banning our .50 muzzleloaders???

[Tahquamenon]

If you feel this bill is a bag of bs :bull: as I certainly do, send letters and emails and phone calls to your federal and state senate and house representatives.

I would suggest you do it this week.

Make sure you reference House Bill 654 and you do not support the either the bill or the ban of 50 caliber weaponry.

 

[loophole]

Gentlemen, May I offer a brief lesson in Constitutional Law? The founding fathers gave us a federal government of limited and specifically enumerated powers. Let me emphasize this by stating it differently--regardless of whether we think a given proposal is good social policy or will make the world a better place or whatever, Congress has no power to make it law unless the constitution authorizes Congress to pass such legislation. Got that?
Now, go to your copy of the constitution (you do keep one handy, don't you) and look at the section on the national legislature--Article I. Note carefully the enumeration of the things Congress has power to do: Section 8. Read it a couple of times and then tell us where there is any grant of power to legislate what guns a citizen may possess?
Then to finish the discussion snd settle disputes, read carefully the Xth Amendment--"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Nothing could be plainer, could it? The concept was well understood less than 100 years ago when American do-gooders decided to tell folks what they could drink--go read the history: everyone recognized that the Constitution gave congress no power to ban liquor, so the do-gooders had to amend the constitution to enact prohibition. Later, when the National Firearms Act was passed everyone recognized that it woud take a constitutional amendment to authorize congress to ban machine guns and sawed off shotguns, so the NFA merely levied a tax on ownership, something that arguably is authorized, although the U.S. Supreme Court never has ruled on whether the machine gun tax is constitutional.
I'm sorry, there can be no friendly disagreement on this point--the federal government either is the government of limited powers which is established by the constitution or it is a tyranical monster of unlimited power.
I'll try to get this in before the moderaters shut down the thread for political content--it is very sad that anyone who claims to love the heritage of muzzle-loading rifles which our forefathers used to win and preserve our freedom is willing to surrender that freedom to a bloated, corrupt government just because he doesn't understand why someone wants to own a particular weapon.
The government has not taken away oour liberty--we are handing it over without a fight.

If at first you don't secede, try try again.

 

[Bearbait2]

"I guess I'm on the left on this issue. I feel no need to defend myself with a fifty caliber centerfire rifle that can penetrate a armored vehicle. No one is going to break into my home with a tank."

Mr. Slowpoke,
No disrespect intended but I wonder if they thought the same thing at Waco?
Best Wishes

 

[rabjr]

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Dear Massachusetts,

Please take this jackass back! ::

 

[Slowpoke]

No offense taken WindWalker, it's all part of a discussion. I have no problem whatsoever with the feds going after pedifiles and breaking down their compounds.

SP

 

[Claude Mathis]

I feel no need to defend myself with a fifty caliber centerfire rifle that can penetrate a armored vehicle. No one is going to break into my home with a tank.

You are most likely right about the tank.

But, your personal evalution of life and the choices you make for yourself, have nothing to do with my "rights". I may wish to possess or do something that is impossible for you to understand.

We need not justify or prove the merits of what we do. eace:

 

[Slowpoke]

But, your personal evalution of life and the choices you make for yourself, have nothing to do with my "rights". I may wish to possess or do something that is impossible for you to understand.

How true, that's why for the life of me I can't understand why someone would want to own one. Except maybe to shoot at planes, shoot through bullet proof vests and armored vehicles, or hit a target 1000's of yards out. As long as the law allows them, I have no problem people owning them.

Claude, haven't they already outlawed them in California? For some reason I was thinking they did.

Anyway, I'm done. I'm crawling back under my rock. ::

SP

 

[Stumpkiller]

Well, I saw the magic word "Centerfire" in the bill, so it's no skin off my nose. The great kingdumb of New York has already banned me from hunting big game with a centerfire rifle, so I adapted.

Much as I'd probably enjoy a Barnett .50 BMG bolt-action, I can't say as I'll miss them. No reason a feller shouldn't have one if he wants, though. Chippin' away, chippin away.

 

[Claude Mathis]

How true, that's why for the life of me I can't understand why someone would want to own one.

I think it has something to do with what a person enjoys doing. Some people like to shoot old-fashioned, muzzleloading weapons and others like to shoot extremely high-powered modern firearms. Go figure.

Claude, haven't they already outlawed them in California?

I belive they have.

 

[rabjr]

If I rember right, Cali stopped the sale of them, however if you already owened one, you just had to register it.

 

[Rebel]

"Now I believe in the 2nd Amendment rights, but why would anyone need a gun like that?"

Because they want one, and under our Constitution, are entitled to own one. Just owning and using one doesn't make a person a criminal or a bad person. The whole thing sounds like some U.N. manure to disarm the American people. I have written numerous letters to my State representatives and to President Bush, requesting them to get us out of the U.N. A lot more people need to do the same. Also write to your State Rep's about this, and all proposed gun control legislation. We need to quit being the silent majority, and let our voices be heard just Like the Vocal Minority.

 

[Slamfire]

No one is going to break into my home with a tank.

SP

Why to you feel that way? Is there something in the Constitution that limits that action to Texas? We all saw the assault at Waco on TV. I saw the SLA (of Patty Hearst fame) succumb to the same burn 'em up tactic. The LAPD has an armored vehicle with a pipe in place of a gun barrel, ready to smash through walls, whenever. The cops shoot the wrong people 11 times more often than CCW bearing citizens. :nono:

 

[Rebel]

Well if they aren't, then see what happens if you try to ship either of them (airgun or BP gun) to N.J. D.C. and a few other states. They consider them guns, even though it is a direct violation of the Constitutional right to Bear Arms. The Constitutuion doesn't give each State the right to decide if their citizens have the Right to Bear Arms, but Some states do. And there will be more of them as long as people let them get away with it.

 

[Rebel]

S.P., Who says the government won't break into your home with a tank? The people in Waco probably thought the same thing, and we all know what happened to them.

 

[Rebel]

"Baltimore and DC are enough of a war zone already."

Your right about D.C. and Baltimore. But lets see now, they have some of the strictest gun control laws in the Nation, and some of the Highest Violent crime rates. Think about it a minute. When the crooks know that everyone is unarmed, there is no deterent to stop them from comitting crimes. Now look at the the statistics in States that have Right To Carry laws. When the crooks don't know if a person on the street is armed or not, it makes a lot of them think twice before trying to rob, rape, or assault someone. We don't need more gun control laws for a safer society. We need a court system that will take those predators off the streets permanently.

 

[AeroE]

Stumpkiller, it is skin off your nose; everyone better stick together. It is short sighted to believe that muzzle loaders or single shot shotguns won't be banned. The goal of the grabbers is to seize all firearms.

Arguing about artificial statutory definitions is also short sighted - they are firearms, and it doesn't matter if they are 300 years old or 2 years old, which ammo is used, or propellant. In fact, the British have revised the muzzle energy limits on permissible airguns down again.

The Illinois bill would exclude muzzleloaders, it is intentionally indiscriminant.

I sick of hearing about pending bans, and I've pretty well quit worrying about them because I've noticed that we have the guns.

Molon Labe

 

[Bob J]

Baltimore and DC are enough of a war zone already.

SP

And they have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country already! What have their existing gun control laws done to protect the citizens living there? NOTHING. What will more gun control laws do to protect citizens of this country? NOTHING. In fact, those laws are COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE; they strip honest citizens of the ability to protect themselves.

Being home sick this week, I had the opportunity of watching NRA Executive V.P. Wayne LaPierre on T.V. speaking at a large group (I came into it in the middle). He said "we're not going to give up ONE DAMN INCH of our 2nd Amendment rights". This is the attitude we need to prevail. Do not become complacent; look at Britian, canada, Australia, Europe :shocking:....

 

[Bob J]

[/quote]

...thank God there is an NRA. [/quote]

AMEN, Brother Roundball! :agree:

 

[USMCsniper]

.....Now I believe in the 2nd Amendment rights, but why would anyone need a gun like that?.....

It's not a question of "need"...it's a question of "rights'.

It's an example of the oldest form of control over some people by some other people..."I don't NEED OR LIKE something, therefore, let's pass a law and ban it".

Myself, I personally have no NEED or interest in owning such a rifle but I WANT the RIGHT to if I wanted to.

It's like the anti-hunters who don't like hunting, so they try to pass legislation to ban others from hunting.

I have never and will never carry a concealed weapon...don't NEED to... but as soon as our state passed 'concealed carry' legislation, I immediately went through the process and got one...because it's my right, and I knew I would be a positive statistic in the data base showing that the streets didn't run red with blood when 'concealed carry' laws were passed.

We all must not let them start us down the slippery slope...an assault weapon today, your semi-auto trap or skeet shotgun tomorrow, etc, etc, etc...once precedence is set it gets easier and easier to take away more and more...there are people today in these anti organizations who are salaried by them and literally make their living pushing legislation like this...it's what they do...thank God there is an NRA.

Another exsample of this would be the fact that I do not smoke, but like to know that I have the right to go to a gas station and get a pack if I wanted.

Hell ammo for the 50 BMG's are $2-$3 a round and the guns themself range from $2,000- $3,000; not to many criminals would want one :hmm: .

I'd rather have rights for somthing I don't need than have a need and no rights!

Here is a poster that pretty much sums up what they are doing.
http://www.mchenryidpa.com/special/pro-gun/sniper.jpg

 

[Bob J]

"Now I believe in the 2nd Amendment rights, but why would anyone need a gun like that?"

Because they want one, and under our Constitution, are entitled to own one. Just owning and using one doesn't make a person a criminal or a bad person. The whole thing sounds like some U.N. manure to disarm the American people. I have written numerous letters to my State representatives and to President Bush, requesting them to get us out of the U.N. A lot more people need to do the same. Also write to your State Rep's about this, and all proposed gun control legislation. We need to quit being the silent majority, and let our voices be heard just Like the Vocal Minority.

And AMEN Brother Rebel! :RO: