So CJ has his line here, you have yours there, Phillip’s there, and mine over here. So when the line is drawn by so many differing opinions (like some who are idealists and say the world would be awesome and safer without guns), in order to preserve rights we need to just keep them all legal. Someone who wants to rob a bank with a fully automatic AK-47 can do it with a semi auto AK just as well (reference to bank robberies that helped outlaw full auto assault weapons). Someone who wants to rob a store with a Tec 9 can do it with a Glock 9 just as well. Someone who wants to kill people in a school with a Mini-14 can do it with a homemade pipebomb just as well. Outlawing guns stops nothing, but progresses all gun bans. It’s more important that gun owners stick together and keep them legal before agendas outlaw them entirely (or restrict them so much they are unusable, like Australia).

In the end, it is a rights thing. But then, I am more libertarian than any other party and feel like less government regulation and restriction is better in all areas of life.

I think I need to shut up. I’m more or less just repeating myself. So post another video already. I’ll comment on a new one.

Surely even for you, there is a line as well? Where is it?

Sure. anything can be used as a weapon. And limiting the types of legal firearms allowed to be sold to the public wont necessarily end violent crime.

But is it an incremental assaults on your rights - whether we’re talking about civil rights, prayer in school or gun possession… or is it progress?

Phillip - isn’t it the politicians job to, ‘make the rules?’ He/She is a public official elected by the people to represent us and to create, lobby for, and hopefully pass legislation based on the will of his constituents? Is that not democracy? If not a politician, who then do you suggest make the rules?

Let’s say, we were to put it to a national vote TODAY. No advertising campaigns, no stump speeches, no nothing - just one man/woman one vote - nationwide. This vote is for: Should the U.S.A reclaim and outlaw all automatic weapons not being used within the military. What do you think the outcome of that vote would be? How/what would the american people base this decision on?

I sometimes wonder if hunters should worry more about protecting their right to hunt, rather than the weapon they use to do it.

That’s really where this kind of discussion mires down. Sure, I totally get where you’re coming from, but the question is, who gets to decide and on what is that decision based?

What is “too far”? Why?

By the way, it’s not the point that any gun can be USED as a tactical weapon. The problem is that when you start letting politicians and do-gooders make the rules, then any gun can be DEFINED as a tactical weapon… and hence, banned.

Far out? Not at all. Read some of the proposed firearms legislation that comes down around the country every year. If it has a scope, can fire more than one bullet without reloading, has a detachable magazine, etc. etc…. all of these are the given rationale for banning the guns. Fortunately, these rules usually don’t get out of committee, but the anti-gun forces don’t give up. They’re in it for the long haul.

I used not to believe the hype that gun control was simply a series of incremental assaults on all gun possession, but the truth is there. That is the clearly stated agenda, and the folks behind it make no bones about their goals. You start with the easy pickings, the stuff most people don’t understand like the ARs and tactical stuff. Then you tighten the grip to semi-autos and long range gear. At the same time, you try to drive the manufacturers out of business with spurious lawsuits, and try to create insane obstacles for them (and for ammo makers).

This isn’t about public safety, it’s about public control… and the worst part is, the only victims are the law-abiding individuals who try to play by the rules.

The criminals aren’t filling out registration forms, getting Class-3 stamps, or even bothering with background checks.

Damn, I’m starting to sound like one of those guys who lives in a bunker in Idaho or someplace… but the fact is, it’s a scary world for the legal gunowner these days.

Anyway, sorry to go off… I guess it’s the lack of new videos on this site lately that’s got me off-balance.

When you guys get a chance, log on to the NSSF.ORG site and see if you can get a copy of The Writer’s Guide to Firearms and Ammunition. It can help dispel some of the myths and misinformation you’re working with… for example, that there is no such thing as a “plastic” gun that can evade x-ray machines. If you can’t get it, I’d be glad to loan you my copy.

While I can’t personally see the point in owning some of the more exotic “black rifles” out there, I don’t see where there’s anything wrong with it either. A lot of folks don’t understand why I need more than one shot to hunt big game, and that Remington 870 makes one heck of a tactical weapon with a couple of mods. Your Browning A-Bolt… in the eyes of many, that’s a “Sniper Rifle”. See how the hill slopes downward?

Paranoia doesn’t mean they’re NOT out to get you. The second amendment has nothing to do with your hunting priviledges and everything to do with your right to defend yourself against a government run amuck. You won’t be doing that with a 30-30.