Buy Guns Now Before You Can't

Originally posted by Valorian
Buy guns b4 u cannot?????

What kind of message does that give me?
it tells me that you are scared or confused.

That kind of post really does not sit well with me at all, the kind of mssages that we should be putting out to the ppls is about peace and opportunitites that are coming.

Well not if there are posts stating the above all the time.

I know most of you will say "Guns protect me" and "It is my right to carry weapons" BUT

That right was upheld 200 yrs ago and is no longer needed as that constitutional right anymore.

Provide peaceful solutions to your probelms and fears and you WILL find that a peaceful outcome will present itself to you.

PEACE to all

Valorian


[edit on 8-12-2008 by Valorian]

You are either incredibly naive or... well, let's just hope it's naivete! Let's just go revamping the Constitution because you, or someone you elected, doesn't find that clause relevant any longer. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

Regarding your "Peace and opportunities that are coming"... Um, have you been paying attention or did you just arrive on Earth in the past 20 minutes? The economy is rapidly approaching another great depression, unemployment is one the rise, crime; especially the violent type, is rapidly increasing and you are seeing the emergence of despotism, tyranny and genocide at increasing rates as well.

Um, you can go to sleep with your idealism and naivete but I am going to sleep with my Sig Sauer and my Mossberg! Wanna take bets on who has more mornings in their future?

Originally posted by Wembley

If you really didn't need to buy guns and ammo what would you expect him to say?

I would not expect him to say anything, it's none of his business how much I buy of anything.

Haven't you Brits learned anything about government control yet?

Yeah...I bet on the one who promotes the peace personally...

now onto this

When a man who voted multiple times in the State Senate of Illinois to increase taxes on gun and ammo purchases, voted to uphold the City of Chicago's handgun ban, and has stated that he thinks semi-automatic weapons only belong on foreign battlefields rather than allowing us to decide for ourselves, we must be vigilant.

I would love to see a vote because I think some assume gun owners are all right wingers who believe against this...so I would like to be counted

My name is Daniel, I am a SSgt in the US Air Force. I own a .44 Ruger. I love havign my gun for personal safety in the house....

my personal vote/comment is this...

Automatic weapons belong on the battlefield...

do you truly need a .50/fully auto to hunt deer? Well a dmit I might because I am a dreadful shot sometimes with a rifle...

Point is...you don't need that gun to hunt. Want proof? People hunt every day with a bolt action .308. Now that is about as far as you can get from being fully auto without buying a front loader musket.

If a man breaks into my house, a well placed .44 round or a not-so-well placed .00 shot will do the trick.

Why do I need to have a M1, an uzi, or the ever famous AK? All that is to me is bragging rights.

Guns are fine. I have one and have had others in the past but regular folk don't need fully-auto weapons in my opinion.

I found this on a Dallas news site....loved this comment

"The laws that we need are already on the books," said James Dark, executive director of the Texas State Rifle Association. "You don't walk into a 7-Eleven with an AR-15 to rob the place."

Link to above quote

Now...with that said...

AK-47 Robbery Attempt

yep...that sort of thing never happens...

I love guns...fabulous...but this is insane to me. I highly doubt the 2nd amendment is going anywhere. It all sounds like spooky stories to me.

Obama's own words

"A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions"

I am not concerned in the least

but then...as I have been told...since I disagree I am a psyop...at least in another thread

-Kyo

Originally posted by KyoZero
Guns are fine. I have one and have had others in the past but regular folk don't need fully-auto weapons in my opinion.

Regular folks don't NEED vehicles, but we have them just the same. We don't NEED television, but most people own one. Be very careful in what you entrust the government to determine what you NEED.

What says that when .50 cal. is banned, your .44 mag won't be next? Do you really NEED that .44? After all, it's possible to stop an intruder with 9mm or .22LR.

See where I am going with this? Tread lightly.

Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst
What says that when .50 cal. is banned, your .44 mag won't be next? Do you really NEED that .44? After all, it's possible to stop an intruder with 9mm or .22LR.

Stop an intruder with a .22LR? Man, if I ever found out that someone shot me with a .22, I'd be pretty pissed off.

yes but on a day-to-day basis what is more used? Vehicles or guns?

I am not discussing banning all guns but does the civillian need an assault rifle or a fully auto weapon?

I am just stating my own opinion which of course we all have a right to. I personally don't see us losing the power to purchase guns

-Kyo

AWB ban, ammo ban, limited ammo purchases or microstamping, doesn't matter to me. In addition to my 2nd amendment rights, THIS is why I'm a gun owner:

NY Times Article

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

Yeah, it's from 2005, but get a clue. This case creates precedent for the way law enforcement agencies respond. Read the rest of the article via link provided. With budgets getting smaller and smaller, states, cities and municipalities all cutting services, do you really think the police are going to more helpful or take longer to respond to a 911 call? That is if you can even get through...

Originally posted by jerico65
Stop an intruder with a .22LR? Man, if I ever found out that someone shot me with a .22, I'd be pretty pissed off.

I wouldn't be too happy myself! That is exactly why we don't need the government regulating what we need for protection/hunting etc. Everyone has a preference, and it should be respected.

Originally posted by KyoZero
I am not discussing banning all guns but does the civillian need an assault rifle or a fully auto weapon?

I am just stating my own opinion which of course we all have a right to. I personally don't see us losing the power to purchase guns

Again, what does it matter if I NEED an assault rifle? Humans only NEED food and water to live. Should everything else be subject to regulation?

Yes, you do have the right to free speech under the constitution. Wouldn't you be upset if the government began regulating and banning certain types of speech? What if I said you really don't NEED the right to assemble in protest of something? You don't NEED that right, so we should take it away.

If you want to see REAL panic buying, just wait until the first time Obama mutters the words "gun" and "laws" in the same sentence.

One half of the entire country will buy every last firearm and every last round of ammunition they can find, and the woods will be alive at night with the sounds of digging and the psssst noise that that cans of spray-on Remoil make when they discharge.

Gun owners lived through the 1994 ban and they lived through the Katrina seizures, I personally wouldn't try and push them any further, I don't think they are ready for any more "compromise".

Originally posted by Retseh
If you want to see REAL panic buying, just wait until the first time Obama mutters the words "gun" and "laws" in the same sentence.

We don't need to wait for that. I bought a 9mm a week ago and it took me until today to find ammo for it. I had to drive to a different town to get them and they only had two boxes left(and this was from a big sporting goods store). Every place that sells ammo in my town is out of 9mm and .223. Both are ammo I need. I have plenty of .22 rounds though. And for the people saying they would only be pissed off if shot by a .22, it MIGHT not kill you but I promise if I put 3 or 4 rounds in your chest with it you won't be putting up much of a fight. All guns are deadly regardless of caliber. Remember that.

reply to post by KyoZero


The 2nd Amendment is not about being allowed to own Hunting Rifles and recreational firearms.

It is about the populace being allowed (And encouraged) to arm itself against a tyrranical government who may use the armed forces against Civilian Citizens.

It is to kill human beings who are trying to take the people's freedoms away. THAT is what the 2nd amendment is about; Ousting Tyrrany and overcoming the cludge of the military were it to be used against the people.

I'm certain the Military has Fully Automatic firearms, tanks, grenades, etc.

So, for those of you who want the .50 machine gun, go for it. If we ever need you to fend off an organized strike against the people I *WANT* you to be armed the best you can be.

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux

I had to drive to a different town to get them and they only had two boxes left(and this was from a big sporting goods store). Every place that sells ammo in my town is out of 9mm and .223. Both are ammo I need.

Until you start buying on-line by the multiple thousands you aren't really trying.

Try ammoman.com for your larger purchases.

Originally posted by Retseh


Until you start buying on-line by the multiple thousands you aren't really trying.

Try ammoman.com for your larger purchases.

I wasn't aware I could buy online. I thought you had to be a dealer or have a dealer license for that. Good info to know thanks!

Originally posted by Retseh
If you want to see REAL panic buying, just wait until the first time Obama mutters the words "gun" and "laws" in the same sentence.

One half of the entire country will buy every last firearm and every last round of ammunition they can find, and the woods will be alive at night with the sounds of digging and the psssst noise that that cans of spray-on Remoil make when they discharge.

People are in panic mode up here. The store shelves are still wiped clean just as they were after election day. Cobwebs now exist where hundreds upon hundreds of ammunition boxes once were. Everything from .22 to .50 is gone. As soon as the shelves are replenished they are wiped clean again. Some of the larger stores don't even bother to stock shelves, they just roll it all out in shopping carts and watch it disappear.

Obama is not what should worry people. It is congress that is writing ridiculous bills and resolutions that has me worried. Check out H.R. 45 for the latest in "common-sense" legislation. H.R. 45 would call for mandatory registration of firearms and a $25 fee for each. Hopefully nothing will come of it.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by PrepareForTheWorst]

Originally posted by KyoZero

I am not discussing banning all guns but does the civillian need an assault rifle or a fully auto weapon?



-Kyo

A person has to have a class III firearms license to own a full auto. Not all that many.

I have a an AR-15 NM that I use for predator control, Why not?

Roper

reply to post by TheColdDragon


yes and i totally agree with you- a militia is allowed to be formed ( BY THE CONSITUTION) to protect against tyrrany and just how are we going to do that without guns? they will have them!!! maybe i'll go cut some maple switches to defend myself- they sting when hit with one. that should deter anyone with a gun. or RUN HE HAS A BOARD WITH A NAIL IN IT!!!!(simpsons) that might work too lol
and to preparefortheworst- in your signature- wtf is a 17 clip semiautomatic. if he really actually said that it shows the ignorance that 99% of people believe or don't know about guns

Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst

Obama is not what should worry people. It is congress that is writing ridiculous bills and resolutions that has me worried. Check out H.R. 45 for the latest in "common-sense" legislation. H.R. 45 would call for mandatory registration of firearms and a $25 fee for each. Hopefully nothing will come of it.

I completely agree, but the real question is will gun owners resist Obama's particular style of firearm related "change".

I'm not referring to violent resistance, but more like the mass protests that the French are so good at.

I hate to be defeatist, but legal gun owners are overwhelmingly law abiding, they usually represent the very best in our society.

After the capitulation I saw in 1994 with the AWB ban, I cannot believe the Chairborne Commandos when they say they will fight to the last round to keep their guns, it simply ain't so.

If the Dear Leader passes new laws they will whiz through congress like a .338 Lapua, and we will all have to learn to live with them.

reply to post by KyoZero


Daniel, thank you for your service.

With all due respect, I think that you've misconstrued the intent of the second amendment, as well as the thoughts leading up to its inception. The RTKBA has nothing to do with hunting. It is also not something "given" to us - it is something that we as a free people are entitled to - the 2nd merely defines and protects that "unalienable right."

The purpose of the RTKBA is to ensure that Britain's tyranny is never repeated by any other agent or body. The 2nd gives the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights their teeth. Without the means to defend themselves, a free people are only free as long as those who would subjugate them remain on the sidelines, and without "teeth" of their own.

As for the limits imposed on "arms" and the right of the citizenry to keep and bear them lawfully, the entire idea of the thing is that the citizens should be as well armed as the "paid officers" in order to prevent the latter taking advantage of the former, should it ever come to that.

-edit- A pertinent quote: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...(T)he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe, member of the Continental Congress, as published in Freeman’s Journal, 20 Feb 1778.





[edit on 19-1-2009 by pernox]

[edit on 19-1-2009 by pernox]

[edit on 19-1-2009 by pernox]

Originally posted by bigfoot1212
and to preparefortheworst- in your signature- wtf is a 17 clip semiautomatic. if he really actually said that it shows the ignorance that 99% of people believe or don't know about guns

That's why I laugh when I am told that BHO will preserve our second amendment rights. How can you protect something that you have no clue about?