Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
clarence said
Appreciate the clarification. But “our” President’s announced agenda is not much less draconian than that of Mike’s fellow-Texan: https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
Since few here, I suspect, will invest the time in reading the entire program, here’s one item which should get the attention of even the “what, me worry?” antique collectors:
“End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts.”
Never thought I would be able to say Canada has less gun laws & restrictions than the good ole ??. No online sales…good news for gun shows!!
Offline
RickC said
Never thought I would be able to say Canada has less gun laws & restrictions than the good ole ??. No online sales…good news for gun shows!!
Yes, at least for now, we can still buy and sell guns online and and buy and sell them at gun shows without the hassle of having them shipped to a licenced gun dealer or wait periods as long as the buyer has a valid Possession and Acquisition Licence . I am sure Mr.Trudeau and Mr.Blair are watching all this US activity closely for ideas.
I would be very nervous if I was a collector with several hundred pieces. If no buying & selling guns online and no buying and selling them at gun shows is a possibility, & all transactions must be shipped to & thru a licenced gun dealer, you can assured our collecting world will become a lot smaller than it is already. Jmo
steve004 said
“Prohibit all on-line firearms sales”… what does this mean? No more gunbroker? But in the gunbroker scenaro, it is the FFL transfer dealer that receives the firearm, and then background checks the buyer in his shop – just like he would if the buyer was purchasing a firearm from his inventory in his shop. I’m not understanding what they are getting at here.As far as some of the other items, some of that is already in place in parts of the country. I know there is California as well as other locations where ammunition cannot be shipped to the buyer. In fact, in California, don’t you have to go through a background check process when you purchase ammunition?
This is an example of our congress people making laws that have absolutely no knowledge of what they are making laws on. These are not “gun people” making the laws, they are anti gun people doing what ever they can to make gun purchases as hard as they can.
Brooksy said
This is an example of our congress people making laws that have absolutely no knowledge of what they are making laws on. These are not “gun people” making the laws, they are anti gun people doing what ever they can to make gun purchases as hard as they can.
Absolutely Brooksy. Campaign promises to the soccer moms & others who simply are offended by just the word gun, or firearm, or bullets etc.
I’m not sure what can be written into law & retracted or amended later by a new government in the U.S, but it might be the only thing left in the near future if these uneducated firearm legislators & politicians get their way.
As quoted from the second amendment:
“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Where does the second amendment play into all this?
It seems like that any and all legislation is infringement upon my rights, but the second amendment clearly states that they shall not be infringed.
What’s the point of having amendments if you are blatantly going to override them?
RickC said
Absolutely Brooksy. Campaign promises to the soccer moms & others who simply are offended by just the word gun, or firearm, or bullets etc.
I’m not sure what can be written into law & retracted or amended later by a new government in the U.S, but it might be the only thing left in the near future if these uneducated firearm legislators & politicians get their way.
Not really a matter of lack of “education,” Rick. It’s a bitter, visceral, hatred of everything related to firearms–hunting, target shooting, etc.–so deeply ingrained (from the cradle, probably) that it might as well be genetic.
But there’s another important dimension–making guns, not the deliberate actions of individuals, the “cause” of inter-city violence (which is where most gun-crimes take place) absolves the perpetrators of that violence from responsibility for their own actions. That guns “made” them do it, is the theory,& if only guns were removed, the folks committing this violence would go back to living peaceful lives.
clarence said
Not really a matter of lack of “education,” Rick. It’s a bitter, visceral, hatred of everything related to firearms–hunting, target shooting, etc.–so deeply ingrained (from the cradle, probably) that it might as well be genetic.
But there’s another important dimension–making guns, not the deliberate actions of individuals, the “cause” of inter-city violence (which is where most gun-crimes take place) absolves the perpetrators of that violence from responsibility for their own actions. That guns “made” them do it, is the theory,& if only guns were removed, the folks committing this violence would go back to living peaceful lives.
Good points Clarence. I can’t argue any of that. I seriously am nervous about what the future holds for any firearm owners, not just collectors of vintage and historical military pieces.
clarence said
Not really a matter of lack of “education,” Rick. It’s a bitter, visceral, hatred of everything related to firearms–hunting, target shooting, etc.–so deeply ingrained (from the cradle, probably) that it might as well be genetic.
But there’s another important dimension–making guns, not the deliberate actions of individuals, the “cause” of inter-city violence (which is where most gun-crimes take place) absolves the perpetrators of that violence from responsibility for their own actions. That guns “made” them do it, is the theory,& if only guns were removed, the folks committing this violence would go back to living peaceful lives.
Thats hitting the nail on the head Clarence.
Too many fuzzy thinking “sheeple” in our citizenry who have no clue, or let other folks do the thinking for them.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
To ALL;
Do any of you out there remember your American History? Several thoughts come to my mind. First thought, The Ruling Political organization (England) back in the last quarter of the 18th century tried to outlaw and confiscate firearms from the American Colonies. How did that work out for them? Not very well. It ended up with them out, and ultimately our Great U.S.A. Second thought. Now perhaps the citizens of these United States of America, in the first quarter of the 21st century have lost their ability to understand what their rights are under the so called “Law of the Land”, our Constitution. A Constitution given to them by our countries founders and the blood of its people. If the Constitution is indeed the “Law of the Land” then answer this question for me. Without presenting a referendum to the people to either eliminate or revise the 2nd Amendment in our Constitution, to be passed by a majority of the States, please explain how are these politicians being allowed to get away with even trying it? I always thought that to use extortion was a crime, perhaps I was wrong. If HR-127 passes into “The Law”, while not exactly eliminating the right to own a firearm, it does in fact make it virtually impossible for average citizens to afford one. It infringes on their ability, and in fact their right to own one. Then to threaten massive fines and years of imprisonment if one doesn’t follow the rules set forth in HR-127, this by using the force of the Police to impose these rulings on the gun owning citizenry seems like extortion to me. That would make us no better than any other “Totalitarian Regime”. We’re supposed to be a “Free” country, not Venezuela, China, or any of a dozen other countries that could be named. How did we get here, and what do we do now that we seem to be there? I’d love to hear from you folks on this.
