Well, this thread got me to thinking. In the past I've let a shotgun out of the safe, next to loaded shells. None of them have ever gotten up, loaded their self and went looking to shoot someone. So just to see, I took one of my AR's out of the safe and set it next to a loaded clip, and went back upstairs. I'll be damn. That butt ugly AR loaded the clip, racked a shell in the chamber, and was creeping up the stairs. Never again. Now I know, AR's are a problem.
What we envisioned back then was the citizen was the military and everyone had the same type of weapon. What was envisioned was that armed citizens would keep the government honest. That is the reason for the 2nd Amendment - to keep the government honest - not to shoot SxS's, not to hunt or shoot clays, or paper targets. The founding fathers must be turning over in their graves every time another gun law is enacted or ask for one to be enacted. Wake up and read some history.

It's not the gun, it's not the gun, it's not the gun...... it's the person using the gun!

To be making the distinction between a Parker and an AR is something a California elected official would try to sell. A gun is made up of common components, a tube to direct something, some kind of force to get an object to move down that tube and some type of projectile to travel at high speed in a chosen direction. To try to make a distinction between a "zip gun" made from a pipe, nail and a shell or an antique double gun or a "black" AR is foolish; a gun is a gun and some people want to take them ALL away. Don't encourage them to take the other guys, because your's will be next.

Rather than trying to make the distinction between an AR and a Parker, we would be better served to try to educate the ill informed that all guns shoot deadly projectiles and its not the gun that needs to be addressed but the actions of those using them. Push for harsh actions on anyone using a gun illegally and stand up for anyone using them for valid personal protection, hunting and target shooting.

A nut job recently flew a commercial airliner into a mountain side but I didn't hear anyone blame the aircraft. More people are killed each year by medical errors than guns but we don't hear a call to eliminate doctors or hospitals. Thousands are killed on our highways because of distracted drivers using cell phones but nobody calls for the elimination of cell phones. Pass all the laws you want, none of these problems will be resolved as a result. Take away all guns and there will still be murders; think Cane and Able.

They don't want to take all our guns to protect us, they want them all to protect themselves from "we the people" who can keep them from going even more over the edge and stop them from abusing the powers we grant them.

By the way, the cell phone issue could be solved and I have written officials and corporations on how to solve the problem, but for obvious monetary reasons, nothing will be done. Solution..... Cell phones have GPS devices built into them, so imagine all phones disabling their keypads if the phone is moving in excess of 10 MPH (except for 911). Distracted drives eliminated and hands free enforced; no texting possible. In the few years after everyone upgrades, problem solved.

It looks like the Mr. Gardner's unflagging regard for the Greater Wisdom of government courts and lawyers may have found a sympathetic ear:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/06/14...endment-rights

A secret court to relieve citizens of their Second Amendment Rights!!? And ALL without that bothersome "due process." Brilliant!

With all due respect to Fox News (cough, cough) I'd prefer to read the OpEd piece itself and drawing my own conclusions as to what it says. As for the premise of your statement, I'm not seeing anything where the government is actually doing that. Yes, there have been efforts to prevent those on the "no-fly" list from being able to purchase firearms (which seems like a no-brainer until you consider the issue of due process).

How about providing. Link to the OpEd piece to which Fox was referring?

It just makes me cringe when I see some members of what is probably the smallest firearms demographic there is, join sides with the antis to go after the largest firearm demographic in America.
The AR 15 is THE most popular rifle in America. The SxS, by comparison, would be statistically non-existent.
Sacrificing others rights to save your own is like feeding your friends to the alligators, hoping they eat you last.

Wonder how many of you have actually read the Heller decision. In Heller, Scalia went to great pains to limit the scope of the courts ruling. The court emphasized that the need for self-defense is “most acute” in the home, leaving open the possibility for a different standard in public. It also characterized handguns as the “quintessential self-defense weapon,” suggesting other guns might be regulated differently. Moreover, Scalia cautioned that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt” on certain “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” He listed a few, including prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, and in “sensitive places.” Even the court’s relatively expansive list, Scalia explained, did “not purport to be exhaustive.” In McDonald, the court repeated Heller’s explicit limitations.

Maybe you to should quit wasting your time here and spend it more productively trying to get more gun laws pasted. I can hear HRC calling out to you now.

Don't make assumptions, Paul. As I said before if you can't debate both sides of an issue then you don't understand the issues. It's simple as that. Anyone who honestly believes the debate over the 2nd is ridiculous is very naive.

The only assumption I made was thinking everyone here was pro gun. My mistake.

[QUOTE=Paul Harm;197182]The only assumption I made was thinking everyone here was pro gun. My mistake.[/QUOTE

So lifetime gun owners and hunters are not pro gun unless they agree with you?

Well hell , just take em out and shoot em because they have to be a Democrat !!