The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading E-mail The PresidentGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| E-mail The President | Login/Join |
one of us |
Mr. President: I, as a member of the National Rifle Association, have always considered your position on firearms to be in accordance with the wishes of the Framers Of The Constitution. You took the position, while campaigning for office, of not accepting any further gun control legislation, and because of this position you received my vote, as well as the votes of all the other members of the NRA. If it had not been for the support you received from the members of the NRA I honestly believe that "the other guy" would have been sitting at 1600, instead of you. Now, as if to slap the NRA support in the face, you have announced that you are willing to extend the current "assault weapons ban" for another 10 years! This, sir, is totally unacceptable. I fear that if you take this action someone else will be residing at 1600 in 2004. Please reconsider your position, and adhere to the promises you made in 1999 and 2000. I also want to offer you my gratitude for your position on Iraq, and the steps you took to liberate the Iraqi people from under Saddam. After 8 years of posturing and finger-waving it is good to have a Commander-In-Chief who is holding that position in more than name only. Sincerely, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The President's E-mail address is: president@whitehouse.gov Please include your mailing address and your e-mail address if you send this note. | ||
|
| one of us |
A fine letter, Steve, and an excellent model for the rest of us. Apathy is our greatest enemy in situations such as this. If we remain silent, we will reap our just rewards/mandates. | |||
|
| one of us |
Next stop gun control. Seems like Mayor Joe Quimby...er... I mean Pres. Bush is flip flopping here as well. Turok | |||
|
| one of us |
I'm not trying to start an argument because I fully support the private citizen's rights to own firearms. But, I do not believe the assault weapons that have been banned belong in the private sector of our society. Just my .02 HBL | |||
|
one of us |
quote:HBL, this is the way that the anti's want you to feel. It is a simple matter of divide and conquer. The state in which you reside allows them for hunting just like a bolt action, etc... If you are against one gun "type", then you are against ALL guns. The black guns are no different than the bolt guns. The anti's look at you deer rifle as a "sniper weapon". | |||
|
| one of us |
Why should GWB give a rat's ass about the assault weapon question ? There are enough fence sitters like HBL willing to trash semi-autos that it becomes a moot point and a loser for any politition........ | |||
|
One of Us |
HBL: You're full of shit. Sorry, but I have NO patience with statments like that. First of all, REAL assault weapons ( i.e., FULLY automatic military rifles) are and have been illegal since 1934 unless you purchase a Class III Federal Firearms license. THe so-called assault rifles that are covered under this law, merely "look" like them. There is NO, NO evidence that the current ban had ANY effect on crime reduction. IF we use your logic for example with automobiles, ALL cars that do over 65 MPH should be outlawed. Besides, look at it this way: THE SAME PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE THE WAR IN IRAQ, TREE HUGGERS, DEMOCRATS, ETC, are the same people who favor this ban. SO, are you with us or ae you with the Susan Sarandons of this world? Get real THEY ARE AFTER ALL YOUR GUNS!!!! jorge | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Okay then, you define "assault weapon"... This "extension" of the "assault weapon" ban describes it as ANY firearm which has a vertical pistol grip, or a vertical forearm grip, or a bayonet lug, or a grenade launcher, or is semi-automatic in operation, or a folding stock, or a thumb-hole stock, or has detachable magazines, or a flash suppressor, or a threaded barrel, or a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, or a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when unloaded, or the ability to accept a silencer, or can accept any magazine which holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition (which they want lowered to 5), the semi-auto version of a selective fire firearm, or ANY firearm that looks like it might be a military firearm! Now...tell me all about an assault weapon... [ 05-09-2003, 22:43: Message edited by: ricciardelli ] | |||
|
one of us |
MSSmagnum is absolutely right, Divide and Conquer. Everyone (Shooters, Rifle/Shotgun Hunters, Bowhunters) has to stick together, or we'll all be weeded out eventually. Next thing you know certain guns will be but on those damn referendum votes. Just look at trapping and, bear and wolf hunting. Makes me sick!! | |||
|
| one of us |
