This is a typical political tactic. Even the Dems know her spew would never pass the bulk of their own party. So they allow the kook to throw a hail-mary. Then as they negotiate and in the interest of "compromise" they pull back some. And in the end, they anti-gun legislators get the legislation they were targeting in the first place. (And make it seem like they made sacrifices)
Dianne Feinstein proposed bill
- Thread starter muleguy
- Start date
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
The questioning of various specific firearms and accessories included in these proposed restrictions speaks to the heart of the issue. Simply drawing a "line in the sand," standing firm-footed, and saying "No, no, no!" to those strict gun control advocates is going to result in such outlandish restrictions, in my opinion. I continue to advocate for NRA and other gun owner representation to offer more reasonable controls and concessions of some kind to get this back to something more acceptable. The gunshow "loophole" is a good place to start, I think.
Just saying "NO!" to Feinstein won't work.
Just saying "NO!" to Feinstein won't work.
nidahunter
Well-known member
I love how they always go back to "but your hunting rifles will be ok." I beg any of them to show me where in the bill of rights the word "hunting" is listed. It isn't about hunting, it is about the right to bear arms. Period. This is just their way to get us to voluntarily give up our rights a little at a time.
Toadslayer
Member
pointingdogsrule
Well-known member
Hey Smalts... don't worry.... Ben Lamb has told us that Pres. Obama is a friend of the hunter & outdoorsman.
It's things like this that made me switch from a Democrat to a Republican.
good luck to all
the dog
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Toadslayer
I don't know; 'depends on what Republican support joins in ... and there is some being vocal now. But if you plant your feet, set your jaw, and merely say, "NO, we won't accept any change!" then they will likely take at least two miles.
I don't know; 'depends on what Republican support joins in ... and there is some being vocal now. But if you plant your feet, set your jaw, and merely say, "NO, we won't accept any change!" then they will likely take at least two miles.
smarandr
Well-known member
I don't consider myself much of an alarmist, but this has me concerned enough that I went out and got another 10/22 this afternoon.
rhomas
Banned
I believe I pointed this out in a different thread, when I described how the AR ban would start and subsequently end. Now, the proposal to eliminate your heirs from inheriting certain guns, is really overstepping all bounds of sanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Topgun 30-06
Active member
Yep, and it doesn't surprise me that witch will go after everything even though she has a CCW herself!!!
Tell me again how good the R's have been.
sold all mine to my wifes dead grandfather,about 2 yeaers ago,before he died he gave them back to some one i do not know:hump:
Fj40mojo
New member
I think you are wrong on so many fronts. There are no "more reasonable controls and concessions". They aren't able to enforce the gun laws they already have on the books, besides whats reasonable to you or I is obviously not reasonable to the likes of Feinstein or Biden. Do you not understand that this is the government that the framers warned us about, the potential government that prompted them to draft the 2nd Amendment? This is the line in the sand!
I will not capitulate. I will not voluntarily or otherwise sell my firearms back to the Feds. I will not register them or any ammo feeding devices either. I will not live to see the day they are confiscated either.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Fj40, I am "wrong" in the sense that what you submit is valid. However, I am a pragmatist and realize that change of some kind is highly likely, if not certain. All I am saying is that firmly sitting on the "line" and not really participating in the discussion of changes will make you a passive "victim" of the changes and your "line in the sand" becomes moot.
The other reality is that Feinstein, Biden, and those others who are actively and aggressively engaged in this debate are part of the government, duly elected .... whether or not you and I like it.
The other reality is that Feinstein, Biden, and those others who are actively and aggressively engaged in this debate are part of the government, duly elected .... whether or not you and I like it.
Fj40mojo
New member
And all took an oath to uphold the Constitution which they are not necessarily fullfilling. Duly elected or not, the Constitution is the law of the land and lays out the framework of our federal government. It constrains the federal government, a fact which these people seem to have forgotten. They can legislate anything they want but if it exeeds the limits set by the Constitution then "We the people" have no obligation to comply.
StHubert
Member
What is even more interesting is that they are considering using an Executive Order or Executive Action to do something.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html
Fj40mojo
New member
This is an interesting read.
http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/bracken-dear-mr-security-agent/
http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/bracken-dear-mr-security-agent/
whiskeydog
Active member
did you see the letter this former Marine wrote to Feinstein? Awesome!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/mar...your-subject-i-am-the-man-who-keeps-you-free/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/mar...your-subject-i-am-the-man-who-keeps-you-free/
