Jump to content

deadeye74

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    537

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by deadeye74

  1. Posted

    From the NJ2AS Facebook Page:

     

     

    I received the following request and have agreed that the NJ2AS should be included as a signatory to the letter included below it.

     

    GunLeaders members:

     

    We all know that we face a grave federal danger of the type not seen since 1994. Not only is absolutely everything about the Feinstein/Obama/Biden scheme unacceptable, if even a portion of it passes they will be back for more almost immediately.

     

    That was precisely their M.O. in 1993-94 when they ran the Brady Act, the “Violent Crime Control Act (semi-auto ban) and would have followed with the truly draconian Brady II had the 1994 Republican Revolution not intervened.

     

    We are starting to see Republicans cave, and there is an excellent chance the ban will pass the Senate, meaning it will have to be stopped in the House. I hope you agree that absolutely no “compromise” is possible because, as is so often the case, “compromise” as defined by our opposition is a process in which we lose just slightly less than in the original proposal.

     

    So far, the NRA is making all the right noises, but will they do the right thing when the ban begins to move? Or will they do as they did on armor-piercing handgun ammunition in the 1980s, on the Brady Act, on the first rendition of the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act, on the NICS Improvement Act and most recently on the Disclose Act? Namely, will the NRA “compromise?”

     

    ‘NATIONAL COALITION TO STOP THE GUN BAN’

     

    So far, we have 8 organizations which have agreed that compromise on this issue is not acceptable. Accordingly, we have jointly created the “National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban,” which will launch shortly after the 113th Congress convenes on January 3 and will lead with the Open Letter to Members of Congress below, as well as with coordinated press releases and alerts to members of Coalition organizations.

     

    The coalition is deliberately limited in scope to prevent infighting over objectives. The letter has been carefully parsed and debated and is the result of multiple inputs from Coalition members.

     

    The objectives of the Coalition are:

     

    1. Put Congress and the NRA on notice that “compromise” is not acceptable;

    2. Shift the center of debate toward our side;

    3. Defeat the ban, or at least extract such a high price that it forces the opposition to do a cost-benefit analysis for follow-on gun control initiatives; and

    4. Put legislators who vote for gun control on notice that an NRA endorsement will not protect them.

     

    WE NEED COALITION MEMBERS

     

    In a perfect world, we want dozens of organizations signing on to the letter. We realize that different groups see things differently, and that getting conservatives to agree on anything is, as they say, like herding cats. Understand that nothing will limit the general activities or rights of Coalition members to do business with their members as they see fit. You will receive model press releases and alerts, but change them as you see fit.

     

    The Coalition requires only 3 things of any organization that joins:

     

    1. You overlook minutia in exactly how the letter is phrased or in other things, and look only at the broader picture;

    2. You avoid infighting, including between organizations which have previously had differences; and most important of all

    3. YOU AGREE THAT NO COMPROMISE IS ACCEPTABLE ON THIS ISSUE: That means you might have to differ with the NRA or others. It means you won’t start looking at partial gun control measures and say “Gee, that’s the best we can get.” And it means you won’t suddenly change horses and complain, particularly to the media, that Coalition positions are “too extreme.”

     

    THIS ISN’T FOR YOU IF …

     

    If you are willing to let the NRA simply take the lead, regardless of what they do, this coalition is not for you. If you don’t actually lead a gun rights organization, this coalition is not for you. If you have a history of supporting gun control, this coalition is not for you.

     

    BUT IF YOU WANT A NATIONAL VOICE ...

     

    But if you want to do something that gives you a national voice on this issue, contact me at: [email protected]

     

    Paul Valone

    President, Grass Roots North Carolina

    Executive Director, Rights Watch International

    www.GRNC.org

    www.RightsWatch.org

    704.907.9206 (mobile)

     

    ------------------------------------------------------------

     

    Open Letter to Members of Congress:

     

    In coming weeks, you will face pressure from the Obama administration and others to implement a ban on semi-automatic firearms and certain ammunition feeding devices, and to pass laws requiring private gun transfers to be processed via the National Instant Check System.

     

    Yet the “assault weapon” misnomer is a myth perpetuated by gun control advocates who seek to confuse the public about the difference between millions of semi-automatic firearms, which are functionally identical to hunting rifles, and military “assault rifles,” which are machine guns virtually unavailable to the public since implementation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

     

    The truth about modern rifles

     

    The modern rifles Senator Dianne Feinstein has, by her own admission, waited decades to ban differ from others primarily by cosmetic features such as barrel shrouds, threaded barrels, flash suppressors, pistol grips and adjustable stocks – things which do not affect function. The notion being promulgated by gun control advocates that such features increase lethality by allowing guns to be “fired from the hip” is absurd: Any firearms expert will attest that rifles can only be effectively utilized from the shoulder.

     

    Although you are being told that ammunition used by modern rifles is excessively destructive, in truth it is ballistically inferior to common .30-06 hunting ammunition and was selected by the military not for its lethality, but instead for light weight and low recoil.

     

    And when you hear how “high capacity” magazines increase mortality in mass shootings, understand that Seung-Hui Cho carried no fewer than nineteen magazines for the Virginia Tech rampage, and that nearly all mass murderers who use guns carry multiple firearms, rendering magazine capacity moot. Like the misnomer “assault weapon,” the “high capacity” designation of more than ten rounds for magazines represents nothing more than an arbitrary limit set on devices which have been in common possession since the early Twentieth Century.

     

    Moreover, attempts to process private gun sales through the National Instant Check System represent nothing less than a stepping stone to national gun registration; under the Clinton administration, the FBI retained NICS transaction records in violation of the Brady Act, creating a defacto national registration system.

     

    Most frightening, however, is Sen. Feinstein’s proposal to regulate “grandfathered” modern rifles under the National Firearms Act. Doing so would not only entail registering millions of existing firearms, but would represent unprecedented expansion of police powers through the BATFE by requiring millions of gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed like common criminals. Because a large percentage will refuse to comply, the scheme, if implemented, will make felons of otherwise law-abiding citizens.

     

    Semi-auto ban: No impact on violence

     

    Neither have such laws been effective. From 1994 to 2004, the previous ban on semi-automatic firearms and magazines had no impact on school shootings, which actually increased during that period. Indeed, some of the worst school shootings, including Columbine High School, took place during the ban.

     

    Despite predictions from gun control advocates that violent crime would increase after the ban expired, it has actually dropped: According to FBI Uniform Crime Reports, between expiration of the ban in 2004 and the most recent for which data is available (2011), violent crime dropped by 17% and homicide, by 15%.

     

    Meanwhile, weapons use in homicide has remained unchanged and, significantly, use of rifles (including those targeted for bans) declined slightly from 2.7% of homicides in 2004 to 2.5% of homicides in 2011. Clearly, rifles of any type, including those with features targeted by semi-auto bans, are rarely used in crimes.

     

    ‘Gun Free School Zones Act’ increased killings

     

    What does appear to have impacted school shootings was implementation of the latest version of the “Gun Free School Zones Act” (GFSZA), which is associated with a dramatic increase in school murders.

     

    Between the first significant school shooting, in 1966, and enactment of the 1996 GFSZA, media summaries reveal 8 shootings with 134 victims killed or wounded – a rate of 4.3 victims per year. Between 1996 and 2012, the review finds 62 shootings and 367 victims – a fivefold increase to 23 victims per year. Yet, during the same period, FBI Uniform Crime Reports indicate homicide nationwide dropped by 14%.

     

    While media summaries may not be comprehensive, the GFSZA has clearly been an abject failure. Worse, evidence suggests it may actually create “kill zones” which attract violent predators.

     

    Researchers John Lott and William Landes, then at Yale and the University of Chicago, respectively, studied multiple victim public shootings. Said Lott, “Gun prohibitionists concede that banning guns around schools has not quite worked as intended—but their response has been to call for more regulation of guns. Yet what might appear to be the most obvious policy may actually cost lives. When gun-control laws are passed, it is law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, who adhere to them.”

     

    Examining data from 1976 to 1995, they discovered that mass homicides in states adopting concealed handgun laws declined by 84%, deaths plummeted by 90% and injuries by 82.5%. Crediting the reductions to deterrence (even suicidal maniacs avoid armed victims), Lott and Landes called their findings “dramatic,” concluding: “[T]he only policy factor to have a consistently significant influence on multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws.”

     

    Coalition position

     

    Members of the National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban demand that Congress refuse to use lawful gun owners as political scapegoats and instead reduce school violence by:

     

    • Defeating any attempt to pass gun control including, but not limited to, banning semi-automatic firearms or magazines, or requiring private gun transfers to be registered through the National Instant Check System; and

     

    • Repealing the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1996.

     

    No ‘compromises’

     

    Some will urge you to “compromise,” perhaps even the National Rifle Association. The many thousands of gun rights supporters represented by the Coalition, however, regard “compromise,” as our opposition defines it, to be a process in which we lose slightly fewer of our rights than under the original proposal. Consequently, any legislation which registers or bans firearms; limits magazine capacity; registers private transactions through NICS; or restricts time, place or manner of self-defense is unacceptable.

     

    Members of Congress who support gun owners by opposing all gun control will, in turn, benefit from support by Coalition organizations. Members of Congress who support gun control by any means, procedural or substantive, will be targeted for defeat by Coalition members. They will be subject to picketing, leaflet drops at events in their districts, phone and mail campaigns, and political action committee opposition. NRA ratings and endorsements will have no impact on Coalition actions.

     

    In coming weeks, we look forward to working with you to reduce school violence by allowing lawful citizens in schools and elsewhere to defend themselves against violent predators.

     

    Respectfully,

    The National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban

     

     

    -PAXP-deijE.gif

    Welcome to Gunleaders.comwww.gunleaders.com

  6. Posted

    For carrying in the wooded areas while hunting in the free states, I chose the G20. For handgun hunting piggies in GA, super redhawk 44M with a 7 1/2" barrel. It is fun shooting the 44M at the range with my reloaded 44 specials, 180gr XTP over 14gr of Blue Dot. Low recoil, loud bang, it always turns heads.

  10. Posted

    Here is my 2 cents.

     

    I think owning $10,000 in firearms, $2,500 in ammo, $2,000 in accessories and spending countless amounts of money on target practice and range time and then placing your firearms in a cheap safe that only cost $400 to $700 (or no safe at all) is like owning a late model Mercedes-Benz with a $10,000 stereo system, $10,000 rims with a 40" LED backlit Flat Panel with an XBOX in the trunk and living in the ghetto on Public Assistance with Section 8 paying your rent.

     

    If you can afford to shoot, you can afford to buy a real safe, that is well built, and will protect YOU, from having your firearms taken from a thief.

     

    If you can't afford to spend $2000 or more on a well built safe, then you can't afford to shoot.

     

    The same for, if you can't afford to pay rent, and you need the tax payers to do it for you. Then you can't afford a Mercedes-Benz.

     

    I would like to see a federal law pass that would require all legal firearm owners (regardless of how many are owned) to own a federal approved firearms safe.

     

    There isn't any reason for a responsible firearms owner to have a few rifles and a few shotguns leaning in a corner of there bedroom and countless handguns in there top draw.

     

    I understand a need for home protection, so 1 sidearm on you is all you should need. If you need reinforcement, the sidearm will protect you till you can get to the firearms safe.

     

    If you're not home and your home is burglarized, your firearms would be safe and will be kept out of the wrong hands.

     

    I know NJ sucks for what they do to firearm owners, but I believe they're doing the right thing. And I hate to say it, but I think the 49 other states are going to follow suit.

     

    What your saying us very similar to what I posted way back in the beginning of the thread. I do disagree with having to own a "government approved safe". This is like having to buy only "TSA approved" locks for your luggage. They are made to a poor specification, and the agents are supposed to have keys to override your combo lock. What would keep a manufacture from having a master key of sorts to open any safe they make?

     

    The wording "stored in a secured manner" is much more appealing to me. It does not force someone to have to buy a specific safe, but rather holds a person accountable for not attempting to secure their firearms. Safe or no safe, a criminal that knows firearms are in a house and wants them will do whatever they can to steal said guns. Yes, it's just another feel good law, but if it helps prevent some form of government imposed weapons ban, it's ok by me.

     

    Things have been quieting down with all the fiscal talks going on. Lets hope the majority of congress wakes up and realizes its not the guns to go after but rather address the mental health issues in this country.

  11. Posted

     

    Sure lets add another 50-100 dollars per transaction. Sounds like a plan. NOT

     

    Delaware does and the max charge for the transfer is $20, which is spelled out in the statute.

     

    Again I ask, put up with something like an FFL for all transfers, or loose all semi autos. What would choose?

  14. Posted

    How is it giving an inch if its you need a nics check on every gun purchase but in no new gun laws are enacted? Wouldn't that be a give an inch gain an inch.

     

    sent from hell with a smile.

     

    Many people view having to go to a FFL to sell a firearm to another person as a limit on free trade. Personally, if that prevents an AWB from happening, I'm ok with it. After all, if your not a prohibited person, what's the big deal about having to get a background check done to transfer a firearm?

     

    Now as far as NJ's BS FID and P2P system goes, that should be thrown out the window. Having it take months just to get your rite to attempt to purchase is uncalled for! Stories of people being denied by NICS who had their NJ FID issued to them are out there. Further proof of how our paper card FID law is crap!

  15. Posted

    It would depend on how the law is written. If the onus is only on the seller to do only FTF ammo sales, then NJ law will not apply to them outside of NJ, at least directly, and a buyer could not be charged. If the law is written to prohibit anyone from receiving ammo in a way other than FTF, the buyer could certainly be charged.

     

    Companies are not prohibited by law from shipping hi cap mags to NJ, what would they be charged with? NJ does not have any authority to charge anyone criminally for business conducted outside NJ. These companies won't ship them because the state has threatened to sue them if they do.

     

    Forgive my ignorance, but when the term "state threatens to sue" comes up, does that state seek to receive a financial reimbursement from the retailer, or are they looking to throw someone in jail?

     

    If a retailer shipped a 20, 30, or whatever size magazine to a person in NJ, am I wrong in saying that the only way anyone would find out was if the buyer was caught and confessed or the state somehow seemed to subpoena the sales records from the company? The latter seems a bit far fetched unless big brother has his eye on you.

  16. Posted

    <p>Yes. I oppose it. And, there is another glaring issue. If you have an adult child living with you that is willing to lie, fool, and kill you to get access to your firearms, there is nothing you can do.I do, however, support putting parents in jail if their kids manage to joy ride their cars or snitch from their parent's liquor cabinet.My thoughts are that you are selling out gun owners and proposing to violate The Constitution. And, if you got your wish, in would not accelerate the plummeting firearm crime rate in this country anyway. You are just trying to criminalize people because they own or have guns when they are not otherwise involved in criminal behavior and wouldn't be criminalized for taking similar risks with worse consequences that do not involve guns.You're anti-gun. You just don't know it.
    Buddy, you have no clue who your accusing of being anti gun. I just got home from a Christmas party where I was just about a screaming match with a liberal telling me no one needs anything other than a single shot rifle for defense, and that all shooting competitions should be made illegal. I stand for our rights, and I sell no one out. I stand to productively try and prevent us from getting our nuts kicked in cause we support protecting our rites. I started this post in hopes someone would throw a logical alternative into the mix to draw the attention away from the inanimate object that goes bang, but lets the other side feel as though they get something without the rest of us being further stripped of our rites. If the federal level manages to not pass any restrictions or bans, what's your solution to NJ enacting them? Go look at what's sitting in the law and public safety committee. Two recommendations to congress to enact federal assault weapons bans, reducing mag capacity to 10 rounds, restricting ammo purchases to face to face only with no online sales. You think we're not gonna have something make it to vote if the Feds don't act? You think this state has a strong enough 2A community to stop further restrictions without a long drawn out fight?

  17. Posted

     

    80,000,000 gunowners in america. Come arrest us all.

    Pack a lunch.

     

    I don't consider myself to be a tin foil hat guy, but have you given any thought to the massive expansion of DHS, large purchases of hollow points by the govt, and things like the NDAA all happening to line up? Add in the tragedy (by coincidence I pray) and BO calling for gun control. Do you honestly think 80 million gun owners will stand their ground?

  18. Posted

    Let me just clarify that I do not want to see anything happen with dumb new laws being enacted to strip our rites and leave us helpless. The reality is that Washington will let no national tragedy go to waste when it comes to having a chance to strip our freedoms.

     

    If we stand for no compromise, what happens when every gun owner in America instantly becomes a felon if they pass an all out ban on semi auto firearms? Have you all written your politicians to tell them how you feel? I sent 6 letters out this week to my district reps, the governor, and our two ultra anti 2A senators, and plan on more this week. If Biden and his boys purpose a ban, I'll be writing more.

  19. Posted

    My original intent with this topic was to see if as members of the pro 2A community we could come up with or accept a compromise instead of either loosing semi auto rifles or pistols or both.

     

    Washington is going to jam something down our throat in the next month or so.

  21. Posted

    That can be tricky. I also load for M1A. My rifle does not need small base resizing dies. I try not to use them if I dont have too because they really work the brass more and shorten its usable life if you dont need them. Basically you will small size the brass then blow it back up to normal size every time you fire it. I do have 1 tight chambered AR that really prefers SB sized brass and one that doesnt care. Unfrotunatly theres no may to tell til you try.

    Ken

     

    On average, how many times can you reload your rifle brass before it has to be retired to the scrap bucket?

  22. Posted

     

    I am NO expert shooter.. but I have done a lot of fast high stress shooting with friends and family that are LEO.... shooting from cover... simulating malfunctions..

     

    I have to say.. with all due respect.. your statement scares me.. because MANY are of the same mindset... "free basic pistol" will show you how to hold a gun.. shoot it.. not be terrified of it... it does NOT qualify you to engage in a gun battle defending kids... it does not IMO even qualify you to defend yourself...

     

    the amount of range time required to adequately defend yourself in a shooting situation is FAR more than that.. it involves functioning under stress.. understanding targets.. what is beyond them.. how YOUR ammo will effect a target.. what substances will adequately stop the round you are shooting.. creating a clean shot with the least chance of additional damage..

     

    the LAST thing I want is a bunch of armed UNDER-TRAINED teachers.. engaging some shooter and accidentally shooting a kid.. that would without question be the worst..

     

    I honestly like the idea of FINDING enough money in budgets to hire someone trained.. even a retired soldier or LEO...

    cake hours... summers off.. I am sure it would not be a hard position to fill.. this would likely be an individual qualified for such a task..

     

    if you DO want to arm someone IN the school.. thats OK also.. but it would have to be someone with the time to seriously train... you are putting a LOT of pressure on that individual..

     

    I personally feel the option of an armed guard is better, but if the option to take someone from the office or an aide and train them is viable, it should be explored. Could be a good option for the smaller school districts in rural areas.

     

    It's a double edge sword. You either take a trained vet or LEO and have to train them to deal with kids and how to communicate with them so they don't fear the guy with the gun, or you have to take a trained educator with experience dealing with kids and train them to use and properly react with a firearm.

×
×
  • Create New...