Many shooters are frogs.

[PegLeg45]

In the years prior to the NFA a 10 year old could mail order a howitzer (if he had the money) or Maxim machine gun from companies like Bannerman's. Before the GCA 68, the same 10 year old, some of you in fact probably did this, could MAIL ORDER a rifle, pistol, or shot gun. We did not have school shooting's and mass murders, in fact the crime rate has never since been as low as it was then.
Stupid may be an insult, IGNORANT is a technical term that means "lacking information". It is up to us to marginalize the stupid and cure the ignorant.

+1 on that.

Heck, it was not uncommon when I was in high school for those of us that hunted to have our rifles in our vehicles and we all carried knives in our pockets. Fast forward twenty years and a kid in a nearby county was kicked out of school six weeks before graduation for having a steak knife (left over from a camping trip) in the bed of his pickup during a routine parking lot check. He was an honor student that was in the running for Valedictorian and was booted due to a zero tolerance policy for something that would have, at one time long ago, been nothing at all.

As my dad has always said, "Ignorance can be cured with time and education. Stupidity is FOREVER".

I think this applies here, like Tom said.
We must do what we can to educate the ignorant while not wasting time on the stupid. We must write letters to editors and post information at ranges or anything else to inform both gun owners and non-gun owners to the situation.

[tombogan03884]

every single one of our rights has restrictions on it...

 I don't see a diffrence between them.    many in the gun community ( more so online) really beleave that the 2a is diffrent from the rest.

I dare you to publicly prevent some a$$ hole from saying something inflammatory, insulting, or untrue. Even the KKK has won in court on 1st amendment grounds. Remember Skokie ?  Yes libel can be pursued in court, but that is a CIVIL matter, not criminal. The 2nd amendment is the ONLY one that has CRIMINAL penalties placed on the exercise of a Constitutionally guaranteed civil right.

[TAB]

ok go around demanding the that people kill Obama... I can asure you, you won't be dealing with civil courts.  Want to have a million man march?  np, just fill out the forms and pay for your permit 1st.

[Rastus]

...........Heck, it was not uncommon when I was in high school for those of us that hunted to have our rifles in our vehicles and we all carried knives in our pockets. Fast forward twenty years and a kid in a nearby county was kicked out of school six weeks before graduation for having a steak knife (left over from a camping trip) in the bed of his pickup during a routine parking lot check. He was an honor student that was in the running for Valedictorian and was booted due to a zero tolerance policy for something that would have, at one time long ago, been nothing at all. ........

Our diverse, tolerant and permissive society has gained us so much......   

[Pathfinder]

Its really not about the guns, its about the rights. It just happens that we collectively are in danger. If it was any other amendment that guaranteed any other right it would be the same concern to them. I think this fact gets lost in the shuffle.

It is about rights, and also our liberties and freedoms. It is also, fundamentally,about control over us peons by the elite in gummint. And the heat just jumped (bailouts and the resultant socialization of the industries) and some of frogs are getting very nervous.

every single one of our rights has restrictions on it...

 I don't see a diffrence between them.    many in the gun community ( more so online) really beleave that the 2a is diffrent from the rest.

This is so wrong. A SCOTUS justice once stated that you do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. I would argue you do have that right, especially if there is a fire you have a moral obligation to clear the building. If there is no fire, then any damage to person or property that transpired due to the rush out of the building is also your responsibility. It is about rights - and the responsibilities that come with them.

How is our freedom of religion abridged - er - "reasonably" limited except by one-sided and biased edict from the bench? How else is our right of assembly abridged - except ditto. How about our right against self-incrimination abridged? Ditto. Eminent domain? Ditto. And on and on and on.

Seeing a pattern here? If the gummint-legislatures don't erode the rights then a single gummint individual in a black robe will. Unless the gummint bureaucracy gets there first.

Some of us have drunk deeper of the gummint koolaid and think this is just peachy - and are trying to convince us that it's really good koolaid to boot.

The 10th Amendment used to have meaning.

[Sponsor]

[2HOW]

There is a law called the Genocide law that Regan put in place that everyone should look up , it will shock you. We all know what it means , but upon closer inspection it is a federal crime to speak out against a person based upon religion or other indicators. Not only a race of people but an individual as well.

[tombogan03884]

ok go around demanding the that people kill Obama... I can asure you, you won't be dealing with civil courts.  Want to have a million man march?  np, just fill out the forms and pay for your permit 1st.

A parade permit is a convenience agreed between the organizers and the municipality to avoid traffic tie ups, arrange porta potties,and similar ORGANIZATIONAL details, people participating in "riots"  (spontaneous, un- permitted protest ) are not arrested unless they are doing some other thing that they are actually charged with, burning cars (destruction of property, as currently in Oakland ) looting, (theft) or , as in the abortion clinic cases, blocking access or traffic. people in a crowd , out of traffic, but waving signs and yelling are not arrested, permit or no.
As for calling on people to "shoot Obama" or any other individual, that is an incitement to commit a crime (murder) No one will take ANY action (legally) if you say he is unfit for the office, or that you don't think he should be President you MAY get arguments but no one can arrest or sue you. I notice no charges were filed against "rev" Fliegler (sp?) for demanding that a Chicago gun dealer be "taken out".
Peyote is used as an Illegal narcotic, UNLESS you are a member of the "Native American Church" then you are exempted from that clause of the drug laws.
Your argument is flawed TAB, Negligence while exercising the 2nd amendment is rightly punished, but what about negligent exercise of the 1st ?  No one went to jail for , wrongly, broadcasting that Bush had not fulfilled his Air Guard commitment. No one goes to jail for false or misleading news reports.

[TAB]

While yes perade permits are more for dealing with the logistics, you will still be dispursed if your cuasing a hazard and arrested if you don't comply.

[tombogan03884]

While yes perade permits are more for dealing with the logistics, you will still be dispursed if your cuasing a hazard and arrested if you don't comply.

That's my point, it's NOT for exercising your rights to freedom of speech or assembly, it's for interfering with other peoples rights to get by on the road or sidewalk. The 2nd Amendment is the only right that is so hemmed in and the only one where Government allows people to actively discourage law abiding citizens from exercising. That is discrimination. Try airing a commercial that says atheists are bad people, or that women should not vote, I bet you will consider yourself lucky if they lynch you BEFORE they desecrate your corpse. But it's perfectly OK for the MSM to consistently demean gun owners, it's OK for the touchy feely channels to air ads saying guns are bad. That is the political equivalent to having a third bathroom marked "Colored". The ACLU thinks there are only 9 amendments in the bill of rights and I for one am damned sick of it !

[fullautovalmet76]

I think I've said this on another forum, but I echo what M58 posted earlier. I have noticed a tendency among too many in our community (even some on these forums) who are too willing to throw some of us overboard. This is played out in the "needs" argument: Why do you need a full auto/select fire weapon? Why do you need high capacity magazines? Why do you want a high-powered rifle? Why do you need/want to buy more than one gun a month?

All of these types of questions suppose that the questioner has some sort of superior insight into what you really need. And it is a very arrogant and condescending attitude that drives these questions.  Their questions aren't really questions, they are making judgments about you and your lifestyle. I am reminded of the fact that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of NEEDS!

So when I get a question about why I own Class 3 weapons, I ask why they drive a certain vehicle, why do they go to a certain church, why do they read this newspaper versus another newspaper, why do they need to look at porno, etc. They are usually offended when I question their choices and imply that there is something "wrong" with them for making such choices. And they usually aren't willing to see the contradictions in their own positions.

I will tell those of you who favor more restrictions on our rights to ponder this question: It is a documented fact that the crime rate (especially crimes related to violence) was lower in the 40's, 50's and 60's before more restrictive gun laws were put on the books. Since these laws have been introduced, the crime rate is higher in absolute terms and in measures that take into account population growth. What makes you think that adding more regulations and restrictions, will make our society safer? Since there appears to be a positive correlation - more gun restrictions, more crime - why do you need to support such ideas?