I have spent a lot of time over the past few months at local gun and pawn shops looking for rifles. One common thing that I have noticed is that there seems to be a lot of talk, or more worry, about the election and how gun rights will be affected. Three different shops have told me that people seem to be buying any and all rifles they can get their hands on before the election.

What is everyone's gut feeling on what may or may not happen when a new President gets into office? Will our gun rights really be affected that much or is it just paranoia?

After the shootings at Northern Illinois University this week, I actually heard a radio talk show host say that he isn't against hunters, but he really thinks there needs to be better gun control after the shootings. The first thing that I thought was, "why is he lumping hand guns and guns for hunting together"? People who are not into guns seem to think that guns are all categorized together.

I just don't want someone telling me that I can't have a hunting rifle collection because some disturbed individual uses a hand gun to kill innocent people. I don't want to spark a huge political debate here, but just curious if anyone else is nervous about the upcoming election and bad press as it relates to gun rights.

I noticed that you are trying to seperate handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns. They are the same thing! Anyway you cut it, they throw a lead or plated bullet (or shot pellets) at a high velocity.

ALL ARE CAPABLE OF KILLING


Do not take ANY gun ban into consideration!!!

They may say:

"well, you don't need a handgun to hunt"

and if you agree, they will take away your right to own that handgun. While you may not miss it,
next they will say:

"Well, you don't really need that high powered rifle to hunt, besides, it could be used as a sniper rifle"

And if you agree to that, and decide to use only a shotgun for all aspects of hunting sooner or later they will say:

"Well, you could probably only use a black powder rifle and Archery equipment to hunt with, because someone just died as a result of a shotgun robbery, and besides we're still not saying that you can't hunt!"

So what happens when you say ok to that ????

If you are a hunter, and think that a gun ban will NOT affect you, you need to stop and take a long long look around.

Absolutely no gun bans should be in effect EVER. While I may not ever need a .458 Lott, I will be ****ed if they will ever take away my RIGHT to own it.

"I just don't want someone telling me that I can't have a hunting rifle collection because some disturbed individual uses a hand gun to kill innocent people."

I'm not trying to come down on you, man, but that is a VERY VERY VERY harmful attitude to have. Regardless of what type of gun you own, or what it's purpose is, we have to show a united front to these ultra-liberal Kennedy-Kerry type democrats, and maybe even John McCain.

There's an old saying that goes "The second amendment is in place in case the politicians try to ignore the rest of 'em"

Eventually and I don’t know if it will be in my lifetime, their will be an all out mostly successful assault on an individual right to keep and bear arms.
As demonstrated already since the late 1800’s and continuing today ones right as a free American has been being eroded one tiny piece at a time.
The NRA has served as a good roadblock but they are only a finger in the hole and will eventually become insignificant. ( join every member counts)
At some point armed free Americans will have to make a choice as our forefathers did and stand up to a government with armed mass force willing to sacrifice life liberty and all that they enjoy for the sake of freedom.
History always repeats itself.
God bless all who have served, are serving and will serve.

Well said sir, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

Yeah, but what do I know? I'm just another gun crazy.

My family and traditions are steeped in the "gun culture". Firearms are handed down for generations in my family. Mostly just the men, but my mom and a few of my female cousins shoot. The men who married them, though, are QUICKLY indoctrinated into the traditions of my family.
Through a genealogical search, where my grandparents paid professionals to track our family tree all the way back to its roots, it was revealed that my family, throughout it's history, has served in every major American conflict back to the Revolutionary war. Many of whom lost blood and/or their lives for this country to have the inalienable rights that we STILL to this very day have to fight for, only now it's against our own government.

We often lose sight of the fact that the President (while holding a very powerful office) does not and cannot create laws. He can only sign them into effect.

This election, as for every election, it is the Congress that we MUST control through the vote. Those misguided peple who sat out or voted contrarian in 2006 to "teach the Republicans a lesson" are the people who got us this liberal majority. If it gets worse in 2008, you WILL see a landslide of new gun bans and ammo bans.

Your Presidential vote is the least important of your decisions. Learn where your House and Senate candidates stand on gun control (and all other important issues) and vote in the best ones. Because if no gun laws go to a tyrannical President, she can't sign them.

Let's not forget that instances like Illinois would be far less likely to happen or would be seriously cut short if there had been numerous people inthe audience who were liscenced to carry. Fight lines of thinking about gun bans. Violent crime goes up when criminals know they don't have to worry about a law abiding citizen arming himself.

I noticed that you are trying to seperate handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns. They are the same thing! Anyway you cut it, they throw a lead or plated bullet (or shot pellets) at a high velocity.

ALL ARE CAPABLE OF KILLING


Do not take ANY gun ban into consideration!!!

They may say:

"well, you don't need a handgun to hunt"

and if you agree, they will take away your right to own that handgun. While you may not miss it,
next they will say:

"Well, you don't really need that high powered rifle to hunt, besides, it could be used as a sniper rifle"

And if you agree to that, and decide to use only a shotgun for all aspects of hunting sooner or later they will say:

"Well, you could probably only use a black powder rifle and Archery equipment to hunt with, because someone just died as a result of a shotgun robbery, and besides we're still not saying that you can't hunt!"

So what happens when you say ok to that ????

If you are a hunter, and think that a gun ban will NOT affect you, you need to stop and take a long long look around.

Absolutely no gun bans should be in effect EVER. While I may not ever need a .458 Lott, I will be ****ed if they will ever take away my RIGHT to own it.

"I just don't want someone telling me that I can't have a hunting rifle collection because some disturbed individual uses a hand gun to kill innocent people."

I'm not trying to come down on you, man, but that is a VERY VERY VERY harmful attitude to have. Regardless of what type of gun you own, or what it's purpose is, we have to show a united front to these ultra-liberal Kennedy-Kerry type democrats, and maybe even John McCain.

There's an old saying that goes "The second amendment is in place in case the politicians try to ignore the rest of 'em"

My point got a little off base because of my choice of words. My point was that how did a hunter get grouped in with that shooter and why do those events risk my right to gun ownership? What does a hunter have to do with it? A mental imbalance has more to do with it than a firearm has. What I should have said was, "why is he comparing hunters with that gunman".

I agree, we have to stand united with all types of firearms if we are to be successful!

I too have renewed worry over the future of private gun ownership, since the NIU shooting. I have felt for many years, that we are two nations, not one. Our division is not so much state by state, as it is urban vs. rural. Say the word "gun" to an inner city mom, & she envisions some punk holding up a liquor store, or worse; her kids being shot in a drive by shooting. Say the word "gun" to me, and I envision elk camp in the high country.

The anti-gun political agenda is not to somehow safeguard an innocent population from gun violence. it is to rid us all of firearm ownership. they know that they cannot do this in one bold move without having a revolution on their hands. Instead, they proceed incrementally, one gun at a time. Each new law, lawsuit, or bureaucracy raises the price, which reduces the number we can afford to own.

Like all liberals, the antis want firearm purchases to be administered from Washington, not locally. It is not humanly possible for a Washington gov;t employee to understand why a Wyoming rancher wants or needs more than one rifle. Two completely different lifestyles, & two completely different mindsets.

I don't know the answer, but I do know that over time, they seem to be winning.

I think like Rocky. Write to your senators and representatives and express your concerns. You would be surprised how few people write. I wrote to Senator Lieberman, and he returned a letter to me! Every gun owner should be a member of the NRA. They are the voice of millions of members, and they WILL fight for your gun rights! No other group will support you like the NRA, so when they ask for help, dig into your pockets! Art R

Jim, very well said.

Its a shame that our second amendment rights have already been infringed to the place that they are today. If we were truly free we would be able to openly carry a weapon for defense at any and all times just like the criminals do. But we have allowed ourselves to become the slaves of our government which feels it must not only try to control the world but every aspect of our lives . I feel sorry for those who buy into the crap spewed from one side of the aisle or the other because neither has our interests at heart just their own agenda . Just like cops when you hear them talk when they think you can't hear , to them there is nothing lower than civilians or citizens . I think it is just human nature for those who are given power or control over others . The idea of a smaller less intrusive government is nice but really folks those who promise this are the ones who do just the opposite . We are lazy and that is our downfall . We depend on media moguls for our direction and opinions . You say no , I say yes look at how many people look to Oprah or Hannity or God help us a drug addict with talent on loan from God . We are also to fearful of losing our position or personal belongings or freedoms and that keeps us from getting off our couches and letting those in Washington know we matter other than on election day and we want the crap to stop . I will stop ranting and just say, what ever happens it is not someone elses fault it is ours .

We often lose sight of the fact that the President (while holding a very powerful office) does not and cannot create laws. He can only sign them into effect.



Did you forget about Executive Orders, and the incredible influence he has on legislative members?

If they look, smell, or act like a politician, don't give them an inch. They are worse than used car salesmen.

I didn't, but there are limits as to what an executive order can do.

Worse problem is that we have NO friends in any of the three main candidates.......even McCain has an F- rating with the GOA.
The NRA and GOA are our best friends and they need money for the fight at hand and even more for the future battles.

Q: Do you know when a politician is lying?


A: ...the lips are moving......

No question about us needing to stick together and support the NRA, etc., as the next few years will be tough. We need to elect as many R's to congress as we can, but realistically, it may be 2010 before things go so bad that the country will throw out the D's and elect an R congress.

I was reading the NRA-ILA write up on the bill to allow legal carry in Nat'l Parks. The original regs that made it illegal to have a gun in a Nat'l Park were enacted in 1983...that was under Mr. Reagan....supposed friend to the cause. Just shows that we can't count on anyone but ourselves.

Several of my gun toting pals have told me they are making purchases this year for they fear what regulations may impinge on thier right to carry after this election.

I can't say I disagree with them.

Support the NRA, get involved in your caucuses. and even if it means holding your nose, vote Republican. It's better than wahtever the left has in store for the country.

I had an interesting visit today with a good friend of mine who is a retired NYC metropolitan area (on the NJ side, not sure what "town") police officer. This feller played with some pretty rough characters in his career and is definitely NOT some small town Barney Fife.

Anyway, we were talking about the upcoming election and the general anti-gun trend that is so prevalent today. We both agreed that it's going to get worse, but he came up with a pretty startling insight.

It's not new gun control laws that we should be concerned about. As evidence, the number of laws already on the books that are unenforceable. His concern is lawmakers finding innovative new ways to use existing laws to further their agenda.

For instance, my wife was recently charged with assault for touching our neighbor during a confrontation over a boundary dispute. He signed a complaint against her and the country bumpkin moron who passes for our "constable" wrote it up as a Class C felony. The court downgraded it to disorderly conduct without even asking any questions, but here's the kicker: If my wife actually been convicted under the terms of the offense as originally documented, she would then (obviously) be a Convicted Felon.According to Frank's scenario, the next step is, seeing as convicted felons are not allowed to have guns, The Law makes me get rid of all MY guns, seeing as I have a convicted felon living in the house.

The more I think about that, the less far-fetched it seems.

John McCain, who wants to confiscate all guns, is the GOP nominee. Apparently, not enough of the pro-gun and/or immigration vote to influence even the GOP nomination. Party don’t count! Vote for REAL conservatives, not just any GOP.

If liberals control the next congress, I suspect that all guns will be banned. They can do it, and still get re-elected. Unless conservatives make some gains this year, look for a comprehensive ban next year.

We just need a way to stop the onslaught from the liberal media, they're the ones who is screwing us over!
It should be forbidden to give the name or show the face of anyone who uses a gun in one of those shooting sprees. When the media start making their face and name famous as they allways do some other sick individual starts planning their going away party!
You take an auto accident in Montgomery Al. may take 3 or 4 lives and scaresly be reported in Birmingham, it's just good for local coverage. Then you have a multible shooting in Miami Fl. and people in Seattle Wa. will get every little detail, Am I the only one who sees this problem.
Something else that bothers me is that if a gun owner should use their gun to prevent a robbery or carjacking ect. they will not likely even make the local paper.
This is self censoring and only showing one side of an issue which I feel is wrong.

The sad thing about all this - is that all those individuals who have a fear, or lack of understanding, of firearms cry to everyone else that it was the gun that brought forward this unfortunate tragedy at NIU - yet not 2 days later another youth of promise drives his vehicle into a crowd and kills 8 people . Where's the outcry for this tragedy? I don't recall any candidate making this a focus of any speech...

How ironic it is, that the story of one person who is off his "meds" creates a national stir of gun control - again, yet another story of a person who was over doing his "meds" - and kills more people - does not demand stronger Vehicle Control....

Maybe we need to take a different tact and start pushing for Car Control on a national level and see how people react. After all a gun and a car are similar - harmless, inert metal objects, which when loaded with ammo or filled with gas, become very useful tools in our daily lives - unless they come under the control of individuals "who slip through the system".

If it is truly the goal of the gun-control masses, and media, to "save" its fellow citizens and children from the evils of life - just maybe they should look a little closer at home - like their driveway or garage - instead of my gun vault or your CC permit. The main question I would like answered by these individuals would be ... is a life lost to a vehicle accident worth less than a life lost to a firearm?

2006 Statistics:
Deaths due to Firearms: 10,177
Deaths due to Vehicles: 38,588

Hopefully one day....

Scott

Hello all,
Anyone here from Alabama? If so, do you know how to get in touch with our senators and congressmen? I am from Central Alabama and have no idea who to vote for this year. I usually keep up with who is against or for what, especially gun control, the right to protect ourselves, etc.. But this year I am lost. I wish I knew how to get in touch with my senators and congressmen or else I would indeed write them a letter about how I feel.
Take care,
Freebooter

For the site with the easiest to find information you need, go to;

http://www.gunowners.org/
-----------------
http://nra.org
also has this info but it's not as easy to find

Two months before I moved to Colorado, a Florida Senator told me the way he and his cronies think. Each email or written letter is considered 1,000 voices! Most people don't write. They get emails from the NRA or GOA, mutter something to themselves, forward it to a few friends and delete it. Start acting on legislation and rumors of legislation. Save the responses because most of our "representatives" run for re-election every cycle. That's when you pull out the responses and either support your candidate or help defeat him/her.

Silvertipmo - Please provide the data concerning McCain wanting to confiscate all guns. Thanks.

Hello,
This is scary. I know all sorts of folks who like McCain and plan on voting for him, including my wife. They all think he is the Great Conservative Hope or something. Is there proof of this about his wanting to confiscate all guns?
Thanks,
Dave
Alabama

McCain talked conservative in the mid-1990’s, established a conservative reputation, then shifted to the left, then the far left, then to the “conservative” front man for even further left agendas.

</p
McCain’s record

http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm
</p

McCain and AGS

http://gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm
</p
</p

Two AGS overviews

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=61&issue=014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Gun_Safety_Foundation
</p
</p

AGS and confiscation. This is a long, complicated and twisted path (wanting people to look only at the step in front of them, not the whole) but it eventually gets to confiscation. With our current congress and any of the current candidates in contention, they could just skip to the chase.


http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel031501.shtml

http://www.nra.org/speech.aspx?id=6754
</p
</p

One of the few AGS sites still up; gives you a feel.


http://www.campaignadvantage.com/services/websites/archive/agsfoundation/s_smart.html
</p
</p

While I realize that many people have problems with Ron Paul’s position on Iraq and Duncan Hunter’s fiscal history, that was no excuse to ignore Tom Tancredo (excellent fiscal record, pro-Iraq, good trade and foreign policy). Point I was trying to make was that there were good 2nd Amendment candidates (pro-Iraq, anti-Iraq; pro-spending, anti-spending; all pro-life, pro-border security and consistent track record) that were passed over for Senator McCain.

</p
Anyone notice Senator Obama’s statement on the NIU shooting? Our “most liberal” senator’s base is anti-gun. His home county is now outlawing the sale of all guns; all Illinois is a “gun free zone”. We’re not going over to him on a seemingly pro-gun statement; but it could drive his base over to Senator Clinton (at this time). He did say he would do “whatever it takes”, but he also came out as recognizing the 2nd Amendment as an individual right (speaking as a former Constitutional law instructor). That makes him the least liberal on the 2nd Amendment. God help us, we sure ain’t holding up our end.

What everyone is going to have to realize is that there is no real "ideal" candidate. All politicans will say what is a good sound bite at the time and try to offend the least of the voters - until installed in office. Then, its a matter of which lobbists and money group gets their ear, plus their own homegrown agenda and those in power in their party.

Most folks will have to do as I will this election - hold my nose and make a mark for the candidate that will least disturb my gun owning rights and personal views on foreign policy, domestic and the economy.

Richard,
The problem with Hunter and Tancredo were both with their campaigns. We lose regardless but no one knew who or what they were. I had never heard of Hunter until you told me to look at him even though you were looking at Paul. The media effectively shut Tancredo and Hunter, maybe the 2 most conservative in the race, down! In fact in my email blitz's and communication with friends not one knew who Duncan Hunter was, but once they found out who and what he stood for they were sold.
Dr. Paul still has an excellent rating with the NRA though doesn't he? Let me know. I thank you for looking at each candidate and spreading the word though too little and too late I fear.
God bless the United States.
Greg

I'm concerned enough to stock up on quality factory ammo and reloading components, plus some high-cap mags. If it was illegal during the kilinton rein of terror, it will return, only worse. Look for hefty taxes on all guns and ammo. It wouldn't surprise me if the concealed carry laws be recended. Dark days ahead.:mad:

Dave I'm from as near the center of good ol' Alabama as one can get;( WELL MAYBE JUST A LITTLE EAST OF CENTER) Alexander City. Now just where are you?
Glenn

I began working for Ron Paul last June, but there were other good candidates I could have heartily supported. This primary was unusual; one could have agreed with their candidate on a ½ dozen major issues (records, not talk). I tried to acquaint people with all of them. No go; “I never heard of him”; after mentioning their records on a half dozen occasions. I tried to get people involved in the primary process; “It’s too early for that, we’ll wait and see how it sorts out”; now it has sorted out.

Freedom ain’t free. We don’t have the option of “phoning in” our civic duties anymore than our military. Constantly voting against someone is as great a dereliction of our duty as going AWOL, pretty much the same thing. I’m not the only one with a computer and access to a search engine. It wasn’t hard to find, but so few bothered. Ron Paul raised so much money and an organization not by his efforts but by the efforts of the people who sought his campaign out.

Now, the few conservatives left in the GOP are facing heavy primary challenges, financed by the GOP out of DC. Our next congress will be far more liberal (socialist actually) no matter which party wins these elections. By the end of next year, either a press or a brick of .22 ammunition will probably qualify our homes as “arsenals”.

Most states don’t have a third party well enough organized to launch a campaign for the congress or senate and I doubt most would take notice if they did. Conservatives will go on playing the games of “wait & see” and “vote against the Democrat” (mostly by not looking at the GOP) right up until the knock on their door.

Check out the only 2 candidates with our interests and those of our Country at heart on the 2nd amendment.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=18

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/second-amendment/

Greg

to me its simple .. liberals ie socialist want socialism. that way they rule every individual by
laws and rules..they believe i think,that they are capable of making a perfect society..
i dont happen to believe in that..mabe in the next world with an incorruptable leader..
but not in this one..in their perfect world their will always be corrupt power seeking people..
examples stalin.. had every person that helped him come to power excuted ,,sooner or later..
hes just one ,,history is full of other examples.
individual rights ,,the right to seek ones own course to happiness.. the right to publicly
express ones opinion,,and many other rights all in the end depend on an society that
has the right to be armed.. so the liberals have to eliminate that right in order to
carry out their plan of this perfect society,,they believe in..
the way to slowly erode peoples individual rights is ,,one thing at a time..
with mass media support,,start dictating gov control of say smoking ,how i choose to
take care of my pet.. how i raise my children.. and many more individual rights..
but sometime, they have to eliminate what really insures individual right.the right to bear arms..vote ,,and vote to keep a congress thats balanced enough to hold out a while longer..
when bush said we were in a war for freedom ,everyone got on the bandwagon..
but i knew then they didnt realize what he was saying.. they all though it was gonna be anothr gulf war..thats not what he said ,,but its what most everyone thought ..hasn t turned out that way has it... know your enemy.. the media and any organization that wants to control your individual rights. slim

Did anyone read Rocky's post on the first page? Folks.... need to quit whining about the presidential candidates, and focus on who your senators and representatives are.

The president can't sign laws that aren't on the desk waiting for the pen!!!!!!!!!

OHIO...SENATORS - ANTI GUN
HOUSE MEMBERS - MAJORITY - PRO-GUN
Senatitors elected by the City votes, House by what their district comprises.
General rule (can always be broken) rural, pro-gun..... cities, anti gun.
Like it or not, the populatiuon bases are not rural anymore so keeping the gun grabbers away from making the rules we have to live by is going to make us, the rural types, have to work harder and smarter in the political game. Supporting the NRA and GOA is a really good way to help ourselves speak up and win.

Democrats control the house. GOP are retiring in droves, making overwhelming Democratic control of both the next house and senate very probable. What is the GOP doing about it? Putting their resources into defeating the few remaining conservative GOP congressmen in the primaries. Take a look at the GOA ratings of our current house and senate if you want to get really depressed (backs up pepprdog’s insight in spades). And it’s headed down hill. One presidential note: Clinton F-, McCain F-, Obama F (Hunter A, Tancredo A, Paul A+); records, not talk. I’m surprised I’ve seen no mention here of the ‘veterans disarmament act’ passed and signed late last year. Why should any politician worry about offending us? We start our strategy meetings by conceding defeat, like we start our meals by saying grace.

Moderators: Thanks for letting me vent. Has been a frustrating year.

Benjamin Franklin said "those that will give up personal freedom for personal protection desreve neither". That being said, I can't say enough about the importance of joining any and all the Pro-Gun groups.

The crow bar is under the rock and the only thing needed is more leverage. We will either take a stand or loose our ground. There is no middle ground

Chuck Swindoll has a sermon about Satan and 3 demons. He wants to stop Christianity. Satan asks the 3 demons the same ?. "What will you do to Stop this threat?"

#1 replies that he will tell everyone that God Does not exist. Satan does not like that because as Romans 1 states every heart has God written upon it

#2 replies that he will get rid of every piece of literature that makes reference to God. Satan does not like this either

#3 was the winner when his reply was to encourage people to not rush into ant hasty decisions. Take it easy and see what happens.

If we just set around and wait to see, our frog will be cooked before we have the opportunity to get out of the pan.

Late one evening there was a knock on my parents front door. When Mom answreed the door, she found it to be their State Representative. The Congressman was going to the faithful writers in his area. Somewhere in the conversation my dad asked how long it would take to get to all the constituents. The reply was "Not long, I only have 20-30 that consistantly let me know what they are thinking".

The very definition of Liberal denotes that they are a group organization. They like to support every cause. When you see an abortion rally, the anti gun/hunting/family/all dear to us people are there to lend a show of support.

We Conservative types are ham strung by the fact that we want to be left alone. We join the NRA, but we leave the fight over murdered babies to the Right to Life people, they can handle it on their own like I can.
We need to unite under the banner of Right Vs. Wrong and let somebody know about our views. I can, surity let you know that the other side is united. The good thing is that they do not have weapons.

LET US NOT ALLOW THEM TO PROVE THATTHE PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD.

Guys, keep it to guns/hunting/firearms rights topics.

Mike, what are we discussing that is out of bounds?? I thought this was "General Discussion".

Please see the sticky "Notice from Marshall Regarding Political Topics" - thanks.

Mike, with all due respect, I fear if we sit back and leave the political topics to someone else to discuss in a few years we may not have need of these forums or any other gun related disscussions of any kind.
I do understand that Marshal owns this site and I consider it a privilege that I'm allowed to participate herein.
I'm not trying to argue about the rules only to say that I do understand why many members are talking politics, It is a grave concern to all of us. thanks Glenn

Yes, its an election year. Yes, politics are going to dominate most conversations.

No, they are not going to be allowed free rein on the board.

This forum is for hunting, shooting and related topics. We've allowed this thread to continue when most posts were directly related to gun issues. You folks have to work with us and the direction Mr. Stanton wishes to keep the board going. Heated discussions and long rants on politics will serve no purpose.

Thank you for understanding and your help in maintaining the spirit of the forum.

The President does have power. He can veto a bill. Also,IIRC, The AWB was passed by the tie breaking vote of Al Gore, the Vice President.

Because we love the fact that we can protect ourselves about anywhere we go, my wife and I have decided to send a majority of our "electoral" money to the NRA and the GOA because, quite frankly, they work harder to help elect conservative candidates that support hunters, and Second Amendment rights much more faithfully than the NRC or any other group large enough to make a difference.......

Mike, with all due respect, I fear if we sit back and leave the political topics to someone else to discuss in a few years we may not have need of these forums or any other gun related disscussions of any kind.
I do understand that Marshal owns this site and I consider it a privilege that I'm allowed to participate herein.
I'm not trying to argue about the rules only to say that I do understand why many members are talking politics, It is a grave concern to all of us. thanks Glenn

Read Marshall's post again. It's the non hunting/shooting/firearms political stuff that isn't allowed, for good reason. We'll use enough bandwidth on that, anyway. Discuss your firearms issues here, as you wish, as long as it's polite and respectful.

There's plenty of other sites on the internet where people can bash (insert favorite political topic here), with no rules or restraint.

I guess that means no bashing anti-Second Amendment/anti gun types allowed.....that's too political and brings up too much rhetoric and gut reaction. Way too much passion involved.
Many find it hard to be polite and respectful when someone or some group is working the system to take our gun rights away...... so please!!.... don't bring up the anti-gunners in here, it brings out the worse from the members dedicated to the Second Amendment.

I think you're right Pdog. None of us need to worry about any of this, right? Stay quiet and it will all go away, huh. Buy a gun, it might be the last opportunity you have before they come take them away!
Greg

I guess that means no bashing anti-Second Amendment/anti gun types allowed.....that's too political and brings up too much rhetoric and gut reaction. Way too much passion involved.
Many find it hard to be polite and respectful when someone or some group is working the system to take our gun rights away...... so please!!.... don't bring up the anti-gunners in here, it brings out the worse from the members dedicated to the Second Amendment.

I guess you didn't actually read Marshall's post, then, did you?

Ironic that you have something about reading in your signature line......

Mike, I don't want to get on anyone's bad side and you can be as indignent as you want...but....I read Marshall's post a few times and listened what you've told us. If I've said anything wrong or untruthful I'm sorry.
You read my post wrong. I was just re-enforcing what I've read, been told the rules are, and what the reality of the subject involves. In other words, if the subjects of someone or some group that's trying to take away our gun rights and/or trashing the Second Amendment comes up, don't bash the people on the other side because, quite franky, it's hard to show them respect, doubtful it's going to be polite, and it's probably going to take more than a few lines for a lot of us.
The proof is in the pudding (this thread).
In other words...drop the subject.
I'm going to follow my own advice and not address this subject in here again.... though it pains me because this subject is so important to all of us these coming years.

You guys are acting like you can't bring up the subject at all. Why is that?

What is wrong with using some manners and courtesy in the discussion?

Does the sermon you get in church have to be rude and disrespectful to get the point across? I doubt it.

Discuss all the firearms-related topics you want. There is absolutely no need, however, to be impolite or immature about it. That sort of thing just breeds more juvenile behavior, and doesn't accomplish anything. Frankly it just makes us look like a bunch of rubes to any casual observer.

Did anyone read Rocky's post on the first page? Folks.... need to quit whining about the presidential candidates, and focus on who your senators and representatives are.

The president can't sign laws that aren't on the desk waiting for the pen!!!!!!!!!

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/scorecard/

How many of us would keep coming here if the moderators didn’t keep these forums clean, polite and on topic? What Second Amendment issues have we not discussed here?

As many (most?) voters won’t have a pro Second Amendment option on their ballot this November for any national office (house, senate or president), what can we do about it now? (Would really like an answer to the last.)