Skip to comments.Protect Your Rights
Posted on 01/12/2013 3:19:34 PM PST by FR_addict
I am a law-abiding citizen and responsible gun owner.
I am saddened by the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut, but I believe that efforts to impose new restrictions on me and other lawful and responsible owners like me are misguided. Did you know that violent crime with firearms has declined since the Federal "assault weapons ban" expired in 2004?
Your focus should be on strengthening mental health care and improving the quality of data supporting NICs checks (National Instant Criminal Background Check System). Do NOT pass more gun laws; instead, work to enforce the more than 20,000 gun laws already on the books.
I am your constituent and I vote. Please represent me.
Sincerely, (Your Name)
(Excerpt) Read more at ruger.com ...
The "People Have Taken Action" is increasing quickly. Right now it is 44452. Ruger says they are not using your info for anything other than legislative action.
"Press 'Submit' and we will prepare the letter below, in your name to the President, Vice-President, your Senators, Representative, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, State-Level Elected Officials and State Attorney General."
It’s a step in the right direction for Ruger after they threw the 2nd Amendment under the bus to give themselves a boost by helping the 1994 semi auto ban pass.
They have a long way to go before I’ll buy any Ruger product. If they want the support of a lot of good people out here, they’ll work to repeal the Hughes Amendment.
Until that point, I’m avoiding buying any new Ruger guns.
They are up to 45788 now.
Background checks are an onerous and totally ineffective burden on gun owners.
I doubt if any criminal was ever stopped from obtaining a gun and using it in a crime by them. They might stop him from getting one legally but they are a pain in the neck for ordinary citizens.
Several years ago, I somehow got on the FBI’s list because they kept delaying approval. they would always eventually approve the sale but often I had to drive a long way to get the gun. I am sure it kept me from purchasing guns on several occasions just because I didn’t want to go through the process.
I have noticed in the last few years there is no longer a delay. BTW I have a perfect record. Never tried or convicted of anything. I haven’t even had a speeding ticket in over 20 years.
You’re aware, of course, that (the late) Bill Ruger was the one calling the shots for Ruger in 1994?
One representative is trying to get a background check that includes visits to your home and a mental health exam.
A Democratic state assemblywoman, Angelica Jimenez, has proposed that all new gun buyers in New Jersey undergo a mental health evaluation and home inspection first.
“Jimenez (D-West New York) filed legislation Wednesday that would require gun buyers in her state to present the results of a mental health examination before purchasing a weapon and that would direct police officers to inspect the buyer's home to determine if the gun would be kept away from children and the mentally ill. Jimenez's measure, if passed, would likely be the first of its kind in the country.”
How about a “Million Mag March” on DC.
1million patriots show up in DC with high cap mags...
We’ve been waiting for someone to organize it. I think a million people would go.
Also, needs to be one going to Albany. New York is getting ready to be the first in the nation. And they are going to make it retroactive. What was legal will be illegal and you will be a felon if you don’t hand over your legally purchased property.
Pro 2nd Amendment Rally at State Capitols Across the Nation January 19th at Noon
8,000 more in about an hour!
Action Alert: Whether the Semi-Auto Ban Passes May Depend on What Happens to the Senate Rules
I have little doubt it will pass in the Senate.
I am hoping the Republicans in the House will not betray us. They may need to be reminded of 1994.
And that matters why? Ruger, the company, has done nothing to make up for that. Yeah, Bill Ruger died, big deal. Now, the company needs to set things right.
I think Ruger’s Son runs the company now but am not sure.
Whoever is running it has gotten more second amendment friendly. Ruger is now selling high capacity mags for the mini-14 in it’s various versions. I think Bill Ruger would only sell them to the police and military.
There have been other things which for some reason I can’t recall right now but Ruger is much better than they were.
First, there are already more than 20,000 gun control laws actively on the books today and none of them prevented this tragedy. Second, millions upon million of people in America own guns and 99.9999% of them have never and will never do anything like this.
So, lets lose the hysteria and analyze the facts - a PERSON did this, NOT a hunk of steel. In Portland, a PERSON killed two people in the mall, NOT a hunk of steel! In Denver, a PERSON shot up the theater, NOT a hunk of steel!!
NONE of these facts will matter to the gun-grabbing nanny-staters, because they focus solely on the gun and nothing else. So, what happens if ALL guns are outlawed and forcibly collected by the feds? Someone bent on committing mass murder may turn to knives, hatchets, chainsaws or machetes. So, we outlaw those. The next person to commit a heinous crime may use a bat, poison, poison gas or a semi-tractor. And the one after that may use a car, a pen or pencil, a rock, his hands . . . . . . so when do we blame the PERSON and NOT the inanimate weapon!???
The fact remains that until the left understands that murdering humans by ANY means including their favorite method, abortion, human life will be valueless and more copycats will come out to exercise their demented mass murder of innocent people.
All of that said, it occurs to me that the gun-grabbers are from the leftist school of complete control. What that means is that if 1 person commits a gun crime then, under the leftist theory of the “collective” and “groupthink”, they believe that ALL gun owners will commit mass murder unless they eliminate guns (good luck with that!). So, the calls for more gun control by the left after these incidents is twofold - eliminate the “balance of power” the Founding Fathers so carefully wove into the Constitution and gain total control over the people.
Another part that affects all of this is the fact that laws, whether gun laws, robbery laws, or whatever, are written solely to affect law-abiding citizens. People who commit crimes are called “outlaws” and criminals because they DON’T adhere to the laws created to control or stop their illegal activities.
So, should the left create additional gun control laws, will it prevent the next gun-related crime? Of course not. Laws only affect those of us who obey them. Those who disregard the law won’t be stopped from committing whatever crime they want to commit.
As a final note, Adam Lanza did not own the guns he used to murder all of the people at Sandy Hook Elementary. They were his mother’s guns and they were all legally purchased and registered. Which begs the question, what will any NEW gun control laws accomplish?
Might end up being a (to quote Plugs Biden) BFD...
You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.
At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.
You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.
In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar.
When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.
The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door And lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years Before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless...
Yours was never registered.
Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder And Illegal Possession of a Firearm.
When you talk to your attorney, he tells You not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
“What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask.”Only ten-to-twelve years,”he replies, as if that’s nothing.
“Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”
The next day, the shooting is the lead Story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.
Their friends and relatives can’t find
An unkind word to say about them...
Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times.
But the next day’s headline says it all:
“Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.”
The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters...
As the days wear on, the story takes wings.The national media picks it up, Then the international media.
The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing To sue you and he’ll probably win.
The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack Of effort in apprehending the suspects.
After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.
The District Attorney uses this to allege That you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial.
The charges haven’t been reduced,
As your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at The injustice of it all works against you...
paint a picture of you As a mean, vengeful man. It doesnt take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Enmesh, Norfolk, England,
killed one burglar and wounded a second.
In April, 2000, he was convicted And is now serving a life term...
How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.
This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to
minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license...
The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after
the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.
Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone
he saw.When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions.
(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dubliner, Scotland, and Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and
a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals.
Now the press had a real
kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.
Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total
ban on all handguns.
The Dubliner Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the
few sidearms still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen
as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.
Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”
All of Martins neighbors had been robbed numerous times,
and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.
Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dubliner Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns
were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.
Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.
The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply.
Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns?
The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA;
THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND
“...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds...
think this is important, Please
forward to everyone you know.
Thanks for the story!
up to 213,531!
New York especially, call your representatives. They are meeting behind closed doors and don’t sounds like they are going to abide by the three day rule for posting a bill before voting on it!