Apache (ya ta hey)
apache said
If HR-127 passes into “The Law”, while not exactly eliminating the right to own a firearm, it does in fact make it virtually impossible for average citizens to afford one. It infringes on their ability, and in fact their right to own one.
Millions of gun-owners don’t deserve to own one! The millions who never supported NRA, & left it to US, a small minority relatively speaking, to bear the burden of defending their rights…which wasn’t nearly enough, as events have proven, to finance the struggle. Only hope now against restrictions that will make 2A meaningless is the Supreme Court. Costs millions to fight a case all the way to the SC. Who will organize & pay for that fight with NRA now bankrupt?
clarence said
apache said
If HR-127 passes into “The Law”, while not exactly eliminating the right to own a firearm, it does in fact make it virtually impossible for average citizens to afford one. It infringes on their ability, and in fact their right to own one.Millions of gun-owners don’t deserve to own one! The millions who never supported NRA, & left it to US, a small minority relatively speaking, to bear the burden of defending their rights…which wasn’t nearly enough, as events have proven, to finance the struggle. Only hope now against restrictions that will make 2A meaningless is the Supreme Court. Costs millions to fight a case all the way to the SC. Who will organize & pay for that fight with NRA now bankrupt?
Good point Clarence!
To Clarence, Rick C., and others;
If you’re an American Citizen of good character, not a Convicted Criminal having served a prison sentence of over 1 year and a day for a felony, have not been certified mentally deranged or incompetent, have never been charged and convicted of a domestic violence crime, are of an age which in your state permits ( PERMITS!!! ) you to own a firearm, then according to what has to the best of my knowledge already been adjudged by the Supreme Court, it should be legal to own a firearm in these United States, this according to their interpretation as far as they took it of the 2nd Amendment. NO WHERE does it say that one should be or not be DESERVING OF OWNING A FIREARM if they never supported the NRA. ( which I have, as many know ) Clarence are you the one that will determine who is or isn’t deserving? Rick C. will you volunteer to be his assistant in determining who is or isn’t? Are you guys trying to steal Rep. S.J. Lee’s thunder? She wants to be one of those that says who shall or shall not, based on how much you can afford to give the Government in order to be allowed to have a firearm. Giving money to the NRA or not giving has nothing to do with what’s supposed to be one of our rights under the Constitution of the U.S. in this country. At least not thus far.
Apache ( ya ta hey )
Lawrence, the reality is “what’s supposed to be one of our rights under the Constitution of the U.S. in this country” is being challenged. The scary part is will it hold weight & have any teeth. Like you said “At least not this far” but possibly only a matter of time!
RickC
apache said
NO WHERE does it say that one should be or not be DESERVING OF OWNING A FIREARM if they never supported the NRA. ( which I have, as many know ) Clarence are you the one that will determine who is or isn’t deserving? Rick C. will you volunteer to be his assistant in determining who is or isn’t? Are you guys trying to steal Rep. S.J. Lee’s thunder?
Apache, you’re a simpleton if you missed the obvious point I was making.
Clarence;
In one word you’ve described me to a tee. I’m just one of those average simple minded individuals, perhaps even being described by you as a “Deplorable” individual. Sorry that you have to share this planet with the likes of us “Simpletons”.
Apache ( ya ta hey )
And THIS is why we don’t have political discussions in these types of forums. We are all on the same “team” and should be united no matter what “position” you play. Gun ownership is/was a right, and now it is a political football.
We should NOT turn against each other but stand strong, united in our beliefs and convictions.
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
And THIS is why we don’t have political discussions in these types of forums. We are all on the same “team” and should be united no matter what “position” you play. Gun ownership is/was a right, and now it is a political football.We should NOT turn against each other but stand strong, united in our beliefs and convictions.
Gun ownership has been a political football since the ’20s at least–the American Rifleman from those yrs is full of reports about attempts in state & municipal legislatures to enact various restrictions, & the National Firearms Act (outlawing my innocent H&R Handy Gun & those “dangerous” Trapper models!) was passed in 1934. This “right” has never been stronger than the efforts of its defenders to protect it from encroachment. How has that been accomplished? Not by wishful thinking.
Gentlemen, my thread was not intended to be politically divisive.
My apology if it has taken that turn.
Being “new” to the gun collecting fraternity, it was driven more so by your collective perspectives given the current run on gun legislation in Congress (and potential future ramifications) regarding:
1. Are you more inclined to dissolve your gun collections
2. Will you continue to buy more firearms
3. Will you refrain from adding to your collections
25-35 said
Gentlemen, my thread was not intended to be politically divisive.My apology if it has taken that turn.
Being “new” to the gun collecting fraternity, it was driven more so by your collective perspectives given the current run on gun legislation in Congress (and potential future ramifications) regarding:
1. Are you more inclined to dissolve your gun collections
2. Will you continue to buy more firearms
3. Will you refrain from adding to your collections
Good questions 25-35. Wondering what the responses will be myself.
1 Guest(s)
