I'm now one step closer to moving to montana and living in a unibomber cabin with my gun collection, lots of ammo, and my fly fishin gear. What the hell has happened to my country, The one I served proudly for !!!

Thanks for the info Lightfoot.

I strongly believe that the right to bear arms is a law all Americans should fight to protect. 

Too many people only think about how guns are used in their current daily lives. Hmmm...You go to Starbucks in the morning and then to work in a nice office so therefore you do not need a gun. Why should you care if the government bans them?

This logic misses the whole reason our countries founding fathers included the right to bear arms in the constitution.

It is the ability of the people to defend themselves that keeps a free nation free and we should never let that right be taken away by politicians or lobbiest. Ever.

For the record I don't own a gun but really like that fact that I have the right to.

..just my two cents worth of ranting.

I'm glad to see someone finally said it, I wasn't going to be the one. Enjoy your new socialist government people.

LilWhippersnapper wrote:

---

The way I see it is that's one step toward a safer country.

---

WOW!

 

-- Edited by killa at 20:54, 2009-01-27

-- Edited by killa on Monday 28th of December 2009 09:56:44 PM

-- Edited by killa on Monday 28th of December 2009 09:57:49 PM

When your 16 year old son gets a Car, he has to take a written test (and an actual driving test), has to register the car with the DMV, has to get a drivers license, etc...

I'm all for gun ownership, and I firmly believe in the 2nd amendment. That said, if you go read this bill, it's not nearly as crazy as it's being purported (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111E2IWbR:e873:).

Owning a gun is a responsibility, just like driving a car, and I really don't see how requiring a gun safety test (which all of us would ace) is necessarily a bad thing.

And all this National ID business? Come on guys, under the Bush administration the NSA has been spying on every american in the country. They had a room in the AT&T network facility in SF intercepting every form of communication. If that's not taking away our freedoms, then I don't know what is!

Just my 2 cents.

spencer wrote:

---

And all this National ID business? Come on guys, under the Bush administration the NSA has been spying on every american in the country. They had a room in the AT&T network facility in SF intercepting every form of communication. 

---

can the real michael moore please stand up

 

LilWhippersnapper wrote:

---

I never said anything about people shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. If you can't pass a test that is about guns, then you should't be allowed to own one. National ID is a good idea... If a crime is commited with a gun, police can pinpoint exactly who the owner is. You guys aren't complaining about the steelhead cards which you have to pay for, fill out, and return at the end of the year or else a big fine. But when it comes to doing a little extra work to own a deadly weapon everyone is pissed. You guys should be complaining to the DFG for doing their work for them... Don't cry about having to take a test...Sounds like elementary school.

---

Do you think the problem with gun control is with the people who own guns legally or the people who own then illegally?  Even if we can ID where the gun came from is dosent mean we know who actually pulled the tigger.  Just some food for thought.

WT wrote:

---

---

Do you think the problem with gun control is with the people who own guns legally or the people who own then illegally?  Even if we can ID where the gun came from is dosent mean we know who actually pulled the tigger.  Just some food for thought.

 

---

That person might not have pulled the trigger, but they can find out who the owner sold it too or gave it too.
Lighthouse, why do you think these new regulations are a bad thing?

-- Edited by LilWhippersnapper at 11:07, 2009-02-02

Sehoner, maybe you should have lived in the 1800's where gun fights were a normal thing. Is that the free country you want?

LilWhippersnapper wrote:

---

Sehoner, maybe you should have lived in the 1800's where gun fights were a normal thing. Is that the free country you want?

---

 Absolutely not, but people are less apt to try and steal from one another when they know everyone has a means to protect themselves.

 All I am saying is,
 Don't be so quick to give up your rights because the day may come when you haven't any left.

 

You guys should re-read this new law... It doesn't say we cant own a gun, we just have to be smart enough to own one.

Eric, as I stated before, there is no sense in trying to convince you to change your stance on gun regulations.  I feel you, like most, have already made up your mind and short of some sort of tragedy will not likely change it.

FWIW you already have to take a test in Ca to purchase a handgun.  I'm sure it has reduced the gun related violence in Oakland tremendously.  Try and buy a handgun in Maryland, their gun laws have worked as well.

Don't forget about England.  The outlawing of knives, baseball bats and chopsticks are next for them.

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your
bedroom door.Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you
hear muffled whispers.At least two people have broken into
your house and are moving your way.With your heart pumping,
you reach down beside your bed and pick up yourshotgun. You
rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the doorand
open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.One holds
something that looks like a crowbar. When the
intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun
and fire. The blastknocks both thugs to the floor. One
writhes and screams while the secondman crawls to the front
door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to
call police, you know you're in trouble.In your country,
most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That are
privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make
them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and
inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you
for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.
When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry:
authorities will probably plea the case down
to manslaughter."What kind of sentence will I get?"
you ask."Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as
if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll
be out in seven."The next day, the shooting is the lead
story in the local newspaper.Somehow, you're portrayed
as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are
represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives
can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep
down in the article,authorities acknowledge that both
"victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the
next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son
Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been
transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type
pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The
national media picks it up, then the international media.
The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.Your attorney
says the thief is preparing to sue you, and
he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your
home has been burglarized several times in the past and that
you've been critical of local police for their lack of
effort in apprehending the suspects.After the last break-in,
you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.
The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying
in wait for the burglars.A few months later, you go to
trial. The charges haven't been reduced,as your lawyer
had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand,your
anger at the injustice of it all works against you.
Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.
It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all
charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.This case
happened.On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk ,
England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April,
2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.How did
it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once
great British Empire ?It started with the Pistols Act of
1903. This seemingly reasonable law, forbade selling pistols
to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were
to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms
Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns
but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953
and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private
citizens and mandated the registration of all
shotguns.Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in
earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael
Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle,
walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the
smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.The British public,
already de-sensitized by eighty years of
"guncontrol", demanded even tougher restrictions.
(The seizure of allprivately owned handguns was the
objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)Nine years later, at
Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic
weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a
public school.For many years, the media had portrayed all gun
owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the
press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding
gunowners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up
all pretenseof objectivity and demanded a total ban on all
handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed
the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private
citizens.During the years in which the British government
incrementally took Away most gun rights, the notion that a
citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen
as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to
people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no
longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot
burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the
real criminals were released.Indeed, after the Martin
shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We
cannot have people take the law into their own
hands."All of Martin 's neighbors had been robbed
numerous times, and several elderly people were severely
injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the
consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques,had
seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by
burglars.When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned
handguns were given three months to turn them over to local
authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed
the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and
threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they
didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken
nearly 200,000 hand guns from private citizens. How did the
authorities know who had handguns? The guns had
been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.Sound
familiar? WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS
PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION"..it does
not require a majority to prevail, but rather an
irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in
people's minds.."--Samuel Adams.

And finally, when you are heading to your favorite fishing spot and run across this, you better be prepared.