Jump to content
  • GUESTS

    If You  want access  to member only forums on FM, You will need to Sign-in or  Sign-Up now .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member.

Gun laws/rights


erikwells

Recommended Posts

I had previously thought along the same lines as a lot of our politicans regarding gun control thinking "who needs a gun like that for hunting". I changed my mind after discussing the topic with a couple of hunting friends and they pointed out that our right to bear arms is in the constitution to keep a balance should a corrupt government or dictatorship take hold of our country. The I thought "what are teh odds and that will never happen". I guess my memory of history needs to be refreshed. I was reading an interesting article on MSN this morning and found a couple of quotes from the article that made me further agree with my friends. No soapbox or political agenda to be had on my account only wanted to share with some of you a few things that really changed my mind. The article is called "Germany marks the 80th anniversary of Hitler's rise". Below is the quote that made me think about our liberty and rights as Americans and our constitution.

"About a month after being appointed chancellor, Hitler used the torching of the Reichstag parliament building — blamed on a Dutch communist — to strengthen his grip on power. He suspended civil liberties and cracked down on opposition parties, paving the way for the police state."

"The fact that Hitler was able to destroy German democracy in only six months serves as a warning today of what can happen if the public is apathetic, Merkel said."

Thanks and God bless America,

Erik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • jparrucci

    5

  • Eric Wettschreck

    5

  • Scott K

    8

  • amateurfishing

    12

There is a reason we have a well established system of checks and balances in place to limit the power of any one part of government. The President isn't as powerful as he may appear to be, he can't do much without the other 535 members of congress.

Additionally if the US government went as far as being the next Nazi regime what good would a few AR-15's be to us? If the government could somehow convince our army of volunteers to take up arms against their own country, their own homes, and their own families, what good would a few semi auto weapons do against the US military? If you truly want protection against the military we need to legalize MUCH larger weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The President isn't as powerful as he may appear to be, he can't do much without the other 535 members of congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my rationale for my post was to share with all of you the complexity of the issue and it's ok to change your mind. I'm a little emberrassed as a U.S. citizen and not just a sportsman that I had never put more thought into this issue even with all of the media attention. I'm certainly not qualified to politic on which side of the issue is right. I feel as though a lot of our politicians have oversimplified the issue by standing on the soapbox thumping their chests that gun control is the reason we have these mass shooting tragedies. Also coupled with the reasoning that we do not need certain weapons because there is not a practical hunting application for a fully automatic weapons. However ignoring the reason the right to bear arms was put in our constitution in the first place. I'm just saying look at the issue with eye wide open rather than how does this effect me like I was doing. Thanks for all of the responses from those of you that have taken more time to be informed than I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good point about looking at the issue with an open mind. Not many people do that on any hot issue. Most just allign themselves with whatever their typical political party alligence tells them to do. I may not agree with what your final opinion is on the topic but I do appreciate that you took an honest look at both sides and made an informed decision that makes sense to you. I wish more people would do that, even if it means I don't agree with them. I can respect a thoughtful opinion even if I don't share it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good point about looking at the issue with an open mind. Not many people do that on any hot issue. Most just allign themselves with whatever their typical political party alligence tells them to do. I may not agree with what your final opinion is on the topic but I do appreciate that you took an honest look at both sides and made an informed decision that makes sense to you. I wish more people would do that, even if it means I don't agree with them. I can respect a thoughtful opinion even if I don't share it.

Says the guy who's always here to defend Obama first, everywhere.

Here is the simple fallacy of gun control laws that really makes the whole conversation so illogical. Criminals, by definition, do not follow laws. Passing gun laws therefore only effects law abiding citizens. Law abiding citizens do not undertake "mass killings" as the political motor mouths like to talk about. Ergo, these laws do nothing to make anyone safer!

Think they work?

Columbine? During the first assault weapons ban...

Aurora, Co and Sandyhook? Gun free zones each of them...

These are unthinkable tragedies and heinous actions by deranged people. The implement they choose to undertake those actions is not what should be blamed.

Timothy McVeigh one the of worst psychopathic losers in history killed 170 people including just under 20 kids without a gun at all. The deadliest school massacre in history, like McVeigh, was done with a bomb. FACTS people. Try them out.

Oh and if you think citizen armaments don't dissuade government occupations of our country (either from outside or from within), study a little about why the Emporor of Japan refused to invade America, instead choosing to just bomb Pearl... Here is a quote attributed to one of his top admirals, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” Now, realistically, that was only one concern as we had a far mighty army anyway, but the fact that we are an armed citizenry has not been lost on our enemies.

Think about the world wars, have they ever been fought here? Has onyone tried to invade mainland USA? They'd be crushed... Gorilla wars amongst citizens are tough to win, look at Afghanistan. You'd have to have massive air superiority and a "shock and awe" type campaign to make any headway and our own govt wont want to destroy itself to occupy us so the easiest way is to make us feeble peasant servants unable to stand up to tryanny. Never could happen? How about Ruby Ridge and Waco? They were pretty much about just that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Says the guy who's always here to defend Obama first, everywhere.

I think you read far to much into my posts. I'm not even sure the last time I mention Obama in a post. And frankly you have absolutely no idea how much consideration I've given both sides of any issue. I have formulated my opinions based on a lot of factors and alot of consideration of both sides of the coin. Most of that thought process doesn't come out on these threads. You don't have to like my opinion but you can be assured that it was formulated thoughtfully and not based off spoon fed doctrine from one side or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part of ther Constitution shall we change next?

I voted for the silly-me we have in office now his first term and almost voted for the clown again but did not.

This fool is out of control and we have to hope we can somehow control him for 18 more months until the next election. Then, hopefully the Republicans can take control of the House and Senate and Obuma can hurt all of us no farther.

I have never spoken like this about 1 of our Presidents but this guy is out of control.

Gun control laws will NEVER stop anyhting other than maybe some citizen from owning a gun that he would like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HarveyLee is correct and if they would sit back and just look at his home town of Chicago for a what is going their and look past what what they hink they need to fix,They might understand that Gun control DOES NOT work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me a big issue is releasing murderers. That Carver county guy that killed his mother that was stockpiling ak-47's etc. He shouldn't have the chance to stockpile anything, hard to believe a violent gun person released back to society would re-offend or plan to, tired of hearing he or she's a "repeat offender" every county in our state knows it's only a matter of time when people get out of jail before they see them again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, realistically, that was only one concern as we had a far mighty army anyway,

Might want to brush up on history a little!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additionally if the US government went as far as being the next Nazi regime what good would a few AR-15's be to us? If the government could somehow convince our army of volunteers to take up arms against their own country, their own homes, and their own families, what good would a few semi auto weapons do against the US military? If you truly want protection against the military we need to legalize MUCH larger weapons.

Not to be rude, but please look at Iraq and Afghanistan. And no way more than 60 to 70% of our military would attack its own citizens. Some would, but a lot of them would meld back into our society. We are a great country for a reason.

Simple1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gun laws keep guns out of law abiding citizens hands. Feinstein needs to spend more time trying to get California out of its massive economic problems. Of which, guns have nothing to do with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm ashamed I never spent more time really thinking this topic through until very recently. Many great points from many of you who have done your homework. Thanks for the education and thank you for keeping it civil here as I hate email bashing. I work in the technology industry and have no issues with confrontation and have always found it funny when someone takes a shot at me through email how the message changes when I show up in their cube in 5 minutes and ask them to help me understand their email. Never fails, it stops that day. Thanks agin to all of you for helping me further understand this issue. Erik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a gun owner but am trying to learn about the issue all the time.

Why cant we fulfill the constition and at the same time put a limit on it. What is wrong with the right to bear arms if it defines arms as nothing that is military grade? And why is it my understanding in what i read that gun owners think they have no responsibility in this as to what can and should be defined as legal and/or necessary? Why cannot there be a right to bear arms without magazine clips that hold enuff ammo to completely level a town at once? There should be a middle ground with the right to bear arms whithout the need or desire to anything military grade or 1,000's of rounds of ammo.

to those bashing our current commander in chief, he was voted in by the popular vote and is heading the work desired by the greatest portion of our population. If you dont like him you should highly recommend to the other party stop stalling things getting done in DC with this my way or the highway attitude (aka tea party) and find a concensus within the party of a decent leader, the fact that the party is not up to date on social issues and cant even get along with each other does not help itself. even hillary and barrack get along even though they disagree, reps cant get along with their own grandmothers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the previous poster: The guns that are trying to banned are not "military grade" whatever that even means. The semi-automatic rifles are different than the military full auto or select fire weapons. The weapons "look" similar, but functional are way different. On the same subject, the military carries sidearms in some cases, including 1911 semi-auto pistol which I am sure many here own. It is "military grade" by your standards. Shall we ban that too? Before you spout off a partisan post, you should probably know what you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your first paragraph is what the general public doesn't understand about gun owners and enthusiasts. Most feel it's the 1st step in some master plan even though hunting brings in 87 billion per year. We rarely or never hear from Remington, Browning, Ruger, etc. they just sit back with their collection plate grinning ear to ear, some sell pizza for a living they sell guns. Some have this wild fear hunting will end, I don't share that thought unless they want to bankrupt 10's of thousands of people, then you'd have a full scale riot and civil war in the country, they'll avoid that. The issue is really law abiding citizens should be able to buy whatever gun they want and how ever much ammo they want. Penalties should be harsh for gun crimes but they aren't. Criminals do not care before during or after. Trouble figuring out where I stand on this, all I can do really is think about how many crimes are committed in MN yearly with the guns/clips they intend to ban, well I can't think of any so why aren't we pushing the mental illness piece of this to the top especially with males, when we say he's a wacko, he's nuts, he's out of his mind yet isn't in a creepy way, the people that stop finding value in their life are the ones I'm most concerned with, mental illness needs to get off the back burner and put on the front, and it needs to stay there until there's a plan in place that will make us all safer, and really them too, in all 50 states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the previous poster: The guns that are trying to banned are not "military grade" whatever that even means. The semi-automatic rifles are different than the military full auto or select fire weapons. The weapons "look" similar, but functional are way different. On the same subject, the military carries sidearms in some cases, including 1911 semi-auto pistol which I am sure many here own. It is "military grade" by your standards. Shall we ban that too? Before you spout off a partisan post, you should probably know what you are talking about.

I openly claim i do not know much about subject and its tools. I also have thoughts and ideas and openly claim I am all about learning more bout the subject. To call me clueless in your short memo may be somewhat on target but also states your ignorance. At least i am clearly open minded and am willing to listen to others where it is obvious where you stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone out there thinks this is some part of a master plan to totally remove firearms from the public then would recommend them taking a step back and rethinking the subject.

When our constitution was made was there:

1. Automatic weapons?

2. Internet where ppl could buy what they want when they want at a moments notice?

2. Were recrational guns made to look like military weapons? (i understand military weapons could have been used for personal use though)

Yes i believe the criminals get off too easy

Yes i believe the value of human life has been lost in society

Yes i believe we need more mental health help in schools

Yes i believe out litigious and medical societies try and find a reason, explanatino, & anwer for everything that usually results in nothing being accomplished.

.....but as a gun owner if you have bought XX number of guns and was limited to the amount of ammo you could legally have at one time per gun (similiar to special limits with fishing), dont you think that would help alot? the scary part is of all the ppl that want to "stockpile" their weapons and ammo like fort knox just for the heck of it. if there are ammo limits, then there is only so much you could do with one gun at one time, right, if someone sees a person carrying more than 1 gun at time in a public enviroment there would obviously be questions to be asked. much easier to stop than 1 semi auto whatever with hundreds of rounds in pockets, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a gun owner but am trying to learn about the issue all the time.

What is wrong with the right to bear arms if it defines arms as nothing that is military grade? And why is it my understanding in what i read that gun owners think they have no responsibility in this as to what can and should be defined as legal and/or necessary? Why cannot there be a right to bear arms without magazine clips that hold enuff ammo to completely level a town at once?

I get the fact that you're trying to understand things. So, I'll ask you the question....Who am I to tell you what is necessary, who are you to tell me what is necessary, and who is the government to tell me what is necessary? One of the bigger problems with the introduced legislation is, in my opinion, there isn't a problem with 30 round mags. If there isn't a problem with something, why outlaw it? There isn't a problem with rifles with thumb holes in the stock (actually, they're more accurate) so why outlaw them? If things that arn't necessary in my mind, or your mind, or my neighbors mind were outlawed we wouldn't have much left.

When any new legislation is introduced, no matter what the topic, the legislature first has to define "The goal" of the legislation, and the steps needed to get there. i.e.- what are you trying to accomplish? If you read the actual legislation you'll see what the goal is. And this is the only thing we can do as none of my reps support the current legislation and the ones who introduced it say it's for "Public Safety." I raise an eyebrow on that one. Look at the penalties, if the legislation passes, of owning a a mag that holds 12 rounds. It's a felony. Drunk driving isn't even a felony so is the goal really public safety? No, it's to get rid of guns as once you're a felon you can't have a gun.

You said yourself in a previous post you don't own or shoot guns. Hey, that's cool. The problem is that as a non-gun owner you're trying to decide what gun owners should be allowed to own. The same holds true for the reps that introduced the current legislation, no offense, but they're clueless on the topic.

Your statement that gun owners think they have no responsibility in this couldn't be farther from the truth. The law abiding gun owner takes firearms possession as a huge responsibility. This is another problem with the legislation that's been introduced, it does nothing to get guns out of the hands of the criminals and does everything to get guns out of the hands of the law abiding firearm owner.

I, for one, appreciate you trying to learn more about the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

great post Eric, remember people that forum policy doesn't allow for name calling and it will not be tolerated in this or any forum here at HSO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making partisan remarks about a subject you know nothing about is far from open minded. You blurted out a bunch of obviously ill conceived thought and then followed it up with a mindless partisan rant. Sorry, but I am obligated to call you out on this. If you have questions and want some explanations, I am sure myself and others all all ears and are more than willing to help. But your original post got the exact response it deserved. If I wasn't typing on a cell phone and had to.stick to the forum guidelines, you would have gotten a much more harsh response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When our constitution was made was there:

1. Automatic weapons?

2. Internet where ppl could buy what they want when they want at a moments notice?

2. Were recrational guns made to look like military weapons? (i understand military weapons could have been used for personal use though)quote]

1. No, they had muskets, cannons, swords, and hand to hand combat.

2. No

3. Some were.

Now I'll ask, when the Constitution was drafted, was there;

1. Mauser 7.62 with 12 round clip? This would be one of the outlawed guns that I use for hunting and target shooting.

2. CNN, Star Tribune, ST Paul Pioneer Press, MSNBC, Fox news, etc? The first ammendment comes to mind with this one.

3. Does it matter what a rifle looks like?

In the end, does it really matter if your 3 examples were in play in 1791 when the 2nd ammendment was adopted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

amateurfishing I am pro gun, and anti gun control, so it may seem biased, but basically, what they are trying to ban, isnt how the gun functions, but how the gun looks.

They want to ban a semi automatic .223 because it looks like the military gun, but it does not share the same functions, as the military guns. The guns they want to ban, mechanically operate exactly the same as any semi automatic hunting rifle, they just look different. So why are they banning a gun because of its looks? Looks dont make a gun dangerous. A military gun is "Fully automatic" which mean if you pull the trigger once, and hold it down, it will unload all of the bullets in the magazine, usually within a couple seconds. The "semi automatic" gun they are after, functions the same as hunting rifles, if you pull the trigger one time, and hold the trigger one bullet comes out, same as hunting rifles. So they are trying to tell everyone that because one has a handle to hold on to in the front, or a hole in the thumbstock to grip the gun, is somehow more dangerous then a gun without it. It isnt. All it is is appearance, and preference on how you want to hold a gun.

As for the magazines, you have to remember a couple things, one, the 2nd amendment isnt to protect our hunting rights, it is to protect us from our govt, in case they want to take over, it allows us to protect ourselves. So to say a hunter doesnt need 30 bullets in his gun, I wil agree with you on that, he doesnt, but how many bullets a hunter has in his gun, has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment rights. Plus, people other then hunters shoot guns. Think target shooting, sport shooting, competitions. If you were to spend a day on the range shooting guns, would you like to spend your time shooting the guns? Or loading a magazine every 7 shots? You would spend more time reloading the magazines all day, rather then shooting.

One more point is that these scary guns they want to ban, are involved in like 1% of all the shootings, and by banning them, they wouldnt prevent the other 99% of the shootings. Plus, do you think the bad guy that is mentally sick in the head, is going to say, I cant go shoot these people with this gun, because it is banned? Because shooting a banned gun is against the law.

I am sure you have heard the saying, only good guys will be effected by this? How are the other laws working out? Isnt it illegal to shoot people? Kill people? How is the ban on drugs working out? The good guys that wouldnt do bad things with the guns, will obey the laws, the bad guys arent going to care.

I hope some of this was a little helpful?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When our constitution was made was there:

1. Automatic weapons?

No they had muskets. Did they ban bolt actions when they came out? Did they ban pumps? Did they ban semi auto's because they didnt have them when they wrote the Constitution? Did they ban the shotshell? All of those are advances in technology. I'm sure all those things seemed dangerous when introduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took a couple of days off work cuz my daughter and son in law went to Vegas and the wife and I are sharing duties of baby watching. She's asleep right now and I'm watching Doug Koening's Championship Season on Pursuit Channel.

They're doing competitive shooting and boy howdy are these guys good. Long range rifle shots, they have to hit 12 of them and are timed. The rifles and the associated mags they're using would be banned under the current legislation. That's just one example of how silly the current legislation is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I especially agree with Eric's comment on us hunters/gun owners taking so many precautions no doubt, we have to because we want to own them and most of us want to continue to hunt, we do not want to ruin our life by killing ourselves, hurting a friend or family member, or chance hitting another person with gunfire, no it means too much to the good guys all over the country. Great care goes into handling them, teaching others about them, cleaning and storing them safely, the country would be a mess and out of control if 99.8% didn't do just that. We need to clean up that .2% or whatever it really is, there's no doubt if they want to harm the public and certain weapons aren't available they'll come up with the best plan to carry out their plan with other weaponry or devices. The # 1, 2, and 3 focus needs to start with mentally ill or unstable men and boys, not to ignore the females who need help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government pursuing banning or further restricting guns based on the likeness the gun looks similar to a military style weapon and clip capacity is like fixing the turn signal on the car that won't start. I always wanted to think our politicians were smarter than this but it's a hard sell these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Your Responses - Share & Have Fun :)

    • travis_td
      Hi there, I am making sure that this is the location that folks will be posting updates for Ice Fishing on Lake Vermilion this winter (2022).  I think so but want to make sure as I plan on trying to get out next weekend, December 8-11.
    • smurfy
      thanks wanderer.......even reports from lakes like leech gives me a pretty good idea of what the lakes i want to fish will be like. lot of past experience helps, and no doubt wheelers will be used soon.    we had a retiree.holiday union party last night. buddy said that his kid was on little Winnie with about 5 inches of ice and there moving all around the lake!!
    • Wanderer
      Leech lake has been 100% capped for about a week, I think.  Before you say that’s not a small, underfished lake, it’s just an example that you could prolly drive wheelers on your kind of lakes by now. 😉   I’ve been seeing a lot of 5-7 inch reports going into the weekend.  Sadly I haven’t cut a hole yet.  Still working on repairs and updates on our houses.
    • leech~~
      Here's some throw back for yea. Lets your candy azzz E-cutter battery do this!  🤣    
    • Tom Sawyer
      Oh I didn't say I don't own several versions of Teslas, just that until this hell frozen over state changes I'll always find a use for the ice diggin' anchor. Will be a great post hole digger in it's next life use too
    • leech~~
      Yep no puzzy Tesla auger for me until they pry it from my dead hands!  😆
    • Tom Sawyer
      Still waiting for global warming to ditch my Lazer Mag, always in the truck for thick, virgin ice.    Don't know if it's possible, or advisable, but thought I would throw a 8" K drill bit on it to lighten it up. Should be an adapter for such a conversion. Careful what you wish for, probably rip my arm off with a shredding combo like that 😂    
    • rundrave
      Leech I still have my old jiffy gas auger mainly for sentimental reasons. I haven’t used it for 3 years now. The only time I start it up is in the garage just to hear that pop pop pop sound lol   I will never go back and have no regrets going electric. Huge weight saver and with an extension will go through any thickness of ice. Starts first pull every time lol    we were fishing 2 weeks ago Swiss cheesing a slough here in SD on 4” of ice when someone else tried to fire up their gas auger and my buddies and I looked at each other almost in disbelief that someone was still using a gas auger.   pros and cons for sure but I think electric has more pros than cons with advancements lately     
    • smurfy
      any ice thickness reports..........especially on smaller not heavily fished lakes???????   chances are i wont be up till after christmas anyway, but............
    • leech~~
      Let me know when you go again.  I'll being my crossbow and take out the Deer when you kick them up!  😁
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.