White House response to my letter on 2nd Amendment

You know, there are states where you can wear camo and not feel like a criminal.

Horrors, I've even heard rumors that there are places with guns exposed in the windows of pickups. But I suspect they are paranoid gun toting psycho's with gun safes full of ammo. (Wish I knew a couple with some 9mm stocked up)

I'm trying to point out that maybe we could respect each others opinion to the point where washington could quit trying to regulate states they do not even understand.

John I agree with most of what you said but would not want to live anywhere that required me to change clothes at the boat ramp before going back to "civilization"
 
Last edited:
John I agree with most of what you said but would not want to live anywhere that required me to change clothes at the boat ramp before going back to "civilization"
Click to expand...


Mike,

While it is not a requirement to change out of camo, I just choose not to wear camo when I'm not hunting. It's funny how some people view you based on what you wear around these parts.

Same is true when I ride my motorcycle and wear a black leather jacket.
I'm still the same law abiding person but I guess some people are scared of anything black.
 
I'll agree with a few things but NO semi-autos isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

Ed, I didn't say ban all semi autos, if you look closer I said "machine gun" type weapons...including semi autos I'm not a lawyer (THANK GOD, if I were I'd have to find the nearest gunstore, wait the waiting period, and off myself) so I probably could have taken the time and about 47 pages to describe in further detail just the type of gun I was refering to. Frankly aside from capacity (which isn't important in my book), the AR-15 type guns in my opinion are crap. I see no good purpose for them. In most instances I'd rather have I'd rather have more punch per round than a 223, and if I were going for varmits (one of the legitamite uses Chris lists), there are more accurate bolt action platforms and longer flatter shooting 22ish sized rounds than the 223. Home defense? Give me a break! There are far better choices than an AR15 type weapon for that.

Chuck
Click to expand...

Chuck, while I respect your opinion and your right to have it, I must respectfully disagree.

Whether you think they are "crap" or not, AR's are a firearm in "common use" in this country, which is one of the standards by which the government must abide by... they cannot ban a firearm in common use.

I will be honest about my AR-15, I also own several other bolt action rifles in similar and larger calibers. The AR-15 can outshoot every single one of them, which is probably why they are the standard rifle for NRA sponsored National Match Highpower rifle competitions.... Thousands of competitive shooters involved in that sport obviously don't think they are "crap".
When hunting varmits such as coyotes, there is no need for more punch than a .223, what's important is accuracy, a flat trajectory, little recoil and the ability to take quick follow up shots. All of which the AR-15 excels at.
One thing I can tell you about home defense with an AR is that if someone breaks in and see's one in the hands of a homeowner, they are going to have serious second thoughts. Is it the ideal home defense weapon? Probably not, but it's the most popular rifle in the US today and as such it is commonly used for home defense.
I never owned an AR until this past summer, I saw the writing on the wall even before Newtown and got one. It is the most fun rifle to shoot I have ever owned, extremely accurate and very popular. Honestly, I am surprised that as a fellow sportsman, hunter and firearms owner that you are against semi autos such as the AR. We all need to stand together against further infringement on the 2nd Amendment. Make no mistake, if they outlaw AR's today, the next time there is a shooting they will come after another type of firearm.... that could very well be semi-auto shotguns like we use for hunting.

I do have one question... have you ever actually shot an AR-15?
 
Rick, Our entire country was founded on compromise. Throughout our history, at every major impasse we as a nation have come across is solved by compromise.

John, you say:

It is public perception that black guns are bad. If all these anti's knew that a .223 is nothing more than a glorified pea shooter then they would want everything else banned.
Click to expand...

I'll reply shhhhh...

Mike, I live in an area where too many wear camo as daily dress...I'd rather see guns in the back window of pickups.

Chris, to answer your question direct, no, however I have handled the AR15 and several other "assault" type guns, the true AR was better made than the others, especially the Chinese AK my hunting buddy owned, and although at a younger phase in my life I thought those guns were "cool", my general impression of that "group" of guns is not what I think of as a desirable firearm on many levels. At one time I had a desire to own such weapons, but have since grew up. To each their own opinion...

Chuck
 
Rick, Our entire country was founded on compromise. Throughout our history, at every major impasse we as a nation have come across is solved by compromise.

John, you say:

It is public perception that black guns are bad. If all these anti's knew that a .223 is nothing more than a glorified pea shooter then they would want everything else banned.
Click to expand...

I'll reply shhhhh...

Mike, I live in an area where too many wear camo as daily dress...I'd rather see guns in the back window of pickups.

Chris, to answer your question direct, no, however I have handled the AR15 and several other "assault" type guns, the true AR was better made than the others, especially the Chinese AK my hunting buddy owned, and although at a younger phase in my life I thought those guns were "cool", my general impression of that "group" of guns is not what I think of as a desirable firearm on many levels. At one time I had a desire to own such weapons, but have since grew up. To each their own opinion...

Chuck
Click to expand...

Chuck, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and everyone has guns they like and dislike, just like anything else in life. However, before you label something as "crap", I would suggest you fire one first and then tell me what you think. That's an opinion based upon experience, which I have always found to be better than opinions based on a lack of experience. If you still think they are "crap", so be it... At the very least, I hope that you support my right, and millions of other Americans rights, to own a semi auto AR-15. United we stand, divided we fall....
 


Mike, I live in an area where too many wear camo as daily dress...I'd rather see guns in the back window of pickups.

Chuck[/QUOTE]
Chuck I'm genuinely confused by this reply.

What bothers you about people wearing camouflage in public?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just wondering if this somehow relates to the dislike of a class of firearms based on cosmetics.?
Click to expand...
 
The 2nd Admendment is not about hunting. It is about preventing a tyranical government. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED You are either for it or a traitor. I do not and will respect anyone that would compromise. The only just way to restrict firearms is by an Amendment. Period.
 
Our country was founded on compromise, this is true, but do you see where compromise has gotten us, trillions in debt, a nation where 1 in 5 are in poverty, and 60 million are on food stamps. Government handouts only perpetuate the problem. I will not compromise on my second amendment, as a owner of many guns which would be banned under Feinsteins bill and magazines which are way over the proposed levels, I will expalin something, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, it was meant as a safety check against tyranny, that whole checks and balances thing, yeah thats our check on the government. So you say their is no reason to own an ar-15, good luck with you 870 or 1100 or extrema when they knock on your door.
 
No bans on semi auto. I see no compromise. A pump gun is next because you can cycle it as fast as a semi. Think what you want but maybe you better think again when the drones fly over head. Bad news when the UN can decide our stance on our national forests and our gun rights. We didn't get to hear the parent from Sandy Hook who is against gun control, nor did he get to hang out with Obama.no flight to the White house for him. It costs me to lobby against me. Fast and furious cover up. The NRA isn't the only scare machine, like your kids will be safer with no semi autos. John
 
Last edited:
John I agree with most of what you said but would not want to live anywhere that required me to change clothes at the boat ramp before going back to "civilization"
Click to expand...


Mike,

While it is not a requirement to change out of camo, I just choose not to wear camo when I'm not hunting. It's funny how some people view you based on what you wear around these parts.

Same is true when I ride my motorcycle and wear a black leather jacket.
I'm still the same law abiding person but I guess some people are scared of anything black.
Click to expand...


Yep...when in Rome...John I imagine your business has many, many clients that do not agree with our sport and are probably appalled by it. It's their perogative. Something, you as a businessman has to take into consideration. That's the cost of doing business. On the other side of that coin, here where I work even in the engineering department you wear Harley or you wear camo. I wear camo something most days. Today is raining. I wore my camo rain gear and my DU hat to work. What I heard this morning coming in was "Hey...did you hear something...Oh it's you, I didn't see you in your camo! I have a presentation to give tomorrow. Tomorrow I'll be in a suite!
 
The 2nd Admendment is not about hunting. It is about preventing a tyranical government. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED You are either for it or a traitor. I do not and will respect anyone that would compromise. The only just way to restrict firearms is by an Amendment. Period.
Click to expand...


Ditto.
 
Chuck, I think this has been a fairly reasonable discussion on something that is very divisive. I appreciate your patience and tolerance.

If the firearm-owning community just agreed for whatever reason to the conditions you describe, where is the compromise? If you are admitting that the Federal government (or some portion thereof) wants to totally eliminate private ownership of firearms, despite their acknowledgement that it is a Right, then I suppose simply getting rid of the "black" guns is a compromise.

But I see no compromise here. Lawmakers are saying, "we are going to..." without anything but a nod towards our heritage of hunting and sport shooting. It wasn't sport shooting or hunting that formed the basis for this Right...it was the basic, inherent Right to protect one's self, even from (especially from?) a government that sought to make a free man a subject. Law-abiding firearm owners are losing a portion of a fundamental Right without gaining anything in return...it's almost as if we are being told that it is a compromise because we aren't losing more.

In your view, what do We gain in this compromise?
 
In your view, what do We gain in this compromise?
Click to expand...


I'll put in my 2 cents,

I see nothing to gain. All I see is that we are losing the right to be free men under the law. The very reason our nation was founded,,,,, the right to be free men.
 
I was listening to NPR back during the Obamacare debate, they had a college professor who was asked about the different views held by liberals and conservatives.

He replied that conservatives believed that they owned the fruits of thier own labor.

I was then astonished to hear a half hour explanation about liberals beliefs, culminating in the conclusions that anyone not educated in philosophy does not have the right to make important decisions for themselves.

My first thought was "wow, it is possible to be educated way beyond your intelligence"

But on further thought it seems to me that most political and societal problems can be reduced to the concept that we either belong to ourselves or we belong to the government, society, or a king.

I find it hard to compromise on this, If I don't belong to myself, then I'm a slave.

Our original constitution seemed to set a pretty good system of government serving free men, but we have been losing it, one compromise at a time.

You may decide that I'm not smart enough to make my own decisions but I'm never going to accept that.
 
The 2nd Admendment is not about hunting. It is about preventing a tyranical government. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED You are either for it or a traitor. I do not and will respect anyone that would compromise. The only just way to restrict firearms is by an Amendment. Period.
Click to expand...


Ditto.
Click to expand...

X2
I don't see a middle ground being reached on this subject
 
Last edited:
Sorry Rick, been busy today, checked, read, didn’t have time to prepare anything formal…

In your view, what do We gain in this compromise?
Click to expand...

IMHO regulation is coming, they can shout catch phrases like “united we stand”, “no compromise” or “no common ground” but all that is happening is creating a wedge between the 30ish% of Americans who own guns and those who do not (I’m not sure how accurate the 30% is…didn’t have a lot of time to research it thoroughly, but found a couple references to it, and it’s not even close to a majority). So, when they have successfully alienated the no-gun owning voters with the hard nosed tactics, who do you think is going to win this fight?
 
So by your number 100million americans, their voice doesnt matter and we should just roll over and let it happen because its inevitable. Did you know theamerican revolution was fought by just 4% of the population, did you know the civil war was fought with 10%. The military with itsmgreat resources expects in the event of a gun cconfiscation a 60% defection rate...so lets see 100 million americans and 60% of our troops against the remainder of the us military, I pray to god that this never happens but dont expect the country to take it lying down, this country stood up to tyranny once and have the utmost faith in those 100 million americans who relize that will do it again....you can go hide behind the king, name one thing in this country the government regulated that didn't end in disaster. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but I do read history and I do try to learn from past mistakes. I can tell you with 100 percent certainly that the first step to a goverment takeover is to limit or severly stop the population from having the ability to protect itself. Like I stated earlier, this country runs on checks and balances, this is out check onthem..why else would we have a second amendment?
 
Last edited:
But on further thought it seems to me that most political and societal problems can be reduced to the concept that we either belong to ourselves or we belong to the government, society, or a king.

I find it hard to compromise on this, If I don't belong to myself, then I'm a slave.
__________________________________________________


No, I think you are missing something. You are a free man, but, we (all of us in the US) live in a Republic... which is for the people by the people. We make laws that are for the common good. Some may not like the laws that are made but they are made by an elected body. That elected body's job is to make laws for the good of all.

I prefer to think that the laws and enactment of them will be agreeable to all parties, but I think not. I think there will be some whack jobs that want complete bans and some whack jobs who want bazookas and tanks.
Click to expand...
 
But on further thought it seems to me that most political and societal problems can be reduced to the concept that we either belong to ourselves or we belong to the government, society, or a king.

I find it hard to compromise on this, If I don't belong to myself, then I'm a slave.
__________________________________________________


No, I think you are missing something. You are a free man, but, we (all of us in the US) live in a Republic... which is for the people by the people. We make laws that are for the common good. Some may not like the laws that are made but they are made by an elected body. That elected body's job is to make laws for the good of all.

I prefer to think that the laws and enactment of them will be agreeable to all parties, but I think not. I think there will be some whack jobs that want complete bans and some whack jobs who want bazookas and tanks.
Click to expand...

If the Republic worked perfectly as you describe - the Bill of Rights and system of checks and balances would not be needed. The Bill of Rights exists to protect certain things, things that in their wisdom the founding fathers saw as likely to be infringed upon by government. Damn few things are specifically protected in the Bill of rights and other amendments. The personal freedom to have guns to protect oneself was important enough that it got special mention on the list. It doesn't matter if gun owners are 1%, without further amendment we have that right.
Click to expand...
 
AND, when the judicial system has made laws, it is the Supreme court's job to interpret the constitution and to interpret laws. It is a system with many checks and balances to make sure that rights are preserved. It is not without flaw, and we may not agree with decisions, however, is is quite possibly and arguably the best government going.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top