I agree, i know our sherriff wouldn't take guns. I know many, many folks who have been or are in the military and they wouldn't support taking guns either.

The libs tried it in New York, and i guess they are finding out that making a law, and enforcing it are two different animals. I've been reading anywhere from 4% to 8% did comply with their un-constitutional law.

https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2016/07/07/massive-noncompliance-with-safe-act/

Keep your greezy fingers off my posts. Quit perverting perfection.

Flyinfinn
Our constitution has already been infringed on in several cases over the years.
The question is how do we as gun owners stop what is happening now before it happens again.
I know you are very passionate about your beliefs and that is fine.
The government has always played people they will cry big bad wolf is coming then they say no worries let us fix it for you that is what is happening

I used to think I could vote out the Senators and Reps and put ones in there that shared my views. Boy was I naive lol. I guess the statement, 'good politician' is a oxymoron. Term limits may help.

The first step to stop new gun control is to stop supporting old gun control, and stop electin anyone that does sup port old control.

I agree Rob. I like Marty as well and a matter of fact, whenever I see him make a post I look forward to reading it. No matter what subject matter it is. I do happen to disagree with him on this subject, but hey, that's ok. This thread has brought about some great dialogue which is pretty cool. I, however don't understand why anyone would disagree with me, because I am the true voice of reason.

Lol, i am too.

If ya don't believe me, just ask me and i'll give ya a second opinion!

Danny, the original link you posted to the article was the 1st I had heard of this with Sturm Ruger. Since then, I have not heard zilch about it. Between the news with Dicks and with Yeti, this has taken a back seat. We are talking about Americas last successful arms maker and I would guess a very tiny percent of the population has a clue this is going on.

Marty must live in Lawrence!!

Teacher, please ignore the ankle-biters and put-down artists, and come forth to defend your position. Persuasive points have been made against you. How will you respond?

How will you defend "reasonableness" and "enough is enough"?

I find a lot of your argument vague and subjective. How many guns are "enough"? So far as I'm concerned, it's my business, not the government's, when "enough" has been reached. I'm a free citizen. Where is there a limit placed in the Second Amendment?

Since I can only fire one rifle at a time, why would the government care how many guns I have, anyway? I'm not going to recruit a rival army, I swear!

Yes, the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions, but I don't agree with you that it's reasonable to ban ARs. I think I should be able to buy fully-auto rifles and suppressors ("silencers") without all the tax stamp approval rigamarole. I think we should be able to own the state of the art in firepower that we can bear, that is, carry in our arms.

Jim

You nailed it James! Well said.

RE: the Freedom Absolutists...

there is a real difference between theory and reality. I *WISH* we hadn't lost many of the Freedoms we (as a nation) had at our founding, but the REALITY is we haven't been THAT free since the day England said "No Mas".

You can argue and [complain] all you want about we shouldn't have to do this or that, why can't we...; but the (sad) REALITY is that most of those boats have already sailed.

so, we have to start at where we ARE; not at where we WERE.

Lesson # 1. Stop the bleeding (further erosion of our Rights)
Lesson # 2. only THEN, can we begin the long, slow process of re-gaining that which we've already lost

And if we can't do # 1 right now, at least slow the loss as much as we can.

I have nothing but contempt for those who vilify the most effective 2nd Amendment organization there is...all because they can't (with a mere handful of members) restore all of our FREEDOMS immediately.

Well said

X2

There is no freedom absolutists. There is, however, those that support gun control and those that do not.

Once you agree that GOVERNMENT should put reasonable restrictions on who can own and buy guns, you join the gun control crowd and bicker and fritter away rights while compromising with fellow gun control cohorts on what exactly reasonable means.
I realize that stopping the bleeding or further erosion of our rights seems reasonable. If you support the erosion of our rights that occurred in our past and pass them off as reasonable, well, the bleeding will never stop. The opposition knows that you are open to compromise and that they have to give nothing-just take-in order to get further restrictions.

Your losertarian ideology is useless

How many times does it have to be said?

Wanting a constitutional government does not make me or anyone else an anarchist.

The only difference between the R's and the D's anymore is which morality they choose to legislate.

Some of you guys are as rabidly fanatical about the republican party as any left-wing collectivist is about the democrat party.

Blue kool-aid or red kool-aid... It's still kool-aid.

Keep drinking it up.

Mike

Reality and wishful thinking are not the same .

The ship sailed long ago and any hope for a constitutional gov with pure individual freedom will only come through full collapse , civil war , death and the NEED to rebuild .

Joining a ineffective group on the sidelines and whining about the current atmosphere won't help anything.

You have two choices .....help slow the inevitable down ( to prepare ) or help speed it up

Here is an article showing republican (and I assume your?) idealogy at work here in Minnesota. It fits in nicely with the title of the thread as well. At times it is better to be seen as useless than fornicate like flea bitten rats with a political party who has a history of gun control efforts.

http://m.startribune.com/gop-lawmakers-offer-gun-bills/481520371/#comments