If it aint shity enough, read this article.... http://www.kxtv10.com/storyfull.asp?id=4376 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling on Silveira v. Lockyer web page [ 05-09-2003, 17:54: Message edited by: Mauserkid ] | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:I have bad news for you...there already a list of "forbidden guns"! The bill bans, by name, the manufacture of 19 different weapons: Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); Colt AR-15; Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12; Steyr AUG; INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22; revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12. In addition, the anti-gunners want the wording "...and any and all firearms which resemble the above mentioned firearms..." They also want the sale and/or possession of receivers and actions outlawed! They want all the pre-ban (1994) magazines and firearms collected and destroyed. Seven states have added firearms to the federal list of banned firearms: Maryland: 1. AA Arms AP-9 semiautomatics; 2. Bushmaster semiautomatic pistol; 3. Claridge HI-TEC, semiautomatic pistol; 4. D Max Industries semiautomatic pistol; 5. Encom MK-IV, MP-9, MP-45 semiautomatic pistols; (6) Heckler and Koch semiautomatic SP-89; 6. Holmes MP-83 semiautomatic pistol; 7. Ingram MAC 10/11 semiautomatics and any variation including the Partisan Avenger and the SWD Cobray; 8. Intratec TEC-9/DC-9 in any centerfire variation; 9. P.A.W.S. type semiautomatic pistol; 10. Skorpion semiautomatic pistol; 11. Spectre double action semiautomatic pistol (Sile, F.I.E., Mitchell); 12. UZI semiautomatic pistol; 13. Weaver Arms semiautomatic Nighthawk pistol; and (15) Wilkinson semiautomatic "Linda" pistol. (1994, ch. 456.) California has already added the following, with the intent of adding even more: (1) All AK series including, but not limited to, the models identified as follows: (A) Made in China AK, AKM, AKS, AK47, AK47S, 56, 56S, 84S, and 86S. (B) Norinco 56, 56S, 84S, and 86S. (C) Poly Technologies AKS and AK47. (D) MAADI AK47 and ARM. (2) UZI and Galil. (3) Beretta AR-70. (4) CETME Sporter. (5) Colt AR-15 series. (6) Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C. (7) Fabrique Nationale FAL, LAR, FNC, 308 Match, and Sporter. (8) MAS 223. (9) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, and HK-PSG-1. (10) The following MAC types: (A) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11. (B) SWD Incorporated M11. (11) SKS with detachable magazine. (12) SIG AMT, PE-57, SG 550, and SG 551. (13) Springfield Armory BM59 and SAR-48. (14) Sterling MK-6. (15) Steyer AUG. (16) Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78S. (17) Armalite AR-180. (18) Bushmaster Assault Rifle. (19) Calico M-900. (20) J&R ENG M-68. (21) Weaver Arms Nighthawk. (b) All of the following specified pistols: (1) UZI. (2) Encom MP-9 and MP-45. (3) The following MAC types: (A) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11. (B) SWD Incorporated M-11. (C) Advance Armament Inc. M-11. (D) Military Armament Corp. Ingram M-11. (4) Intratec TEC-9. (5) Sites Spectre. (6) Sterling MK-7. (7) Calico M-950. (8) Bushmaster Pistol. (c) All of the following specified shotguns: (1) Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12. (2) Striker 12. (3) The Streetsweeper type S/S Inc. SS/12. (d) Any firearm declared by the court pursuant to Section 12276.5 to be an assault weapon that is specified as an assault weapon in a list promulgated pursuant to Section 12276.5. (e) The term "series" includes all other models that are only variations, with minor differences, of those models listed in subdivision (a), regardless of the manufacturer. Not to be outdone, New York has a list of banned firearms: (i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; (vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; (vii) Steyr AUG; (viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and (ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; Do I have to list the firearms banned by name in New Jersey, Connecticut, Mass-a-two-shits and Hawaii? | |||
|
one of us |
e-mail sent. Hope it makes a difference. Don't know about this one, I thought we finally had a stand-up guy in there. I'm sure there are some political calculations involved, but, darn it, I'm tired of being a pawn. ![[Frown]](images/icons/frown.gif){kind=icon} R-WEST | |||
|
| one of us |
I thought that the extention of the ban had to make it through congress first. Is this wrong? | |||
|
one of us |
Congress would indeed have to pass the law first, and then it would go to the President for signature. There is not support for the extension law in Congress, because those guys know exactly how bad the gun control issue has hurt the Democrats. President Bush and his advisors are hoping Congress won't pas the law so he won't have to sign it or veto it. The thing to point out is the assault weapons ban has not reduced crime, so why not get rid of it? Anti-gunners are claiming it reduced crime by constructing statistics that prove their point. But if you compare the absolute numbers of crimes committed, they have kept increasing -- not decreasing. jim dodd | |||
|
| one of us |
ricciardelli, My definition...M-16, AK47, UZI, just for a few. These guns were made for one purpose only, and there's not one of you that can realistically and logically argue against that statement. I realize responsible shooters, hunters and competitors pose no problem or threat even with these firearms, but I have known several, who I considered responsible, that altered these guns to fully auto. These do not belong in the private sector. I understand the statements made above that we all need to stick together. That's why I fully support the NRA. I may not always agree with some of their ideas and issues, but I support it none the less. And I will do what I can to keep the NRA a powerful voice. JORGE, I would prefer, if you can not carry on a discussion in a civil manner, you may be better off not saying anything. I have never on an open forum made derogatory remarks towards someone for their views. Try it some time, you might find people to be a little more responsive. For everyone else, I apologize if I raised some hairs. That was not the intention. I was just giving my personal opinion which will never be used in any effort to support any type of gun control. Good shooting, HBL | |||
|
| <eldeguello> |
quote:Lets get real basic here. While the framers of our Constitution no doubt enjoyed sport hunting and shooting, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was NOT to preserve their ability to go shoot a deer or a duck. The framers' intent was that all citizens be armed with whatever small arms were technologically the best MILITARY-type weapons available at any given time. There were TWO reasons for this: A. When called to duty, the militia (which was/is required to report for duty armed) could engage the enemy on at least an equal footing; B. That citizens be as well, or better, armed than any standing government forces, so no would-be tyrant could usurp political power over the citizens of the United States, or have the ability to use federal forces to deny the liberties of the people. In view of the recent deployment of large numbers of the "organized militia" (Reserve and National Guard), it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the day may come, during the present war on terrorism, that federal, state, and/or local authorities will find it necessary to call upon the "unorganized militia" to perform homeland security functions. (Most citizens don't even realize that, legally, every able bodied adult who is not a "public official", or a member of the active forces, the Reserve or National Guard, IS, still this very day, a member of the unorganized militia, and subject to be required to perform duty as such!! Therefor, it is a good idea for citizens to own "military weapons". Additionally, it is a good idea to encourage, rather than interfere with, the citizens' right to keep and bear arms! Senilator Lautenberg et al, please take note!! [ 05-09-2003, 22:15: Message edited by: eldeguello ] | ||
|
| one of us |
quote:The fully automatic firearms have been controlled since 1934! And the M-16, the AK-47, and a host of other military firearms are taboo, unless you undergo a background investigation and pay the rediculous high taxes. As for a reason to own one of them...how about this? Because I want one! Period... I am not a felon, I have no security problems, I undergo FBI, NSA, and CIA checks and updates almost on a yearly basis. (And because of the anti-gun group) I have not been found to be a non-support paying dad, have not been convicted of any sexual crimes, and have no history of domestic violence. (For the life of me, I can't understand what those three have to do with firearms ownership, or getting a hunting license!) I for one remember what it was like before 1968...I fought the 1968 CGA...to no avail! Then things got tighter with 1994, and we didn't stop them then. Now with 2003, things are going to get even more restrictive... We don't need or want anymore restrictions! I shouldn't have to give a reason why I want to own a firearm. I shouldn't have to carry a card in my pocket in order to purchase ammunition or reloading components. I shouldn't have to pay UPS a "HazMat" fee for an item which shipped for decades without that charge! I shouldn't have to pay overnight UPS rates to ship a handgun because UPS cannot trust their own damn employees! I shouldn't have to pay a federal excise tax on all firearms and firearms related items which was supposed to support hunting and wildlife, only to find out that it was being used to support the anti-hunters, the tree huggers, and certain politicians' family outings! And, most of all...I shouldn't vote for someone on a promise he made, only to have him back off when the time comes to keep that promise. If HE can do THAT, then I demand the right to CANCEL MY VOTE, and have it reflect in the count...why should I have to wait 4 years to find out he lied? Or any other politician? You wanna know what happens when firearms rights are cut away, a little at a time? Ask any Australian, British, Canadian shooter/hunter. Ask the Brits who were around before WWII. Check out the leaders of countries who were proud they had civilian firearm ownership under control...The names to check are Stalin, Hitler, Mao... [ 05-09-2003, 22:39: Message edited by: ricciardelli ] | |||
|
| One of Us |
HBL: "Extremism in the defense of liberty, is no vice." Your statement is like blood in the water to the gun haters. THey look for the obvious wedge and divide and conquer. No I was not, nor will I be "civil." 23 years int eh Navy and still going gives me that right. jorge | |||
|
| <Sam> |
HBL, I'm not into singling out people on here, but with your logic we won't even have black powder flint-locks. The anti's can't ban guns. They can say these are dangerous and shouldn't be owned, refer to "assault-weapons". Then they can come after "high powered, extream accuracy, sniper rifles", which by definition is any bolt action made after the 1903 Springfield. They have also attacked any hand gun that measures less than six inches by four inches as "un-safe dangerous Saturday Night Specials" but exempt law-enforcement from this law (Toledo OH, and several other places that copied this law.) If you recall the Bushmaster AR-15 used by the "Beltway Sniper" was maligned as a sniper rifle because of it's "accuracy". When the assualt weapon ban was written it was the bayonet lug, detachable magazine, pistol grip, posability of full auto conversion, and high rate of inaccurate fire. For the second part of your arguement. No matter what you use a fire-arm for; hunting, target shooting, plinking, historic re-enactment, etc; "These guns were made for one purpose only, and there's not one of you that can realistically and logically argue against that statement." ALL fire-arms were originally made to kill, there's your realistic arguement. So, in your own words you can't even keep a flint-lock. [ 05-09-2003, 22:59: Message edited by: Sam ] | ||
|
| one of us |
Jorge, I fail to see how anything I have said is analogous to blood in water for either side much less the anti's. And I strongly disagree with you, No matter how much time you spent in the Military, or anywhere else for that matter, gives a person the right to be uncivil. And to be proud of that personal fact is a flaw that the anti's would appreciate hearing more than my opinion. By your analogy, my tax money paid for you to become uncivil by prescription rights? I doubt that there is anyone here that has not been in the military or has had a family membe in the military. So, military service is a moot point when it comes to preserving our rights to own firearms. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I think George Bush is preparing to spend his political capital, not by doing what's right, but by trying to attract more votes from the Left. I can do without more Republican senators and representatives who feel beholden to a constituency who don't trust themselves with the freedoms God gave them. H. C. | |||
|
| one of us |
How do I put this in words every one can understand? Lets say regardless of the type of firearm. Makes no difference what it is.... If you give an inch, they will take a mile... Soon your favorite hunting rifle will fit the general description of a assault rifle, sniper rifle, etc... Just like the bill of rights can be twisted to mean what ever fits the needs at that present time. Hitler started gun registration..... Then he confiscated them...... | |||
|
| <reload> |
Gun control is hitting what you shoot at. Guns are for protection for most people and it Florida there are over 500,000 who have a license for the right to carry a weapon and we have a very low violate crime rate. Read Lotts book "More Guns, Less Crime" it is worth the price! Good Luck | ||
|
| one of us |
Reload, we the people understand this.. The politicians understand this too... If guns save lives, why do politicians want us to be un-armed? Easier to control a bunch of mice and sheep? | |||
|
| one of us |
E-mail sent, thanks Steve. I have been negligent in recent years by not keeping up with current political trends. I need to get letters/e-mails off to my local and state officials like I used to do. Ruger#1 | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:These guns that �were made for one purpose only� happen to be THE choice for High Power shoots. It matters not what they were �made for� as there are numerous guns that we use for hunting/target shooting that were originally made as military items. quote:Why do full auto�s pose a particular problem for you?? As mentioned elsewhere, they have been regulated since 1934 and legally owned machine guns have NOT been used in the commission of any crime of any kind!! Why do they concern you so?? Just because it can spray bullets, its bad? Ever shoot a machine gun? If so, you would not be concerned. They are much more difficult to control under full auto fire than TV would have you believe. Try one sometime, it aint easy�� quote:I believe that the NRA is our BEST VOICE. They need to made aware that we will not stand for a compromise on our position. Approving of one gun type and not another compromises our position. We must surely hang together for separately we will all surely hang. quote:Glad to hear it BUT you should really consider the consequences of your position�. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:And your point is? I fully understand that the "one purpose", YES!, the most important purpose of my firearms may someday be to kill in defense of my family, myself and my freedom.....if it ever comes to that......I want the very best tools for that job......and that is EXACTLY the reason we NEED this type of weapon! Don't have the stomach for it? Fine, stay home and wring your hands like the other bed wetting liberal cowards! But, don't even think about taking the tools of battle from those who are willing to bleed and die to protect their freedom! quote:Isn't this a "people" problem and not a "gun" problem? Did the guns violate the law? This is exactly the same reasoning the gun grabbers use to try to rob us of our right to own weapons! They, just exactly like you, say because a few can't be trusted that nobody should have them!!! Furthermore, READ the 2nd ammendment, there is nothing written there about "shooters, hunters and competitors", it's about defense of FREEDOM, PERIOD! Look in the mirror.....YOU are the enemy! Don't Tread On Me! [ 05-12-2003, 06:01: Message edited by: GonHuntin ] | |||
|
| <Chainsaw> |
HBL, Why would one want to compromise with those that have nothing to give up in return. You could be cast as anti, that just happens to own guns. I have complete and udder disdain for those that want me to give up my rights so they can still go duck hunting. | ||
|
| one of us |
If Bush did repeal the law,and some nut started killing a bunch of people,or worse yeat kids,the press and the anti gun slime,would tear him and us a new A hole! I think., | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Matters not! We can speculate in both directions. What about a guy or gal that would like to defend their family with one of these guns and they are all killed or maimed by the goblin because they are not allowed to own one? Which is worse?? | |||
|
| one of us |
Back to the original post. That letter strikes me as a fine way to make an enemy. I don't disagree with anything it said, but that ain't no way to talk to someone you are trying to persuade to see things our way. | |||
|
one of us |
HBL you have your right to your opinion but consider this. Bolt action rifles were originally designed as tools of war & later adopted by sportsman. THe idea that any "Thing" is bad is a road our society is already headed down. If you are a bird shooter only, you should back the rights of any law abidding individual to own any type of firearm. Your alternative will eventually lead to ALL firearms being regulated or banned for civilian use. Like Joe Friday in Dragnet, "just tha facts maam". | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:By believing that these firearms have no place in our society, you, by default, are supporting "this type" of gun control. By agreeing with the gun control advocates on this one point alone, if not others, you are taking away a voice of opposition, and giving a voice of agreement to the ones who wish to infringe upon our rights. Even though you may not be actively participating in eliminating our rights, your agreement with those who are trying to take our rights is another voice on their side, even if it is silent - as your voice is absent from our fight. As you agree with those who want to strip our freemdoms away on merely a single point, all-be-it silently(I presume) you are in effect supporting gun control, contrary to you claim. I wish that you were in fact on our side...we need every voice possible. Our voice is what is keeping our freedoms in tact. Unfortunately, some of those freedoms have been removed. We need them back, but I fear we will not see them again. If we have an opportunity to get a little freedom back, we must unite and use whatever means neccessary to achieve our goal. Your voice would help America get a little bit closer to what it was originally envisioned to be... a place of individual liberties and freedoms without infringement. | |||
|
| one of us |
GW is a plain talking guy, and he understands plain talk more than he cares for flowers! He will not take offense, an dhe will not misunderstand. As for those who don't feel certain firearms are required for sporting purposes, let me kind of quote GW... "You are either 100% with us, or you are the enemy..." | |||
|
| one of us |
Anti gun advocates only see black and white. Those anti gun ---- want you to feel they are there to protect you. As they make adjustments in the color filters, you loose more guns. The latest one is a 50 cal.compition firearms. How many bad guys are going to run down the street carring that thing. I hate to say this, but it is an all or nothing game we are playing here... | |||
|
| one of us |
Just to let you know I forwarded your memo to the President along with some comments of my own. Did get a generic response - quickly. Thanks Steve for taking the initiative - now you others out there do the same - make some noise and be counted - but be polite. | |||
|
| one of us |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51740-2003May13.html I hope they think the same way when the ban actually expires. | |||
|
| <eldeguello> |
Lewftoverdj's comment about the original post is correct. The tone of that letter is al ittle too threatening to receive favorable consideration. | ||
|
| one of us |
hbl, would you then also approve on a ban of the M1 Garand? After all hundreds of thousands of them made the landings at Normandy, Guadalcanal, Korea. Hell, our own government is issuing these to citizens through the CMP. If you don't think the M1 is an assualt weapon just ask anyone who was on the receiving end. So if your answer is 'no' then that pretty much sums up the fact that the term 'assault weapons' is another one of those liberal lies designed to scare the hell out of people who have been brainwashed into believing that they are free Americans when in fact they only vote themselves into being wards of the government. Don't believe it? Ask those same people what the role of police is in our society and they'll probably tell you that they are here to protect us. Well, the big news is not so. The police are NOT here to protect YOU. I don't know who you are or what your politics are, but if you think an extension of the ban is okay, then you are NOT one of us. sundog | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |