A note for the GENUINE hunters, shooters and outdoor sportsmen..

[ironglow]

   A notice from the NRA in our september American Hunter magazine.
   
    Between pages 60 & 61, we find a tearout with 4 reminder cards tro hand out to other hunters & shooters.
 
   It shows Barack Obama's 10 point plan to "CHANGE" the second amendment..

  1) Ban the use of firearms for home defense.

  2) Pass FEDERAL laws eliminating your Right-to-Carry.

  3) Ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.

  4) Close down 90% of the gun shops in America.

  5) Ban rifle ammuinition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.

  6) Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent.

  7) Restore voting rights for five million criminals including those who
   have been convicted of using a gun to commit a crime.

  Expand the Clinton semi-auto ban to include many more firearms.

  9) Mandate a government-issued license to purchase a firearm.

  10) Appoint judges to the Supreme Court and federal judiciary who
   share his views on the second amendment.



     Read and think..if you think they are wrong..take it up with the NRA..they said it, I just reprinted it !
   (although I don't disagree with it)
 

[DalesCarpentry]

This is never going to happen in my life time. There are way to many gun owners in the good old USA to allow it. There would be riots in the streets. Dale

[Casull]

This is never going to happen in my life time. There are way to many gun owners in the good old USA to allow it. There would be riots in the streets. Dale

I didn't see any riots when the Clinton assualt weapon ban was passed.   

[DalesCarpentry]

This is way diferent than that. Dale

[Brett]

Atlanta, Chicago, Washington DC... I don't recall hearing about gun owners rioting in the streets when guns were confiscated in these cities Dale.    I would not bet my favorite shooter that this could never happen in our time if I was you Dale.

[ironglow]

  Dale;
     from an old man..the liberals have been pecking away at our gun rights since 1968..or rather, since JFK was killed by a Commie in 1962.
  They have had successes in restricting our rights. Before 1968, I could walk into a local hardware and get a long gun of choice..no papers to sign,
  no address given, no swearing upon my mother's grave or explaining what I intended using it for. In 1952, when I was about 15 years old, and
  very busy on our farm..I saved my few hard-earned $$ and went to a local hardware and bought my first new rifle to put alongside my old Stevens
  single shot 20 guage. The clerk didn't bat an eye..just took my..believe it was $16.95, and that nice, new Winchester 67A went home with me.
  Dad didn't even notice for a couple weeks...then he had to try it out !
  I used to carry that gun to school and sometimes walk to and through the local small town, past my high school to go hunting with a buddy on
   the other side of town.

  I say this to point out where we are now..from then...

 Yes; violence and all kinds of problems with evil have increased since then..but the guns didn't cause it ! I think the main reason for the increase in
  such a downgrade of society is plainly because the liberals have gotten their wishes..they have succeeded in moving much of the country away
  from God, decency and traditional and shared values that made and kept our nation free and special for hundreds of years.

  Believe me Dale, they are very patient in their efforts to wean us away from our constitutional rights...doing it in small increments..
  With some, they buy them out of their rights with some govt "give away" program.. the rest of us are not that gullible...
  We recognize "creeping socialism' when we see it !

[nomosendero]

This is way diferent than that. Dale

What did the people of your state do when semi autos were banned from hunting? They probably said awe, we don't need those to hunt with anyway. I bet they didn't do squat. How do you eat an Elephant, one bite at a time.

[billy_56081]

  I guess if the 10 points do come true under the Obama plan for change, we should all be writing down the addresses of the folks wit Obama signs in the front yard. A good place for the revolt to start would be in the homes of the people who support this anti constitutional crap. I say let em have our guns, muzzle first!

[Cabin4]

This is way diferent than that. Dale

What did the people of your state do when semi autos were banned from hunting? They probably said awe, we don't need those to hunt with anyway. I bet they didn't do squat. How do you eat an Elephant, one bite at a time.

BINGO!

[ironglow]

  Is it true Dale, that you can't use a Ruger 10/22 or Marlin 60 to hunt squirrel in PA ?
 I like PA better than my home state, and only live about 25 miles from it, but Cabin has a point..right ?

[ms]

The nra is fake just like gb said .

[DalesCarpentry]

I have to say why my state has a problem with any simi-auto for hunting? I might could see a reason for big game but for Groundhogs and such don't make sense to me. Dale

[nomosendero]

I have to say why my state has a problem with any simi-auto for hunting? I might could see a reason for big game but for Groundhogs and such don't make sense to me. Dale

Tell it to the Varmits that bite the dust because of match AR's. I have sold my Bolt 223's because of my Rock River,
& there is no better PD rifle made than a 223 or 204AR. For way out there the bolt is still king, but for a match up with a 400 yd. Varmit cartridge, the AR is great. Some folks want to Varmit hunt with their 600yd. Match rifle. You don't have to pull the trigger more than once per animal & it no ones business what I choose to use. A Southerner or Westerner understands & believes that for the most part.

Which is not the point, actually. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting, but the right to protect life & property. It is too easy for antis to say after a rifle is outlawed for hunting, well you can't hunt with it, so you don't need it. It is to their advantage to tie hunting & the 2nd amemd. together & later just outlaw hunting & then no need of guns.
Not true & neither is acceptable.

[ironglow]

 primarily, the RTKBA is to prevent tyrannical takeover of the federal government.
  see:
    Federalist paper # 28 paragraph 6

     Federalist paper #49 paragraph 9
  You can easily find more by doing a web search for... <  federalist paper, right to bear arms  >

[DakotaElkSlayer]

THIS is exactly why I am not a member of the NRA!  A credible institution that would send out something like this would have footnotes showing where this came from.    Didn't see any references cited so I take the whole thing as BS.  Ooops, guess they forgot to mention that he is a "secret Muslim," too.
  As for him appointing liberal judges, the next two judges that are inline to retire are liberal, so why not keep the Bench more balanced.  Load the thing with Conservatives and they will try to force "intelligent design" down our throats. 

Jim

[ironglow]

  Exactly why you should be in the NRA..you could have read the accompanying article
  that explains clearly where the facts came from !
  Of course, there is little doubt such information would change your vote anyway.
  The majority of liberals were brought up on the "nanny state" ideal and would stick
  with the socialists faithfully until the "ship of state" sinks under the overbearing load...

[gypsyman]

DakotaElkslayer, why would you need footnotes on Obama's Second Amendment views. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and fly's like a duck, it's probably a duck. If it wasn't for the NRA fighting, for the most part, Democratic attacks against the gun owners in the States, how far down the road to complete gun confiscation would we be by now. No semi auto's, single barrel shotguns, target shooters have to lock their guns up at the gun club they are registered to, by the government. The only way you can go big game hunting with a high power rifle,(sniper material), is with a guide, and he/she rents you the rifle. They even had an idea to outlaw camouflage clothing a few years back. And if you need footnotes to find out where I got these ideas from, Google up,D.Fienstein,C.Schumer,T.Kennedy,S.Brady,gun laws/England-Australia,Canada,etc.,etc.,etc.,    gypsyman

[bilmac]

Come on Elk Killer, you can't really be that nieve. You must be some kind of liberal plant.

[Heavy C]

Come on Elk Killer, you can't really be that nieve. You must be some kind of liberal plant.

+1

[DalesCarpentry]

I have to say why my state has a problem with any simi-auto for hunting? I might could see a reason for big game but for Groundhogs and such don't make sense to me. Dale

Tell it to the Varmits that bite the dust because of match AR's. I have sold my Bolt 223's because of my Rock River,
& there is no better PD rifle made than a 223 or 204AR. For way out there the bolt is still king, but for a match up with a 400 yd. Varmit cartridge, the AR is great. Some folks want to Varmit hunt with their 600yd. Match rifle. You don't have to pull the trigger more than once per animal & it no ones business what I choose to use. A Southerner or Westerner understands & believes that for the most part.

Which is not the point, actually. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting, but the right to protect life & property. It is too easy for antis to say after a rifle is outlawed for hunting, well you can't hunt with it, so you don't need it. It is to their advantage to tie hunting & the 2nd amemd. together & later just outlaw hunting & then no need of guns.
Not true & neither is acceptable.

I think you have made a couple good points here. Dale

[ironglow]

  Nomo, Dale..

  We hear the bar room bluster gun experts say things like " the AK is a better rifle than the M-16! " As far as I am concerned that is
  the talk of the uninformed or ill informed.
  My grandson, who is a Marine armorer with two deployments to the Ramadi/Fallujah area, gave me the scoop on that debate.
  When I asked him what he found with his armorers experience in combat and on the range, he replied " Gramp; I'd rather have one
   M-16 series rifle than 3 AK rifles".
  When faced with extreme neglect, the AK will still operate; true..but only because of the extremely sloppy tolerances used in the
   manufacture. A reasonably maintained M16A2 or M4 will function just as well under adverse conditions.
          See; first I gave the one good point about the AK series..now we delve further..My armorer grandson says the AK's and the
  M16 family are not anywhere near the same league when it comes to accuracy..they should camo paint all AKs..so that when they
  are required to shoot beside the M16s..they can slink away and hide in the grass. Also, the .223 can reach out much farther to"touch" the
  enemy where it hurts ! The accessories and options available for our battle rifles is amazing.

  So why do insurgents and terrorists use the AK ? Simple, they are cheap..and available...

   My grandson was one of his unit's two designated snipers and in a search for his own "special use" rifle, he tested many weapons; those
   in his armory and the battlefield pickups (after teardown and close inspection)..
   He designed his personal "old Betsy" from M16 series parts..this rifle series are by nature, very accurate rifles..

[petemi]

Obama's a Democrat.  Want to loose your guns?  Simple, vote Democratic.  I'm a single shot fanatic, the only autoloader I own is a 10-22, but the guy who tries to take it, or any of my guns gets it up his butt and a 10 round clip unloaded.  Remember Charlton Heston...Out of my cold dead hands!  I'm 68 years old, and I'd rather die for my freedom than die a lingering death in bed in my old, enslaved age.

Knowing my local law enforcement, I can't imagine them pointing guns at friends and family to enforce a stupid law.  Most are hunters and gun lovers and they'd be on our side.  I think the majority would simply walk away from it.

But, and most important, we are not urbanites, nor surrounded by urbanites.  Our guns have been our tools for generations, and we are Yoopers!  (check the dictionary).

[DakotaElkSlayer]

Come on Elk Killer, you can't really be that nieve. You must be some kind of liberal plant.

Where I come from in Northern Michigan, it doesn't matter if the candidate is Democrat or Republican, they all own guns and hunt.  Sure, all democrats want to take away your guns, then all republicans only support big business and the rich.

Jim

[BBF]

Petemi: If it ever comes to confiscating your firearms, it won't be the local LEO's that are doing it.

[nomosendero]

Come on Elk Killer, you can't really be that nieve. You must be some kind of liberal plant.

Where I come from in Northern Michigan, it doesn't matter if the candidate is Democrat or Republican, they all own guns and hunt.  Sure, all democrats want to take away your guns, then all republicans only support big business and the rich.

Jim

That's irrelevant in the Nat. scheme of things. A few of the Dems are pro gun in my home state of AR & others like Clinton act like (they have to in AR) they are until they enter Nat politics & then they turn. It is not hard at all to figure out. Read the Nat. Dem platform, the platform is antigun & at the Nat level that's the way they will be if they want a prominate spot, it's that simple.

So yes, vote Dem for pres & you are voting antigun.

[Cabin4]

Come on Elk Killer, you can't really be that nieve. You must be some kind of liberal plant.

Sure, all democrats want to take away your guns, then all republicans only support big business and the rich.

Jim

Yes, the national democratic party movement is about taking away guns and ending the second amendment. Defacto, they also will eliminate hunting in the process. Something the liberal food Nazis will love.

Democrates have made such a point of demonizing big business and the rich, someone has to protect them. BTW: Millions and millions of people work in big business and they support their employees better than the democrates can or ever will. Why so many people are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face is amazing to me. The Demarcate party is in direct competition with big business. As long as big business can create excellent paying jobs with excellent benefits, most people that are employees in big business see no need for the big government hand outs, redistribution of wealth and the nanny state the Democrates want. This is the only reason why the Dems demonize big business, they take away votes. They could care less about people and they want big business to fail so they can then convince people to vote Democrate for the free hand outs.

The Rich: Its their money not my money. They earned it they should keep it. The Democrates have created this competition with the rich. As long as their are people who are well off, they don't need the Democrates and all their free hand outs.

What an obstacle for votes, people with money, good pay, good benefits and those who take care of themselves. What a tragedy in America

[nomosendero]

Cabin4, good points & it seems that folks do not consider the fact that so called "big bus" & small businesses
are the employers, so if you hurt them, you hurt the employee. The Socialist Demopncraps are enemies of both.

[crustaceous]

Even as s a GENUINE hunter and shooter I find the NRA's comments to be a bit over the top, but not surprising considering their target market.
As for the democrat's platform on the 2nd Amendment, here it is:
"We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."  [Note: in 2004, the platform contained a single line -- "we will protect Americas' Second Amendment rights to own firearms".]The big
Question is what's reasonable regulation ?

[nomosendero]

Even as s a GENUINE hunter and shooter I find the NRA's comments to be a bit over the top, but not surprising considering their target market.
As for the democrat's platform on the 2nd Amendment, here it is:
"We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."  [Note: in 2004, the platform contained a single line -- "we will protect Americas' Second Amendment rights to own firearms".]The big
Question is what's reasonable regulation ?

It's not a question to a thinker, otherwise no need for terms like "resonable regulation" which keeps the possibilities open. Thanks for showing us that.

It is an open end, an opening to pass any legislation they choose, in their minds most places are not Cheyene & also they don't care about Cheyene. The right to keep & bears arms is the same for all Americans & we know that & we also know that Socialist Demoncraps can be counted on to destroy the 2nd Amendment.

All you have to do is look at every gun bill passed & every one proposed since 1968. None could have been passed by Republicans , none. Then check the list & look at all the Dems.

And BTW, the Obama/Biden ticket is the most anti gun in American history.

[Cabin4]

Even as s a GENUINE hunter and shooter I find the NRA's comments to be a bit over the top, but not surprising considering their target market.
As for the democrat's platform on the 2nd Amendment, here it is:
"We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."  [Note: in 2004, the platform contained a single line -- "we will protect Americas' Second Amendment rights to own firearms".]The big
Question is what's reasonable regulation ?

Here is an example of a local ordance that will finally be over turned in Morton Grove Illinois, Obama home state. Due to the NRA winning law suite in the supreme court, this town will have to once agin let people own hand guns. Back around 1991, this town passed a law to confiscate all hand guns. Under what you posted, I guess this would fall under the "but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne". There's enough wiggel room in that BS position to drive a truck through it. It essentailly means, you could simply ban all firearms using local state or municipality laws. The democrates will eat the Gun Elephant one bite at a time.

June 30, 2008

PRESS RELEASE

On June 26, 2008, by a 5 to 4 vote, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in the District of Columbia et al vs Heller holding the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and the city’s total ban on handguns violated that right.

The Village of Morton Grove’s Ordinance 08-11 has banned possession of handguns and other dangerous weapons within the Village since its adoption on June 8, 1981. This ordinance has been codified in Title 2, Chapter 6 of the Village’s Municipal Code. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, Mayor Richard Krier has directed Corporation Counsel Teresa Hoffman Liston to prepare an ordinance for Village Board consideration amending the Village’s Municipal Code, Section 6-2-3 so it is compliant with the Supreme Court decision. This ordinance will be on the Village Board’s agenda for their next meeting which will be held at 7:30 pm on July 14, 2008, in the Richard T. Flickinger Municipal Center, 6101 Capulina Avenue, Morton Grove, Illinois.

Until July 14, no local ordinance violation citations of this Municipal Code will be written without the detailed review of the Village’s Corporation Counsel.

# # # # #


June 30, 2008


PRESS RELEASE

On June 27, 2008, by a 5 to 4 vote, the National Rifle Association filed lawsuits against several units of government including San Francisco, California; Chicago, Illinois; Evanston, Illinois; Oak Park, Illinois; and Morton Grove, Illinois. This lawsuit seeks declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The Village is presently reviewing this lawsuit.