For once, the gun-control advocates have made an intelligent point. And that is definitely a sticky problem. However, if there were multiple armed civilians defending themselves against a lone (or pair) gunman, I believe that 99% of the time the perpetrator(s) will have been killed and/or incapacitated by the time LEOs arrive. At that point, it's a simple thing for a civilian with a concealed-carry firearm to disarm prior to & declare themselves/assume submissive postures to police when they show up.

    I submit that an excellent compromise would be to institute plain-clothes security, similar to the Federal Air Marshals. Where uniformed security can be easily recognized, avoided, or neutralized by an armed individual such as Seung-Hui Cho, armed Federal/State "School Marshals" would appear to be average students or faculty. They could be in direct communication with crisis/terrorist response centers, bypassing overloaded 911 systems and often slow-to-react local police forces.
    School Resource police officers are few on primary school & college campuses (from what I've found at the most a dozen on large institutions); are often overworked responding to minor complaints, and must split their workload between security sweeps, traffic (parking-lot) enforcement, drug enforcement/student searches, and paperwork. I've also learned that many School Resource officers have to perform their duties on the streets as well, making them Jacks-of-all-Trades.
    But School Marshals would be dedicated to, and train for one mission only. They would not be required to perform any duties other than stop a rampaging gunman or other violent crime. While penny-pinching legislators and administratore would rankle at the thought of funding the added manpower and training required for such a specialized security force, it would only take one thwarted attempt at massacre to prove a School Marshal's worth. And if it were known that these Marshals are present, numerous, and hidden amongst the populations at schools; the deterrent factor alone would likely be enough to give a potential attacker pause.


    Another anti-gun argument is that assailants like Seung-Hui Cho, who are intent on murder-suicide, would not be deterred in the least by the known presence of armed faculty, students, & security on school grounds. And they're very likely right on that point. However, where it might take a very long time for a lone School Resource officer or local police to find and eliminate the suicidal murderer; it will only take minutes for said murderer to encounter properly trained & armed School Marshals, faculty, or students. In that respect, suicide will very likely occur well before the murder part.


    But if bans on campus firearms continue; or there is a larger State/Nationwide blanket ban on handguns, there will be many more Americans who will lose their lives due to their inability to adequately protect themselves & their families if confronted by a violent criminal or terrorist at home, work, or school; and certainly thousands (possibly more!) of honest & hard-working Americans will be ruined financially by the success of blanket gun & ammunition bans. As American citizens, we have an obligation to protect our own, protect our economy, and help protect our nation. This is much larger than just being allowed to own whatever rifle/pistol we choose……
    Aurstralia has provided an example of what gun-control can accomplish, and is a shining beacon of the danger posed by gun-control.
    It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be
    destroyed by their government; a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
    There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was spent in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
    We don't and won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
    Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property, while gun-control laws adversely affect only law-abiding citizens.
    ———————————
    It is our civic duty to educate our family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, and lawmakers about the dangers of gun-control. Though it is not my intent to force a pro-gun viewpoint upon others, I believe that through fact-based information, American citizens & lawmakers who were previously unaware of the hidden assault against our Constitution can respond at the voting-booth according to their own informed belief structures; rather than passing agendas & supporting views which were reported on & given as the only option by the mass-media.

    Our Nation could well be entering a very dark time; our homeland, our economy, and our Constitutional Rights are being endangered on many fronts. The worst part is that some of the largest threats are posed by our fellow Americans; who through ignorance, political agenda, or simple greed, are eating away at the foundations of our Nation and society.

    I'd love to hear any thoughts, comments, or corrections. I tried my best to thoroughly research the information here, and if I got a fact wrong, I want to know so I can correct the discrepancy.
    The most effective tool in fighting gun-control is proven fact and sound logic; rather than the knee-jerk arguments, "What If?" scenarios, and baseless claims by "experts".


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    nowhere, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    Speaking of Drive-By Bayonetings!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO6pj...eature=related

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    We can actually blame a few of our so called friends in the government and some of our fellow gun owners. We elected a a President in 2000 and in 2004 that's not really a pro gun POTUS. From 1994 until 2006 we elected and kept re-electing the GOP in the House and Senate. Did they do anything for us? NO. All the did was allow the Clinton era stuff to run out. WOW nice of them to "allow" us our rights back. All the while they spent more then the Dems ever thought of on pork. Then Bush decides wrongly to invade Iraq. So you can hardly blame ignorant people to think Obama is the answer to all. Then there's my fellow gun owners that didn't want the handouts people tried to give them about the most pro gun candidate we had this year. The gun owners that I heard say "I don't care about any of them" Or the gun owners that would never donate to the most pro gun candidate, and the gun owners that said Ron Paul could never do all the things he wanted and still wants to do. But they will tell you that Obama will come for all our guns. Or the ones that you try to tell about the VCDL here in VA and put there hand up to you. So as you see we don't even stick together as well as we should.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran kimbercarrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    +1 I've had the same experience at gun shows trying to hand out VCDL info. It seems a lot of gunowners don't think they need groups like the VCDL to fight for them because they're not going to take my shotgun or hunting rifle. And they're the same ones that will complain when their rights are restricted or taken.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    nowhere, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    I agree that we don't have as much unity & support from within as there should be. A lot of it comes down to agenda. I personally don't trust the NRA to competently protect our 2nd Amendment. More & more, I feel that a lot of institutions like the NRA make a distinction between hunters & shooters/collectors, and hunting firearms & sporting/collectible/self-defense firearms. Their level of support for any buthunters & easily categorizedfirearms is far more coherent than unpopular firearms & uncommon uses (ISPC/IDPA).

    The reason for the pick-&-choose attitude of the NRA is because they feel that rather than spread their efforts/funds defending the entire firearms enthusiast spectrum, they'll have a better/easier chance at defending only a small portion of the whole firearms community & industry. It's easier for them to argueagainst the anti-gun lobby that the 2nd Amendment's intent covers hunters & hunting firearms, rather than semi-automatic high-capacity firearms used mainly for no more than plinking & the occasional prairie-dog. It seems that the NRA and other individuals have decided that if they can preserve our right to go hunting with a firearm or own a handgun for self-defense, giving up our right to own "sporting" firearms (those evil assault-weapons) is a small sacrifice.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    But a 7.62X39 is a perfectly acceptable hunting round, if I'm not mistaken........

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    nowhere, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    icode wrote:
    But a 7.62X39 is a perfectly acceptable hunting round, if I'm not mistaken........
    I most definitely is; if a jacketed soft-point, jacketed hollow-point, jacketed hollow-cavity...... anything but incendiary/tracer, armor-piercing, and standard military ball/FMJ rounds.

    Even though the 7.62x39 is an intermediate rifle cartridge it's still equivalent to the .30-30 Winchester, which has been one of, if not the, most popular deer cartridges in the US for over a century.

    If I had told my acting cmdr that my SLR was chambered in .30 cal, she wouldn't have known the difference. But because she knows that the 7.62x39 is used for the AK-47 by insurgents, she equated the rifle & its' cartridge as being good for nothing except killing people. She even ordered me to bring the rifle in so she could ensure that I didn't smuggle an AK-47 back from Iraq!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    Let me get this right. Your unit commander ORDERED you to bring in your private legally owned firearm for her to inspect???? What was your answer?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    nowhere, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    GLENGLOCKER wrote:
    Let me get this right. Your unit commander ORDERED you to bring in your private legally owned firearm for her to inspect???? What was your answer?
    I had to. When I started to respectfully object, I instantly had several senior NCOs jumping down my throat with threats of insubordination and disobeying a lawful order. That particular order to inspect myriflewas a corollary to the one telling me that I had to secure it in the arms-room. The regs stated that a cmdr. could deny a request to maintain a POW at home on the basis of a soldier's disciplinary and mental-health record, and that they should normally grant such a request.

    But again, IG completely ignored the fact that a senior NCO (our acting cmdr. at the time was an E-7) lied in a sworn-statement and disregardedArmy regulations due to her own personal views. IG simply ordered my acting cmdr. to put her decision in writing (as per regs), and that was it. I brought the written decision (in the form of a counselling statement) back to IG, along with printouts of Federal, State, and Army regulations covering legal firearms; and a written statement by the NCOIC at the Provost Marshal who registered my rifle on post, stating that there is no restrictions on what caliber or type of rifle is/is not legal for hunting/target shooting. Yet IG simply dropped the case, telling me that they had satisfactorily(?!?) resolved my original complaint.

    Anyways, at that point I wrote a couple letters to my Congressman, and left it at that. Because I was causing so much of a stir, I had started drawing every ****** detail & duty that came down the pipes.

    When I left that unit, I was told that I couldn't remove my rifle from the arms-room until the unit-armorer from my new unit came to sign for it & transport it to their arms-room. Upon taking it up with my new unit, my new 1st Sgt. questioned me on the matter (type of firearm, properly registered, etc). He was flabbergasted at the sheer stupidity of the situation, and to placate my old unit's cmdr., he sent me to a psychologist for evaluation (suicidal/homicidal tendencies).

    I now have my SLR....

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Frederica, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    Anax,

    Very good read, it covers many many topics and addresses viewpoints clearly and concisely. Many of the topics you have in here I speak about with my friends, and they generally don't want to hear about it. It is really frustrating because many times they are uninformed, or misinformed, and don't realize what a fundemental right it is to own/carry/use a weapon.

    With your permission I would like to take quote some of your statements in a letter I am writing to my congressmen/reps, as well as a few from other states I feel should be contacted, including Ron Paul.

    Thanks,

    Gwee

    P.S. Glad to hear you got your SLR back :celebrate

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    nowhere, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    Giustiniani wrote:
    Anax,

    Very good read, it covers many many topics and addresses viewpoints clearly and concisely. Many of the topics you have in here I speak about with my friends, and they generally don't want to hear about it. It is really frustrating because many times they are uninformed, or misinformed, and don't realize what a fundemental right it is to own/carry/use a weapon.

    With your permission I would like to take quote some of your statements in a letter I am writing to my congressmen/reps, as well as a few from other states I feel should be contacted, including Ron Paul.

    Thanks,

    Gwee

    P.S. Glad to hear you got your SLR back :celebrate
    Thank you for reading the book I wrote, and for wanting to use it for help in educating those who are less informed or ignorant about our RTKBA.

    Feel free to use any part of my article , all that I ask is that I be credited & links made to this thread here.

    And I'm glad I got my SLR back too.... it's not just a cool rifle; it was my Father-in-law's SLR, whichhe left me afterunfortunately succumbing to cancer (resulting from Agent Orange).


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •