Announcement

**Gary Cain** · 04-26-2009, 10:22 PM

This is not correct Gene. Rich people will ALLWAYS be able to have firearms. When the ban went into effect back in 1994 Senator Rockefeller said I don't care I allready own my AR-15. In California where MG's are very highly regulated, Dean Martin Jr. had a very nice MG collection even though he did not meet any of the requirements to own one. Money talks and in the long run gun ownership will be the true diferentiation of class. The rich will have them and the poor will not be allowed to own them.

Gary

Originally posted by Gene View Post

Huh? Wealth? When the attorney general says he wants to reinstate the assault weapon ban, I don't care if you're a multi-jillionaire or if you live in a double wide. A ban like this affects everyone regardless of wealth.

**Bob Hritz** · 04-27-2009, 10:46 PM

Agreed with N.C, Gene, Phid and Gary that there are always loopholes for the very wealthy.

I was talking to a big time collector's arms dealer and he told me the very same. The rich have collections that will never be bothered with because they are the big political contributors. There are special licenses for museums that can get class three arms without the hassle that an individual can have. Look at Illinois and go to the Cantigny Museum, in Winfield, Illinois. There are class three arms, cannons, tanks, etc. Illinois does not have any prosvision for the private citizen to own a class three arm, but they are in the McCormick private museum. How does that work? A legal exemption for the family of the McCormick heavy farm equipment company heirs...in perpetuity!

Don't for a minute delude yourself to believe that you are equal to the very rich who support the politicians financially. We are second class 'citizens' (perhaps subjects????) of a very clearly defined class structure.

Bob Hritz

**Theodor** · 04-28-2009, 01:24 AM

Then can't you register your collection as a private museum and put a Flak 88 in the backyard?

**landsknechte** · 04-28-2009, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by BryanD View Post

Everybody voted for Americas favorite Negro simply because he was black. Now he is going to push for "COMMON SENSE" gun laws on the federal level. Common sense to the Brady crowd , which he is one of, is no guns period.
Americas BIGGEST MISTAKE was electing Obama simply because of his complexion. I am afraid the USA will deeply regret this particular choice in the near future.

...and the last eight years had nothing whatsoever to do with it? No, of course not.

**Johnnie** · 04-28-2009, 01:33 PM

The last fourty years has had everything to do with it. Both parties, and most Presidents. When people no longer value their rights, they loose them. Then they start to value them again and the painful process has to begin all over.

Johnnie

Originally posted by landsknechte View Post

...and the last eight years had nothing whatsoever to do with it? No, of course not.

**Soldat de Fer** · 04-29-2009, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Theodor View Post

Then can't you register your collection as a private museum and put a Flak 88 in the backyard?

Hello

You could try but I think you might get the "unwanted" attention to several Federal/local organizations !!!!

Regards
P-Y

**John Hodgin** · 04-29-2009, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by phild View Post

The only problem that gun control will solve is the Left's ability to sieze your property and essentially your person without a fight and that is precisely the only problem that they want to solve in the near future.

Exactly.

And correct, regardless of the laws, the politicians and wealthy will be able to own whatever thy want. Have seen several cases of this already.

**vonStubben** · 04-29-2009, 01:37 PM

Some interesting news.

Read this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30389664

And if they should move the page or whatever, here it is copy and pasted.

WASHINGTON - Campaigning before a church congregation on Chicago’s South Side one Sunday in July 2007, Barack Obama said an epidemic of big city violence was "sickening the soul of this nation."
Among the potential cures, he said, was permanently reinstating a ban on assault weapons.
One-hundred days into his presidency, President Obama says it remains a goal. But it is one the White House has been forced to abandon.
Voices of agreement
President Obama and Vice-President Biden, "support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent," the White House website declares. Shortly after taking office, members of the Obama cabinet added their voices of agreement.
At his first news conference as attorney general, Eric Holder said, "there are just a few gun-related changes what we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed the idea during her trip to Mexico in late March. "These assault weapons, these military-style weapons, don’t belong on anyone’s street," she said.
But the fire has gone out of President Obama’s goal of restricting the availability of firearms. "I don’t know of any plans," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, to seek an assault weapons ban from Congress.
Attorney General Holder admitted as much when asked, during a recent session with reporters, whether he expected any push for a ban this year to curb the flow of guns from the United States to Mexico.
His answer could have come straight from the National Rifle Association: "I think what we’re going to do is to try to, obviously, enforce the laws on the books."
Support evaporated
Congress imposed a ban on what it called assault weapons in 1994, outlawing the sale and importation of 19 military-style weapons, copycat models with similar features, and high-capacity ammunition magazines. In a compromise with Republicans, the Democrats who controlled Congress agreed to let it expire in ten years unless it was renewed. By 2004, with Republicans in charge, support had evaporated.
Democrats again control Congress, and a Democrat is once more in the White House, the same conditions that allowed the ban to be imposed 15 years ago. But the make-up of Congress is different, with little appetite for restricting gun ownership.
The Senate’s majority leader is a westerner, Harry Reid of Nevada, where gun control is political poison. And though the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, comes from the more liberal San Francisco, she has shown no enthusiasm for reviving the assault weapons ban because of opposition among her colleagues.

(CONTINUED)

**Bob Hritz** · 04-29-2009, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Theodor View Post

Then can't you register your collection as a private museum and put a Flak 88 in the backyard?

Of course you can, if you have enough politicians to make an amendment, in the law, for you. How many tens of thousands of dollars did you contribute to politicians las year? That would be the most important part of getting done what you wish. Are you a non-for-profit museum that can charge admission costs to cover expenses? You must have the proper security and the all important politicians in you pocket.

Bob Hritz

**vonStubben** · 04-29-2009, 01:38 PM

Sixty-five House Democrats wrote Attorney General Holder in mid-March, saying they "would actively oppose any effort to reinstate the 1994 ban" and predicting "a long and divisive fight" if the administration tried to push for one. Many of them represent rural districts, where gun control is no more popular than in Nevada.
By the time President Obama made his trip to Mexico, he conceded the battle would be futile. "None of us are any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy."
"What we’re focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws," he said.
Straw buyers
Enforcement of the nation’s gun laws is primarily the responsibility of ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Its agents and inspectors check to see that gun dealers obey laws governing sales. They look for evidence of "straw buyers" – people legally entitled to buy guns who then sell them to criminals or others who don’t want any records tying them to a specific gun.
ATF says such buyers are responsible for a large proportion of guns that wind up in the hands of violent drug cartels in Mexico.
"These illegal purchases," ATF’s William Newell told Congress last month, are "a key source and supply of firearms for drug traffickers."
The best way to improve enforcement of existing gun laws, said one veteran ATF agent, is to put more badges on the street.
"Give us more people to inspect gun dealers, looking for straw buyers, in the states where the guns smuggled into Mexico are coming from," he says.
The number of ATF inspectors has remained remarkably flat in the past two decades, while support staffing has grown in other federal agencies, including the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration.
ATF had 764 inspectors in 1990. It has 771 today.
The number of ATF agents has risen 32% during the same period, but it is a comparatively small agency. ATF has 2,441 agents today, compared to the FBI’s 13,040 and the DEA’s 5,235.
It’s no accident that the size of ATF’s inspections force has remained flat. The NRA has successfully fought efforts to expand inspections, claiming that licensed firearms dealers have been harassed.
"Despite its crime-fighting mission," a recent report from the Congressional Research Service dryly observed, "ATF’s business relationships with the firearms industry and larger gun-owning community have been a perennial source of tension."
If new agents are hired, says the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, "You need to make sure they’re directed to go after the bad guys, because owning firearms is a right in the United States, and what you don’t want to do is harass law abiding people."
The NRA is on a roll. The Supreme Court ruled last year that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right of gun ownership, not merely the right of organized militias to arm themselves.

(CONTINUED)

**vonStubben** · 04-29-2009, 01:39 PM

The number of ATF inspectors has remained remarkably flat in the past two decades, while support staffing has grown in other federal agencies, including the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration.
ATF had 764 inspectors in 1990. It has 771 today.
The number of ATF agents has risen 32% during the same period, but it is a comparatively small agency. ATF has 2,441 agents today, compared to the FBI’s 13,040 and the DEA’s 5,235.
It’s no accident that the size of ATF’s inspections force has remained flat. The NRA has successfully fought efforts to expand inspections, claiming that licensed firearms dealers have been harassed.
"Despite its crime-fighting mission," a recent report from the Congressional Research Service dryly observed, "ATF’s business relationships with the firearms industry and larger gun-owning community have been a perennial source of tension."
If new agents are hired, says the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, "You need to make sure they’re directed to go after the bad guys, because owning firearms is a right in the United States, and what you don’t want to do is harass law abiding people."
The NRA is on a roll. The Supreme Court ruled last year that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right of gun ownership, not merely the right of organized militias to arm themselves.
Unless the mid-term election brings a substantial change in the composition of Congress, an assault weapons ban has little chance of becoming law under Barack Obama, and ATF will not be able to count on a larger force of agents and inspectors.
Gun control, once considered a soccer-mom issue popular in suburban America, is again radioactive.

**Rich Moran** · 04-30-2009, 03:31 AM

The wheel of this subject will continue to spin for years.

The military is sworn to defend the 2nd, rumor mill has it that may change on 3 July where feality will be given to the office of the President. Obama I think is not that crazy to make that happen.

After all Uncle Dan(D)and his sidekick Neil(D) who both sit on Defence committess understand what it means to have to fight. Maybe both would say "yea, no firearms" but in the Halls on the Hill I think the conversation actually goes the other way when no one outside the clan is listening.

After all Uncle Dan is a CMOH winner, so he knows what it means to fight an aggressor of rights.

Can't believe history would repeat specially here in the US as with crazy Adolph years ago showing what can happen with the feality bit.

There are too many vets of recent battles who would not sit still for any of it either. Hell, they fought for a foreigners freedom in their homeland, why sit still in their own back yard?

**gijoe002us** · 04-30-2009, 05:55 AM

Minus the future warrior style get ups (was a bit warm out) the cartoon is pretty accurate.
Practice and political indoctrination ( Ignorance) helps one to forget ones oath.

There were those among the rank and file who questioned their orders, most did not.

Dry run for the rest During a " State of emergency"

Joe

Attached Files

1775vs20056xv.jpg (89.3 KB, 64 views)

**Johnnie** · 04-30-2009, 07:43 AM

The shiny side of that coin is that the NRA has won a number of lawsuits in this regards as well as a number of states passing legislation prohibiting this from happening at the state or local level.
The federal level is another question indeed.

Johnnie

Originally posted by gijoe002us View Post

Minus the future warrior style get ups (was a bit warm out) the cartoon is pretty accurate.
Practice and political indoctrination ( Ignorance) helps one to forget ones oath.

There were those among the rank and file who questioned their orders, most did not.

Dry run for the rest During a " State of emergency"

Joe

**gijoe002us** · 04-30-2009, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Johnnie View Post

The shiny side of that coin is that the NRA has won a number of lawsuits in this regards as well as a number of states passing legislation prohibiting this from happening at the state or local level.
The federal level is another question indeed.

Johnnie

Very true. Certain states reactions were swift and in support of common sense. As far as the last portion regarding federal....I personally have no faith remaining that anything would be any different elsewhere. The creepiest part about it all was when the feds "Federalized" certain Law enforcement agencies who came from common sense unfriendly areas of our nation. They seemed a bit overzealous and all too happy to assert their authority. I have to hand it to certain individuals from a few different agencies who saw through the smoke and mirrors to the real situation and encouraged self reliance. So on an individual level the newly "federalized" LEO's had the least understanding ( as well as the most to prove) where as the actual Fed agents had the most understanding and were more likely to "overlook" certain things. Still shouldnt have to be that way though.

Joe

Announcement

New Assault Weapon Ban Coming

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread