# 2nd Amendment March-Lansing, MI



## silverfox (Feb 8, 2009)

*Michigan's Second Amendment March*
2013/02/02
March 20 at Michigan's Capitol 
Feb 1, 2013

Mark your schedules! Reserve the day off work! Michigan's Second Amendment March will be held on Wednesday, March 20 at Michigan's Capitol. We anticipate several thousand gun owners will be at the march. The march will begin at 9:30 a.m. with a sidewalk procession from the corner of Michigan and Pennsylvania to the Capitol. From 10 a.m. to 11 a.m., people will meet with their state representatives. Musical entertainment and pro-gun speakers will take the stage from 11 a.m. until 1 p.m. From 1 p.m. until 2 p.m., people will meet with their state senators. The Michigan Legislature is in session that day. We'll be showing them the political strength of Michigan's legal gun owners. The march is being organized by Skip Coryell's Second Amendment March and jointly promoted and funded by the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, Michigan Open Carry, Michigan Gun Owners and Michigan Students for Concealed Carry. 

A volunteer form is now up and running on the home page at Second Amendment March Volunteer Form. If you are interested in assisting at the march, please use the form on that page to sign up.


----------



## michhutr (Jan 16, 2009)

Thanks for the info.


----------



## silverfox (Feb 8, 2009)

While some may say that there's nothing going on in the legislature to threaten our 2nd Amendment rights, it would be a mistake not to recognize that there are some individuals and groups that are active in lobbying for more gun ban legislation. Please join us Wednesday, March 20th for the March. Please continue to let your representatives on the State and National level know that we will not tolerate any further attempts on our Rights. Just look at NY, CO and MD. And who can forget CA!


----------



## Billy_D (Feb 23, 2013)

There is no excuse for not attending, I know we all have busy lives, but you need to plan for this, take the day off work, cancel that docs appt, get nanna to watch the kids etc. I am carpooling with a few friends in my gas guzzling SUV and my 2 babies will be at thier papas for the day, I have also not booked any jobs for that day, we all must accept any inconviance to protect our rights.


----------



## 68w (Jan 19, 2012)

thanks for the heads up. i will be there..


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

_Please continue to let your representatives on the State and National level know that we will not tolerate any further attempts on our Rights._

...attempts on our Rights ??

OK, understand your passion; however, shouldnt we all expect us gun hobbyist to at least talk about what can be done to put a speed bump in the path of gun-violence? Those wackos that shot Rep.Giffords, or went into the theatre, or Virginia Tech, or Sandy Hook didnt use a ball bat, or a Bowie knife. They used guns. Big powerful guns. Far more powerful than our Founding Fathers could ever have conceived of when they crafted the 2nd Amendment.

I own guns. Have since I was about 12. I dont want them taken away. But realistically, between us gun-guys ------I have zero fear they will be. I think there is absolutely zero chance they can be. Our 2nd Amendment Rights allow me to own them as long as I responsibly use them and if I do not pose a threat to society. Registering them, even if only my .410 shotgun, aint a hindrance in my eyes. After all, I register my car.

I am 100% behind the efforts to strengthen the laws on background checks for all firearm sales.even my .410 and my muzzleloader (well, OK, maybe no need to register pre-1860 antiques). I also support limiting magazines to 10 cartridges.any gun. In fact, I could support a limit of 6 shells after all we won WWII with the 6-shot M-1.

Unless and until we firearm hobbyist signal a willingness to constructively address the problem .rather than constantly shouting we have rightswell, we will be on the wrong side of the problem. We are shooting ourselves in the foot.

IMHO


----------



## whitetailassassin (Oct 16, 2012)

fairfax1 said:


> _Please continue to let your representatives on the State and National level know that we will not tolerate any further attempts on our Rights._
> 
> ...attempts on our Rights ??
> 
> ...


Well you need to take take a look at what has happened throughout history all over the world... Gun registration and bans lead to all out confiscation and just because this is the U.S.A. doesn't mean that it cannot happen here as well. Just because you personally do not see a need for "big powerful guns" (FYI a .223 is hardly a big powerful gun) doesn't mean the rest of us law abiding citizens should relinquish them. It is not the tool used to commit the crime that is at fault; it is the person using it. More people are murdered in this country annually with hammers and hand tools than with guns. If another massacre occurred using a .410 would you be willing to relinquish that as well? The common denominator in all of the mass shootings is they occur in gun free zones because people know their intended targets are defenseless. We have enough sheep in America, I along with tens of thousands other law abiding citizens will certainly not baaah with the flock when OUR rights are being jeopardized.
posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## whitetailassassin (Oct 16, 2012)

Also, if you really want to put a speedbump in the path of these incidents then start asking your legislators why the government allows big pharmaceutical companies to sell millions of pills to the public at large knowing full well the dangerous affects they have on people's mentality. I cannot sit through a 30 minute program on tv without seeing an ad for some wonder pill that also carries with it risk of "suicidal thoughts and other abnormal behaviors". 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

fairfax1 said:


> _Please continue to let your representatives on the State and National level know that we will not tolerate any further attempts on our Rights._
> 
> ...attempts on our Rights ??
> 
> ...


Finally, mercifully, we have a poster who has some intelligence. The rest of the idiots better go and sign up at the nearest militia recruitment center before big bad brother takes all of their weapons away.:lol::lol:


----------



## Nodakhtr (Jan 15, 2013)

fairfax1 said:


> _Please continue to let your representatives on the State and National level know that we will not tolerate any further attempts on our Rights._
> 
> ...attempts on our Rights ??
> 
> ...


I agree. We have our rights, but we also have responsibility to our families and to your neighbors kids that are in school today.


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

Quote form the "Magnifucent Sevun", "If God didn't want tham sheered, He wouldent hav made thim sheep". OOPS! I need a new computar, thes one is mispelin werds. :lol:


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Problem with an across the board cartridge capacity restriction is this. Henry rifles hold more than six, Marlin model 60 is tube fed as well and how many of you have a Ruger 10/22??? None of which is an assault weopon for the love of Pete! The anti gun people want them gone 100 percent. If we cave they are one step closer to that and they get a victory. That being said, I dont have any guns in the cabinet that are even in this discussion so dont think I am trying to protect my high cap magazines etc. Cause I dont have a dog in the fight.

Ganzer


----------



## Abolt (Mar 11, 2011)

fairfax1 said:


> _Please continue to let your representatives on the State and National level know that we will not tolerate any further attempts on our Rights._
> 
> ...attempts on our Rights ??
> 
> ...


Dang it! 

Ok, I'll take the vacation day. See you all there.


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

MERGANZER said:


> Problem with an across the board cartridge capacity restriction is this. Henry rifles hold more than six, Marlin model 60 is tube fed as well and how many of you have a Ruger 10/22??? None of which is an assault weopon for the love of Pete! The anti gun people want them gone 100 percent. If we cave they are one step closer to that and they get a victory. That being said, I dont have any guns in the cabinet that are even in this discussion so dont think I am trying to protect my high cap magazines etc. Cause I dont have a dog in the fight.
> 
> Ganzer


I don't think I have any hardware that would be on the list either, but I might some day. As a matter of fact, that might be the best way to motivate me to buy something, tell me I can't have it. I guess some of being 2 years old stayed with me:lol:


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

MERGANZER said:


> Problem with an across the board cartridge capacity restriction is this. Henry rifles hold more than six, Marlin model 60 is tube fed as well and how many of you have a Ruger 10/22??? None of which is an assault weopon for the love of Pete! The anti gun people want them gone 100 percent. If we cave they are one step closer to that and they get a victory. That being said, I dont have any guns in the cabinet that are even in this discussion so dont think I am trying to protect my high cap magazines etc. Cause I dont have a dog in the fight.
> 
> Ganzer


Wrong! They want the so-called assault rifles gone, and they want a restriction on magazine capacity. If you hunt waterfowl in Michigan, you already have a magazine restriction. Nobody is complaining about that, it has been on the books for years. There are many deer hunters like myself who use a single shot firearm. There are no complaints about that either. If you really think that big brother wants to confiscate all of your firearms, you have been watching too much fear mongering among the media. The victory you speak of is won by the innocent children and adults who may be the next target of some lunatic with a high-capacity firearm.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

> Gun registration and bans lead to all out confiscation and just because this is the U.S.A. doesn't mean that it cannot happen here as well.


Ask the Native Americans at Wounded Knee how that disarmament by the U.S. Government worked out for them. 
here is an interesting video.........


----------



## Bonz 54 (Apr 17, 2005)

Piers Morgan makes me CRAZY. Every time that British POS opens his mouth I want to punch him in the throat.:rant: If he wants change so much, he needs to go back to GB and TRY to fix what is SO screwed up over there. Everybody knows the 2nd Amendment is there to protect us from our own government and it has never been needed more than right now. FRANK


----------



## whitetailassassin (Oct 16, 2012)

Bonz 54 said:


> Piers Morgan makes me CRAZY. Every time that British POS opens his mouth I want to punch him in the throat.:rant: If he wants change so much, he needs to go back to GB and TRY to fix what is SO screwed up over there. Everybody knows the 2nd Amendment is there to protect us from our own government and it has never been needed more than right now. FRANK


He can't go back because he fled to the U.S. to avoid criminal phone hacking charges... His cohorts are currently being charged, so hopefully soon they will call for his return.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

*..the 2nd Amendment is there to protect us from our own government and it has never been needed more than right now.*

OK, I admire your passion. But, from my very individual perspective, Id suggest it may be misplaced. 

Personally, for me, _our own government_..is not my fear. Rather, I fear more about my grandkids running into some disturbed young man with a 13-round Glock. There are far more of those armed outliers around than there are serious & capable dictators-in-waiting.

No offense to those who have a different viewpoint, but I reject totally the idea that we have nowor need fear in my lifetime .a government intent on dictatorship. In my view, that fear falls into the Tim McVeigh sinkhole.

The US is a nation governed by law, with a long established consititution, and democratically elected representation in our legislative and executive branches. In our nearly 240 years of existence we have changed executive officers 44 timeswith no conflict. And those 44 transfers involved at least 8 different political partiesand even that power transfer sparked no armed conflict (even in 1860).

So, dictator-phobia is simply the metaphorical bloody-shirt waived to rally around another agenda.

*But, really, between us gun-guys* .. lets say our government really was the #1 threat to our freedoms. Wouldnt all our Glocks & ARs be like bringing a knife to a gunfight? 

Our cherished, but well armed, families can stand strong & firm against --- the Hellfire missile headed our way from 20,000 feet up. 
That's not a fight. 

Our real weapon --our real fight --- is through the ballot box.


----------



## chizzel (Dec 6, 2004)

fairfax1 said:


> _Please continue to let your representatives on the State and National level know that we will not tolerate any further attempts on our Rights._
> 
> ...attempts on our Rights ??
> 
> ...


The M1 Garand was actually 8 rounds. We also had Thompson's and BAR's with 20 round mags. Not to mention belt felt 30 caliber machine guns. Unfortunately gun owners that have your way of thinking are our own worst enemies.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## JimP (Feb 8, 2002)

I'll bet there were plenty of similar pacifists and naysayers, before Germany, England, Australia, all went to registration and then confiscation.

You must register your car, but driving is a privilege the State grants you - to drive or not is up to them and any law they choose to pass.
What if they say if you owe child support you can't drive, if you get a ticket for 10 miles over the limit you can't drive?

The common line from some, "I'm a gun owner too" comes from a lot of the grabbers too, including Feinstein.

So What. Buy, keep and use what YOU want lawfully...that's your right.
Don't jump in criticizing when others of us want do likewise: Buy, keep and use lawfully what we choose.

Honestly it sounds elitist, like the center pinners/fly fishers, many looking down their noses at the worm fisherman. Or the Trophy planners and plotters disparaging the public land bait pilers.

This is the ammo for the grabbers...division.
They'll use that against all of use in so called "polls" with biased questions to fit a portion of than division.
Control is control...there's no pass for "common sense" legislation...just whose common sense?
A great many of the "Educated" around us don't have a nickels worth.

Powerful?
They had some mean sheat back in 1776.
Cripe, have you seen what the old .52 up to.69 & .75 cal musket balls can do.
Or a Blunderbuss full of nails.
Maybe they weren't very accurate but they have a helluva lot more o-o-m-pf than a .223.
Mag capacity? 
Even amatuers never having never fired and changed mags before are shown on video switching mags in under 2 seconds.
So the bad guy has an illegal 30 round mag, but you are limited to a couple legal 10 rounders...yup protecting the public with mag control...

Finally,
From Dave Hodges:

* Recently, a Russian blogger wrote the following about the history of his own country, with regard to the Red Revolution, in an attempt to get Americans to realize that we should never give up our guns under any circumstances.

"Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterward to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot."

If we ever allow Obama and Feinstein to get any kind of a foothold on the elimination of private gun ownership, we wont being going off of some imaginary fiscal cliff, we will be jumping headfirst into the abyss of national suicide by gun control. History has spoken America, are you going to listen? Even the Russian communists are warning us not to give up our guns.*


----------



## JimP (Feb 8, 2002)

chizzel said:


> The M1 Garand was actually 8 rounds. We also had Thompson's and BAR's with 20 round mags. Not to mention belt felt 30 caliber machine guns. Unfortunately gun owners that have your way of thinking are our own worst enemies.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Ditto.

We also had the belt fed .50cal M2...and still do.


----------



## Ggb (Mar 14, 2013)

fairfax1 said:


> *&#8220;&#8230;..the 2nd Amendment is there to protect us from our own government and it has never been needed more than right now.&#8221;*
> 
> OK, I admire your passion. But, from my very individual perspective, I&#8217;d suggest it may be misplaced.
> 
> ...


With all due respect, my friend...

Although we may not have had an attempt at dictatorship in our history, that is not a blanket indication we will never have to face such a situation. Personally, I see no such problem in the future. I have faith in our system that such conflict can be avoided through the mechinations in place within our government.

Still, as the late Mark Scott used to say, "I love my country but I fear my government."

Also, if we look at how revolutions evolve (and we have plenty of examples as of late) they begin with protests. Hellfire missiles aren't used at this point. What is used are feet on the ground, soldiers with small arms. It is at this point that, should it escalate, our "assault weapons" come into play.

Hopefully, the insurgents (providing this is a righteous revolution) are able to hold out long enough for an outside nation to get involved and supply heavier arms and support. We saw this in Libya and other Middle East nations that have overthrown dictatorships in the relatively recent past. We, the U.S., got involved, along with the U.N.

Also, there is the possibility that our own forces, or part of them, may join in the revolution. I've not yet met a soldier who will admit that they would ever fire on their fellow citizens, though it has happened in the past.

Having said all that, I don't foresee a revolution in our future, though a revolution at the ballot box would be welcome.

Lastly, if I've broken any forum rules by posting an obviously political post, I sincerely apologize.


----------



## dachief (Feb 20, 2010)

Bonz 54 said:


> Piers Morgan makes me CRAZY. Every time that British POS opens his mouth I want to punch him in the throat.:rant: If he wants change so much, he needs to go back to GB and TRY to fix what is SO screwed up over there. Everybody knows the 2nd Amendment is there to protect us from our own government and it has never been needed more than right now. FRANK


X2, amen brother. That's what it intended for!

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Look, I aint tryin to turn this into a debate. I understand the passions..tho I confess I do not comprehend the fears. Guns are an interest of mine, have been since I was quite young. I am no longer young, but I still enjoy owning & shooting.

My concerns are that this hobby of mine is being put at risk by those who love guns too much. Their passions have morphed towards something very unhealthy for our society; and very unhealthy for the long term viability of my hobby.

I truly understand the wish to have a capable weapon to defend hearth & home. That is not only an understandable wish to safeguard ones loved ones, but also a desirable ethic of self reliance. No problem with that. No problem whatsoever with the hunter and his legal tools. Nor with the paper-cutting metal-plinking target shooters.

My biggest concerns lie in two areas:

*First*, with the Michigan Militia-like ethos that is often part of 2nd Amendment discussions. A mindset that too often is espoused in a context of _our_ _government is our enemy_..therefore any and all firearms must be freely available so that our democratically elected government can be checked. It is a threatening, Timothy McVeigh-like paranoia. It is unpatriotic.

The *second* major concern is with the unwillingness of too many hobbyists to join in a reasonable exchange of ideas on how we could mitigate gun-violence. This intransigence signals that gun owners are misanthropes who care more about our hardware and our access to it than we could ever care about victims. 

That refusal to engage threatens our long term ability to keep and use firearms. When we hobbyist argue for less regulation, for more hardware, for more powerful hardware, available in more venues, and in the hands of more peoplewell, society perceives that as less of a 2nd Amendment issue and more of a safety issue. 

And that is the real underlying issue......safety. It is the perception of safety --not hardware --- that propels the current discussions.

Because society wants to be safe.safety is, after all, one of the reasons societies develop and when guns are perceived to threaten that safety society will protect itself by forcing measures to achieve safety. That is a survival instinct. 

Our refusal to recognize that threatens my...our.....ability to enjoy owning & shooting.

In our ethic of _the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness _is the unspoken right to be safe.


----------



## dachief (Feb 20, 2010)

whitetailassassin said:


> He can't go back because he fled to the U.S. to avoid criminal phone hacking charges... His cohorts are currently being charged, so hopefully soon they will call for his return.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Maybe someone needs to pick his ass up and buy him a ticket
Back home and escort him back there!  Dave
posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Abolt (Mar 11, 2011)

Where is the best place to park?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Ggb (Mar 14, 2013)

fairfax1 said:


> Look, I aint tryin to turn this into a debate. I understand the passions..tho I confess I do not comprehend the fears. Guns are an interest of mine, have been since I was quite young. I am no longer young, but I still enjoy owning & shooting.
> 
> My concerns are that this hobby of mine is being put at risk by those who love guns too much. Their passions have morphed towards something very unhealthy for our society; and very unhealthy for the long term viability of my hobby.
> 
> ...


You make good points. I don't see our government as a threat. I simply recognize the possibilities. After all, history is rife with examples of governments going out of control.

I also agree with your assessment of many militias. They are much to rabid in their views of our government. Tim McViegh was a perfect example. He, and those who support him, are not freedom fighters, they are terrorists, so no argument from on your point. It's wheel taken.

I also agree with you about the need to address gun violence. But if bans worked, we would not have a war on drugs and there would not have been speakeasies during Prohibition.

There is no simple solution, I'm afraid. One thing I support are stiffer mandatory jail terms for gun related crimes. I'm not sure what "universal background checks" actually means. As a CPL holder, I assume I've already had one, but I'm not sure what all it entailed.

I think you and I are really not at odds. I simply find myself able to justify so called "assault weapons" in the hands of responsible citizens due to Constitutional reasons. I find little to fault in your arguments and concerns.


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

I find it disturbing as an American that anyone would support the statement in the above post, quote, when guns are perceived to threaten that safety society will protect itself by forcing measures to achieve safety. I would respond that the minute you deviate from law, the Constitution, you enter the philosophy (opinion) zone. Heaven help us if that happens! Whats next? The first amendment? the fourth amendment?, where do you stop? 

I have children and grandchildren, but taking my second amendment rights away does NOT make them any safer. I do not know anybody that is not heartbroken for the families of the Sandy Hook, Conn. Shootings. The second amendment is not to blame. Legal responsible gun owners are not to blame. The shooter and his irresponsible gun owning Mother are solely to blame. 

The above post also mentioned Timothy McVeigh. Why? To create sensationalism? Tim did NOT use an assault weapon; he used fertilizer and diesel fuel. Jim Jones and David Koresh did NOT use guns, just a little mind control. There are a lot of things more dangerous than assault weapons..like HANDGUNS. Does anybody really think they will stop at assault weapons and magazines if they are victorious? Assault weapons are responsible for less than five per cent of gun deaths, with rifles and shotguns about the same. That leaves HANDGUNS as the biggest factor in nearly ninety percent of gun deaths. Assault weapons and magazines are just the tip of the iceberg in their quest for a gun free society. 

So, what will work to reduce gun violence in America? Increase punishment for gun related offenses. Deny plea bargaining for the sake of expediting cases through the court system, and giving longer sentences. Keep the offenders in prison and off the streets. Make legal gun owners responsible for crimes committed by guns registered in their names. This will make them think twice before selling their gun to someone without a purchase permit and/or a background check. Make background checks more accessible and affordable. We have all the necessary laws needed on the books already, we just need to make them work and enforce them. Many of our current laws like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, (HIPAA), actually work against the Federal Background Check System. How? Many states refuse to divulge medical (psychiatric) records to the background check system for fear of breaking federal HIPAA laws. 

Yes, we need to create and support RESPONSIBLE gun owners. The mother of the Sandy Hook shooter was NOT a responsible gun owner and she paid a dear price. Are your guns locked up? (MCRGO) Join today! I WILL be in Lansing on Wednesday.


----------



## kstout (Dec 26, 2005)

I used to worry about the feds confiscating my guns, but since I have had to sell my guns to pay the new state tax on my pension, I no longer have to worry about it.


----------



## Ggb (Mar 14, 2013)

da Appleknocker said:


> I find it disturbing as an American that anyone would support the statement in the above post, quote, when guns are perceived to threaten that safety society will protect itself by forcing measures to achieve safety. I would respond that the minute you deviate from law, the Constitution, you enter the philosophy (opinion) zone. Heaven help us if that happens! Whats next? The first amendment? the fourth amendment?, where do you stop?
> 
> I have children and grandchildren, but taking my second amendment rights away does NOT make them any safer. I do not know anybody that is not heartbroken for the families of the Sandy Hook, Conn. Shootings. The second amendment is not to blame. Legal responsible gun owners are not to blame. The shooter and his irresponsible gun owning Mother are solely to blame.
> 
> ...


Do we actually know that Adam Lanza's mother was irresponsible? I've not heard any details. For all I know, she may have had a gun safe, perhaps with a key, that Lanza was able to open, THEN shoot his mother. In other words, we are led to believe she was shot first and then the guns were taken. I'm not arguing her innocence. I just don't know that the exact sequence of events have ever been properly sorted out.

While it's true that McVeigh didn't use a gun, I think the point of bringing him up was to illustrate the mindset, not the method.

I agree with you on penalties. I heard a statistic the other day. I don't remember the time period, but there were 8,000 people who lied on their applications to buy guns, but only 44 were actually prosecuted. That is appalling. If they can't, or won't, enforce the laws already on the books, what good are more laws?

I also believe that for a great many legislators, a gun free society is their ultimate goal. I used to think such legislators didn't understand the true intent of the second amendment. Now I'm thinking they understand it all to well.


----------



## miruss (Apr 18, 2003)

fairfax1 said:


> _Please continue to let your representatives on the State and National level know that we will not tolerate any further attempts on our Rights._
> 
> ...attempts on our Rights ??
> 
> ...


Your right the founding fathers couldn't conceive of the big powerful guns we now have so lets ban them OH wait a minute i don't think they could conceive of the internet, cell phones or t.v.. So that must be your ok with doing away with free speech also the government doesn't like the way you say something lets make you a felon better yet better turn in your computer. Big powerful guns you do know that the 223 is not that big of gun right. My 30-06 is bigger as a matter of fact my 10ga would do more damage then both of those.As far as limiting the number of rounds a mag will hold it will do nothing but make you feel good you can say we did something all people will do is carry more mags the Virgina tech shooter had 19 mags with him or are you now going to say a person can only own so many mags. The main problem is the mental health lots of those are not being reported so the people can't buy a gun. You just don't get it theres more people killed in car accidents every yr yet they don't ban cars. if you don't want to ban cars how about beer look at how many lives are taken because of beer .


----------



## Ggb (Mar 14, 2013)

miruss said:


> Your right the founding fathers couldn't conceive of the big powerful guns we now have so lets ban them OH wait a minute i don't think they could conceive of the internet, cell phones or t.v.. So that must be your ok with doing away with free speech also the government doesn't like the way you say something lets make you a felon better yet better turn in your computer. Big powerful guns you do know that the 223 is not that big of gun right. My 30-06 is bigger as a matter of fact my 10ga would do more damage then both of those.As far as limiting the number of rounds a mag will hold it will do nothing but make you feel good you can say we did something all people will do is carry more mags the Virgina tech shooter had 19 mags with him or are you now going to say a person can only own so many mags. The main problem is the mental health lots of those are not being reported so the people can't buy a gun. You just don't get it theres more people killed in car accidents every yr yet they don't ban cars. if you don't want to ban cars how about beer look at how many lives are taken because of beer .


The true purpose of the Second Amendment is a recognition of a citizen's right to defend themselves against despotic government, foreign or domestic. Therefor, common sense dictates that as military weapons advance technically, our means of protection must also advance technically.

As for the Sandy Hook tragedy, let's look at it in perspective. Last year in Detroit, there were 376 murders, more than one a day. I don't know how many were really young children, but many were young teens. But we don't hear the outrage. Why? Because it was spread out over the span of a year. Still, are any of those young Detroit victims any less a tragedy?


----------



## hillbillie (Jan 16, 2011)

kstout said:


> I used to worry about the feds confiscating my guns, but since I have had to sell my guns to pay the new state tax on my pension, I no longer have to worry about it.



Since the State confiscated 4% of my pension and enacted legislation to castrate the union worker.

I still have my guns but can no longer afford the ammo to use em.Saving what I have left for the bugger-man,Zombies,invasion of the red army,world economic collapse,climatic disaster, and next Gov't overthrow.

Aside from the bugger-man I don't stand much of a chance


----------



## Chuckgrmi (Nov 6, 2007)

Some don't. But I do...see our government as a treat. 

Especially with the moronic, anti-gun nut, who is in the Whitehouse today.

And I do see this gun issue as a political issue, too. 

Just Look who wants to take our guns away. And look who initiates all the gun bills before the Senate and the house today. How about the Diane Feinstein (D -C A) S. 150 Bill or Leahy D- )- Kirsten Elizabeth Rutnik Gillibrand (D-NY)-(anti-gun Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) "gun trafficking" bill (S. 443) or Chuck Schumer (D -NY) Universal Background Checks or Legislation by Barbara Boxer (D-CA ), which throws away $100,000,000 on school safety studies, And then there is the king himself, The Obama Administration trying to convince Americans that the UN Arms Trade Treaty will not affect average gun owners. 
And how about today's vote or the one on March 12, where the Senate Judiciary committee held two working sessions to deal with gun-related bills.

The result of those hearings was the passage of Sen. Charles Schumer&#8217;s (D-N.Y.) S. 374, the "Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013"--which would criminalize virtually all private firearm sales, even temporary transfers--and Sen. Dianne Feinstein&#8217;s (D-Calif.) S. 150, the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013."

Both of these bills pose a direct threat to our Second Amendment rights and both were passed on party-line votes, with committee Democrats supporting the bills and all Republicans voting no.

So Yes...It's all politics. 

And until we split this country into two U.S.A.'s and move the Left to one of them and the Right to the other. Peace won't exist. And I don't want that other side telling me that I can't have a 30rd magazine for my Remington Model 597or a 15rd clip for my Beretta 92fs just because some mental case steals a couple of guns from his mother's collection and takes out his frustration and issues on some very innocent, little children that didn't even know who he was or anything about something called mental issues.

So Yes...We do need to march on Lansing on the 20th. And we need to march on Washington, too. Because until we march into Lansing, Washington and that oval office and slap them/him right across the face. We will not get their attention or put a stop to the direction they want to take us.

It wasn't Me. It wasn't my gun...So leave me alone.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

*As has been posted earlier*:

_"My concerns are that this hobby of mine is being put at risk by those who love guns too much. 

My biggest concerns lie in two areas:

First, with the Michigan Militia-like ethos that is often part of 2nd Amendment discussions..

The second major concern . is with the unwillingness of too many hobbyists to join in a reasonable exchange of ideas on how we could mitigate gun-violence." _


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

Fairfax 1, your major concerns are not even close to reality in MY opinion. "The Michigan Militia" was created by the left-wing media and blown out of proportion. The recent militia prosecutions in southern Michigan, "the Stones", ended in aquittals for all but a minor gun charge. Your second concern has more truth to it. I too see NRA as a little bit rigid in these discussions, but NOT as uncompromising as the gun control enthusiast. I believe less gun control and more people control is needed. The last ban on assualt weapons and magazines had no effect at all and that is why they were lifted. We don't need to go through that again for touchy feely reasons. Honestly these current discussions in this country are for those very reasons and NOTHING will become of them, they just do not have the support.


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

Just bringing this to the top as a reminder, it's tommorrow.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

*A post above references the weapons of 1776*:

_"Powerful?
Cripe, have you seen what the old .52 up to.69 & .75 cal musket balls can do.
Maybe they weren't very accurate but they have a helluva lot more o-o-m-pf than a .223."_

Yes, yes, indeed, personal firearms of the American Revolution were &#8216;powerful&#8217;&#8230;..especially so if you were hit with the bullet from one of them. But, were they &#8216;powerful&#8217; relative to a semi-automatic rifle of today&#8230;.even in .223 caliber? Probably not, lest we&#8217;d see them being used on today&#8217;s battlefields&#8230;..or&#8230; in today&#8217;s mass shootings.

In truth though, we are getting into a rather esoteric; &#8216;_side-show&#8217;_ part of the gun-violence debate, i.e., the Founding Fathers&#8217; reality of what is a powerful personal weapon vs. today&#8217;s reality of rapid-fire high-velocity firearms. I think we can dismiss this part of the argument with the agreement that our schools would be far better off if those disturbed young men would only use Brown Bess&#8217;s when they attempt these shootings.

So let&#8217;s move away from that sidetrack.

Our gun violence problem is not and will not be a simple problem to solve. It poses significant Constitutional implications inextricably combined in a nexus of _&#8216;rights&#8217;_: 1st Amendment&#8212;Freedom of Speech; 2nd Amendment &#8211;Freedom to Bear arms; 4th Amendment &#8211;Unreasonable seizures, ( privacy implied ala&#8217; the 9th Amendment.)

We as a society, a social construct that exists, in part, to provide an improved level of &#8216;safety&#8217; to its individuals, well that society must address the violence that is visited upon those individuals&#8230;&#8230;a violence that too often is greatly magnified by the too ready access to easy-to-use powerful personal weapons; and a media phenomena that teaches, illustrates, and glorifies firearm response to perceived wrongs; and an administration of medical determinations that are private and sacrosanct and too often hinders recognition of threats.

I reject the argument that the 1st Amendment --Freedom of Speech --- protects the purveyor&#8217;s unlimited right to publish entertainment depicting violence. There can be limits. The 1st Amendment has restrictions now&#8230;&#8230;No one has the &#8216;right&#8217; to scream &#8220;Fire&#8221; in a crowded theatre. No one has the right to slander another. Further limits can be constructed and still protect a free and open exchange of ideas via available mediums.

I reject the argument that the 2ns Amendment ---the Right to Bear Arms---- must be unrestricted in citizen&#8217;s ability to acquire powerful weapons. It is restricted now&#8230;&#8230;shoulder fired RPG&#8217;s and shoulder fired missiles are prohibited, as are full auto pistols & rifles. In my opinion, civilians do not need to have 20, 30 or 100-round magazines. In my opinion, gun buyers should be more thoroughly vetted to own their hardware via more organized and more comprehensive checks on the individual and competent long-term record-keeping. Increased limits to what exists today can be constructed ---while still ensuring an individual&#8217;s ability to protect his family, his person, and his property.

I reject the argument that an implied freedom of privacy protects individuals from their society knowing of their proclivity towards potentially dangerous behaviors. There can be a better way to identify and restrict those individuals who pose higher risk and bar them from firearm ownership. Chronic drunks, drug abusers, Protection Order recipients, should be the easiest to restrict. The mentally ill, the &#8220;disturbed&#8221;, admittedly can be more difficult to indentify but once ID&#8217;d must be recorded within our law enforcement institutions.

Again, I will repeat as I said in an earlier posting&#8230;..the dilemma we are faced with is more of safety issue than it is a hardware issue. If society as a whole cannot feel safer&#8230;.in fact, perceives guns as making it less safe&#8230;&#8230;then guns will be much more highly restricted. THAT is a self-preservation instinct, a natural and superseding instinct. As a group we gun owners must recognize that and the best leaders of our interests need to recognize that in order to continue to responsibly lead. 

And, importantly, they must be able and willing to be part of the solution in creating an improved sense of safety.

In the end, I fear far far more my grandkid&#8217;s vulnerability to a nutcase with a Glock than I ever do my own government taking my guns.


----------



## FINNyooper (Jan 16, 2009)

fairfax1 said:


> *A post above references the weapons of 1776*:
> 
> _"Powerful?_
> _Cripe, have you seen what the old .52 up to.69 & .75 cal musket balls can do._
> ...


 
I have read your posts, and all the other posts in this thread. I personally do not think there should be any more restrictions and or laws than we already have. Is this a complicated issue whcih should be throughly examined by society as a whole? Yes. Should we enact knee jerk reactions to satiate those who scream ban all the guns? No. Should we ban high capacity magazines to restrict the use of any particular firearm? No. 

The whole word RESTRICT causes me to cringe. No more soda, no more salt, no more guns, no more "insert whatever here". This mentality in out country is ludicious. Our country needs to have a good long look at what is wrong with the society.

A man spills hot coffee on himself and walks away a rich for his pain and suffering. Safety... The word you so chose to use in your post. Better protect the poeple from hot coffee by adding the words to the cups in which it is served.

EDUCATION.... How about our nation look into educating everyone about firearms? It should be mandatory in schools starting in grade school. Every year students should be exposed to firearms training and education. I am not saying "kids should be shooting guns in a class" I am saying edcation about firearms and their uses and intended purposes, history of etc. etc. should be implemented in some form. If you teach a kid that a stove is hot, they generally do not touch the stove. If we educated rather than restrict access to "hide under the sand everyone" we as a nation would be in far better state. 

I am not that old. 31. I remember brining a single shot 12ga to school to show how to clean a gun for show and tell.  Somewhere in our history, we took a tangent in our country where no one gets pusnished anymore. You make a mistake in school, you get a time out. You make a mistake at home, a parent is not allowed to discipline for fear of being called a child beater.

The issues in the gun debate are far deeper than just high cap mags and mean looking guns. Some education about firearms to kids as they grow up would be much better than hiding them from guns to try to keep them safe for the safe of feeling better in our tummies at night. Or as you refferd to it as a "improved sense of safety."

I myself do not feel safe having a Government tell me that I can not have a certain type of firearm because it's black and can take a high capacity magazine. I would however feel better if I saw schools teaching kids troughout all their years in schools about firearms.


----------



## hillbillie (Jan 16, 2011)

FINNyooper said:


> I have read your posts, and all the other posts in this thread. I personally do not think there should be any more restrictions and or laws than we already have. Is this a complicated issue whcih should be throughly examined by society as a whole? Yes. Should we enact knee jerk reactions to satiate those who scream ban all the guns? No. Should we ban high capacity magazines to restrict the use of any particular firearm? No.
> 
> The whole word RESTRICT causes me to cringe. No more soda, no more salt, no more guns, no more "insert whatever here". This mentality in out country is ludicious. Our country needs to have a good long look at what is wrong with the society.
> 
> ...


Finally someone with common sense 
Great post young man


We as a nation have established sex education and drug education into school curriculum (both once taboo)
Why not firearm education as Finnyooper suggested?

Finnyooper's post would be a good letter to be sent to the offices of the President,Vice President and every member of the Senate and House.


----------



## silverfox (Feb 8, 2009)

Thanks to all of you that have exercised your right of free speech by participating in this forum topic. I will leave you with this. Is it legal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre if the theatre is really on fire? I certainly hope so.

Hope to see you at the Capitol tomorrow morning. Dress for the weather! If our brave troops can function and fight in 100+ degree temps I'm sure those that show up tomorrow can brave the cold in defense of the freedoms that they are risking their lives for.

God Bless America.


----------



## BirdyGSP (Aug 21, 2010)

fairfax1 said:


> *A post above references the weapons of 1776*:
> 
> _"Powerful?_
> _Cripe, have you seen what the old .52 up to.69 & .75 cal musket balls can do._
> ...


Your fallacy ridden ramblings are giving me a headache.
Did you actually suggest that we give up high capacity mags so that society can 'feel safer' or else? I have some bad news for you, our "gun violence problem" can't be solved no matter how many rights you take away or restrict. EVER. Violence is part of our nature, and more laws and government will not change that. I don't need an improved sense of safety. I'll take responsibility for my own safety by exercising my rights.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

_I don't need an improved sense of safety. I'll take responsibility for my own safety by exercising my rights._

OK, we all can admire the zeal of some of us who enjoy firearms. Self reliance is good. But please realize your individual safety is one thing, the safety of kids in school far removed from your protection, is another.

Does any Michigan gun owner believe weve seen the last of the Sandy Hooks, the Columbines?

Reflect on this: The current debate in the nations legislatures, even this march to Lansing, would be cast in an altogether different light if that student in Orlando on Monday would have accomplished what he intended with the tools he had at hand.

We gun owners dodged a bullet on that one.

But if not him, then it will be another. Sooner or later. The assaults will continue. There are enough _disturbed young men_ in our society, and enough accessible tools for them, that the two will eventually combine to bring catastrophe to another campus, another post office, another grade school.

We gun owners, and those who presume a leadership to speak for us, can rail about our rights loud & often. But until and unless the  _bear arms _component of the problem is openly engaged --- along with the _free_ _speech_ & _privacy_ portions ---- then we will continue to see more Virginia Techs, more out of control drunks shooting up a bar, more estranged boyfriends under Restraining Orders taking out the girl.

We gun owners and our leadership cannot, and must not, hide behind the mantra of _first, fix mental health_..then well talk about guns; or, _first, fix Hollywood_then well talk guns.

It is at least a three part conundrum..and all three rights must be put on the table and discussed by well-meaning parties who have a sincere sense of responsibility towards making our society safer. 

Guns ARE one part of the problem, whether the most zealous amongst want to accept it or not.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

The march just went past my office on Mich Ave. I have to say I am a supporter of the gun rights first and foremost. That being said I think it was a major mistake to have person after person walking down the street with AR-15's, AK-47's and M1 Garrands as well as all the handguns on the hip. I fear that will scare people and sway them to believe the liberals who say there is no need for these guns etc. I was shocked to see people with rifles slung over thier shoulder. Again, I support the 2nd ammendment but if I was downtown with my kids and saw that coming i would leave just my opinion. Bad move...

Ganzer


----------



## whitetailassassin (Oct 16, 2012)

MERGANZER said:


> The march just went past my office on Mich Ave. I have to say I am a supporter of the gun rights first and foremost. That being said I think it was a major mistake to have person after person walking down the street with AR-15's, AK-47's and M1 Garrands as well as all the handguns on the hip. I fear that will scare people and sway them to believe the liberals who say there is no need for these guns etc. I was shocked to see people with rifles slung over thier shoulder. Again, I support the 2nd ammendment but if I was downtown with my kids and saw that coming i would leave just my opinion. Bad move...
> 
> Ganzer


Bad move?

The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being..."
-- J.G.A. Pocock, describing the beliefs of the founders of the U.S.

Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.
-- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
-- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.
posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Yes bad move. I already stated what side I am on. Join the march, show support, carry a sign etc. Thats all fine but you must remember guns scare the crap out of a lot of people out there and especially right or wrong the AR-15 does even more so to those who dont understand. I personally didnt think it was necessary to walk with guns a block and a half from a high school. The libs try to make gun owners look nuts, well I cant say they didnt look a little off with the guns etc. And I am writing this after listening to fellow co-workers watching them go by.

Ganzer


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

The media will pick the most Gomer looking guy to interview, that will make the pro 2A people look bad...


----------



## Ggb (Mar 14, 2013)

fairfax1 said:


> *A post above references the weapons of 1776*:
> 
> _"Powerful?
> Cripe, have you seen what the old .52 up to.69 & .75 cal musket balls can do.
> ...


If it is true that the Bill of Rights does not GRANT us rights, but is the governments recognition that we already possess those rights (a stance which is defensible by reading the Founding Fathers), how does one justify allowing the government to limit those rights they did not grant? A right that can be taken away is not a right, it is a privilege and one retains said privilege through the arbitrary whim of the grantor. 

I guess my question is; are rights absolute and if not can they really be considered rights?


----------



## Tron322 (Oct 29, 2011)

Sounds like the safest part of the country to me, I will bet not one crime occurs with so many armed citizens.


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

Never felt "safer" in my life. Beats the heck out of union marchers or teachers. I saw no Michigan militia, just everyday citizens including men, women, children and grandparents. I was even able to visit with a few house members. I had a great time.


----------



## Billy_D (Feb 23, 2013)

da Appleknocker said:


> Never felt "safer" in my life. Beats the heck out of union marchers or teachers. I saw no Michigan militia, just everyday citizens including men, women, children and grandparents. I was even able to visit with a few house members. I had a great time.


near a thousand heavily armed citizens and no one went screaming in fear of thier lives, and all the evil black guns didnt come to life and murder people. In fact I dare say all the marchers stuck to the sidewalk as I noticed a few photographers were standing in the middle of the street walking backwards to get "that shot". The most well mannered group of "gun nuts" ive ever seen. Thanks to all who attended, to those that had excuses....


----------



## north_of_mackinaw (Sep 2, 2003)

fairfax1 said:


> _Please continue to let your representatives on the State and National level know that we will not tolerate any further attempts on our Rights._
> 
> ...attempts on our Rights ??
> 
> ...


Must be talking about a different M-1 than the one I inherited it has an 8rd magazine.


----------



## PWood (Aug 6, 2004)

MERGANZER said:


> The march just went past my office on Mich Ave. I have to say I am a supporter of the gun rights first and foremost. That being said I think it was a major mistake to have person after person walking down the street with AR-15's, AK-47's and M1 Garrands as well as all the handguns on the hip. I fear that will scare people and sway them to believe the liberals who say there is no need for these guns etc. I was shocked to see people with rifles slung over thier shoulder. Again, I support the 2nd ammendment but if I was downtown with my kids and saw that coming i would leave just my opinion. Bad move...
> 
> Ganzer


Ganzer, I respect your opinion, but mine differs from yours. "...if I was downtown with my kids and saw that coming i would" not hesitate to join them and explain to my kids that these people are exercising there God given rights, defined in the constitution, to freedom of speech and to keep and bear arms for the protection of themselves and their country.


----------



## Billy_D (Feb 23, 2013)

PWood said:


> Ganzer, I respect your opinion, but mine differs from yours. "...if I was downtown with my kids and saw that coming i would" not hesitate to join them and explain to my kids that these people are exercising there God given rights, defined in the constitution, to freedom of speech and to keep and bear arms for the protection of themselves and their country.


Ya you can tell by all the office workers that ran away screaming for thier lives, and the children in the car windows looking wide eyed saying "wow thats cool!" as they drove past. Legal gun owners are VERY responsible people by nature, we have gone through background checks, fingerprinting etc etc etc, and NONE of us have a criminal record. We are all hard working family people. You will notice the ONLY person that got arrested was an "anti" carrying a sign about being anti-violence, he attacked someone who took his picture... how ironic is that?


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

_"Must be talking about a different M-1 than the one I inherited it has an 8rd magazine."_

Duly noted, and a point well made. 

Let us agree then that an 8round maximum is all that can be allowed for civilians.


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

fairfax1 said:


> Let us agree then that an 8round maximum is all that can be allowed for civilians.


Let's not. But you are welcome to limit all of your arms to that size magazine.


----------



## Ggb (Mar 14, 2013)

MERGANZER said:


> Yes bad move. I already stated what side I am on. Join the march, show support, carry a sign etc. Thats all fine but you must remember guns scare the crap out of a lot of people out there and especially right or wrong the AR-15 does even more so to those who dont understand. I personally didnt think it was necessary to walk with guns a block and a half from a high school. The libs try to make gun owners look nuts, well I cant say they didnt look a little off with the guns etc. And I am writing this after listening to fellow co-workers watching them go by.
> 
> Ganzer


Just something to think about, my friend. Perhaps seeing a mass gathering of peaceful protestors armed to the teeth putting these weapons on display might actually allay some of the fears non-gun owners might have. I certainly don't know this for a fact, it's just speculation on my part.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Ggb said:


> Just something to think about, my friend. Perhaps seeing a mass gathering of peaceful protestors armed to the teeth putting these weapons on display might actually allay some of the fears non-gun owners might have. I certainly don't know this for a fact, it's just speculation on my part.


 
What do you say to the 7 schools that cancelled thier trip to tour the capital because of the armed people outside. Those trips are scheduled a year in advance. No make ups or rescheduling those kids lost out on learning anything pertaining to the constitution that day. For what???? The ban has been defeated.

Ganzer


----------



## Ggb (Mar 14, 2013)

MERGANZER said:


> What do you say to the 7 schools that cancelled thier trip to tour the capital because of the armed people outside. Those trips are scheduled a year in advance. No make ups or rescheduling those kids lost out on learning anything pertaining to the constitution that day. For what???? The ban has been defeated.
> 
> Ganzer


I would tell those involved with those seven schools that they are over reacting, succumbing to their emotions, not logic. After all, we are talking about entities that suspend kids for gun shaped pieces of paper or for chewing their sandwich in to the shape of a gun. Even if those kids had gone, they won't learn anything because our schools no longer educate, they indoctrinate. I don't blame the gun owners. I blame small minded school administrators. Those kids would have been safer at that rally than they would be at their schools. And maybe, just maybe, they would have found out that gun owners are not crazy, scary monsters, along with learning something about the Constitution, primarily the First Amendment, that part about the right to peaceably assemble and seek redress of grievances. After all, that has as much to do with the governmental process as a bunch of stuffed shirt legislators who are mostly out of touch with their constituents, puffing and preening like Banty roosters in search of a flattering sound bite for the evening news.


----------

