# Stop the Gun Grabbers Now



## glenway (Mar 27, 2011)

Please join the New Mexico Conservative Activist Network's (NMCAN) effort to *oppose* H.R. 3999, which would "amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle.

The resolution is written with intentionally vague language so as to open the door to banning and/or confiscating anything related to semi-automatic firearms, e.g., detachable magazines. H.R. 3999 provides for retroactive penalties and has no grandfather clause.

Below is a link to your voice in the Whitehouse, where you will be able to sign the petition:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/do-not-pass-hr3999


----------



## youngdon (Mar 10, 2010)

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/do-not-pass-hr3999


----------



## youngdon (Mar 10, 2010)

Done !


----------



## kiyote (Jun 15, 2014)

done!

what part of , SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.... :frusty:


----------



## Mo Mo (Sep 16, 2016)

Although I agree that there is very vague language, and I also signed the petition, I will say, had this been better written and prohibiting the "bump fire" stock, I would not oppose this.

Civilians do not need automatic weapons. After serving my time in the service, automatic weapons are only for one purpose that cannot be argued. A bump fire stock is made for one purpose and one purpose only. No one needs a stock that "bump fires" the weapon to shoot as fast as a full auto. And no matter how someone wants to twist it, or how much they have convinced themselves otherwise, items like the "bump fire" stock do not and should not fall under the 2nd.

There is not a gun problem, more so a mental health problem. We already know that people will get guns where ever they can, but why give someone the ability to modify that firearm to shoot faster and be more destructive is beyond me and these items don't need to be in society.

"the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is very definitive. Does this mean that the right to have weapons shall not be infringed? Yes. Does that mean that the right to purchase a bump fire stock shall not be infringed? NO! Since the bump fire stock or any "upgrade" parts are not considered the firearm (part that goes bang and shoots the projectile), then the statement of "the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" would only fall to the actual firearm or "arms" as the accessories are just that and cannot function without the firearm. So for anyone who thinks that "parts or accessories" falls under the second amendment, you should probably re-evaluate your life's goals and get your sh*t together.

After spending time talking to a group of lobbyists for gun rights in the past week, some of who are trying to secure "constitutional carry", I was told that many overly excited outspoken pro 2nd amendment people are more likely to damage the pro gun movement and most times add fuel to the anti gun fire, then help it. We should all take that into consideration. We can tout "shall not be infringed" all we want and raise holy h3ll about or gun rights, but if we are negatively impacting those who lobby for our gun rights, are we really doing the right thing and supporting the cause?

Now I am sure, someone is going to jump on this post, bash and trash, and try to justify their argument. That would fall under the 1st.


----------



## youngdon (Mar 10, 2010)

What if a manufacturer makes a gun with the bumpstock permanently attached ?


----------



## 220swift (Mar 2, 2011)

pass all the laws you want, it will not stop an evil person from doing evil........


----------



## texaspredatorhunter (Aug 14, 2014)

220swift said:


> pass all the laws you want, it will not stop an evil person from doing evil........


Correct, it will just allow criminals, you know, the ones that don't follow laws now to do their thing a little easier!


----------



## Mo Mo (Sep 16, 2016)

youngdon said:


> What if a manufacturer makes a gun with the bumpstock permanently attached ?


Touche my good friend, touche. NFA item maybe. As the firearm would have been manufactured and sold with that accessory with the intent of that firearm to be able to mimic a full auto.


----------



## kiyote (Jun 15, 2014)

Im Your Huckleberry said:


> Although I agree that there is very vague language, and I also signed the petition, I will say, had this been better written and prohibiting the "bump fire" stock, I would not oppose this.
> 
> Civilians do not need automatic weapons. After serving my time in the service, automatic weapons are only for one purpose that cannot be argued. A bump fire stock is made for one purpose and one purpose only. No one needs a stock that "bump fires" the weapon to shoot as fast as a full auto. And no matter how someone wants to twist it, or how much they have convinced themselves otherwise, items like the "bump fire" stock do not and should not fall under the 2nd.
> 
> ...


I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU BUT I WILL RESPECT YOUR RIGHT to your opinion.

no ,perhaps I may not NEED ONE.

I don't own one and to tell the truth ,I have no desire to.

I do ,however , believe if someone WANTS one they have every right to do so.

IT IS ALSO ,MY BELIEF THAT ,if a criminal has payed their debt to society their gun rights should be restored.

I know many will not agree with this but if one CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO OBEY THE GUN LAWS they should not be allowed to roam free throughout society.

IT IS NOT THE GUN ,NOR THE PART THAT COMMITS THE MURDER. IT is the individual.

it simply is not possible to know who will or will not commit a crime. would be fantastic if it were possible but it is not.

the "rational "thing to do, is punish those who disobey the laws of the land. hold them accountable for their actions.makes no difference if "mommy"didn't give them the love they felt entitled to, or whatever the warped reasoning they have for killing.

to kill an innocent is akin to killing all of mankind, be it with a gun ,rope,bomb, bat,knife,truck, rock or the millions of other ways criminals have found to murder their prey.

there was a time our society understood that.

there is no such thing as "common sense" gun restrictions


----------



## texaspredatorhunter (Aug 14, 2014)

Im Your Huckleberry said:


> Although I agree that there is very vague language, and I also signed the petition, I will say, had this been better written and prohibiting the "bump fire" stock, I would not oppose this.
> 
> Civilians do not need automatic weapons. After serving my time in the service, automatic weapons are only for one purpose that cannot be argued. A bump fire stock is made for one purpose and one purpose only. No one needs a stock that "bump fires" the weapon to shoot as fast as a full auto. And no matter how someone wants to twist it, or how much they have convinced themselves otherwise, items like the "bump fire" stock do not and should not fall under the 2nd.
> 
> ...


You defined it as written. "Keep and bear arms". Arms does not refer just to firearms. Arms would be any and all form of weoponry. Do I agree that average civilians don't need full auto, sure, but the 2nd wasn't written for hunting and target practice, it was written for The People, that's all of us Americans as a whole , to defend ourselves not only from invaders but also from the government. So if I choose to own and possess a full auto rifle or pistol or M2, it's my right to do so. Your so concerned about these mass shootings that take place where guns are not even allowed but fail to realize people that think like you are the ones who created these killing fields called gun free zones. Chicago has countless murders with pistols and you can't have one there! So before you go telling people to reevaluate their lives and get their sh*t together, maybe you should become more educated in the subject.


----------



## Mo Mo (Sep 16, 2016)

texaspredatorhunter said:


> You defined it as written. "Keep and bear arms". Arms does not refer just to firearms. Arms would be any and all form of weoponry. Do I agree that average civilians don't need full auto, sure, but the 2nd wasn't written for hunting and target practice, it was written for The People, that's all of us Americans as a whole , to defend ourselves not only from invaders but also from the government. So if I choose to own and possess a full auto rifle or pistol or M2, it's my right to do so. Your so concerned about these mass shootings that take place where guns are not even allowed but fail to realize people that think like you are the ones who created these killing fields called gun free zones. Chicago has countless murders with pistols and you can't have one there! So before you go telling people to reevaluate their lives and get their sh*t together, maybe you should become more educated in the subject.


Now, now, don't fret! I said nothing about any mass shootings or even mentioned one. But since you feel like bringing it up and if you were more educated on this issue, you would know that the Vegas shooting was perpetrated more than 400 yards away from the venue....not a gun free zone. The recent Texas church mass shooting....not a gun free zone. Nightclub shooting...not a gun free zone. The Aurora theater....not a gun free zone. The recent wal mart shooting...not a gun free zone. With that being said, your Chicago rebuttal is pointless. Get your sh*t together. :thumbsup:


----------



## kiyote (Jun 15, 2014)

so, should there be a limit on what one can own??

I think NO !

TANK, MISSILE LAUNCHER, HOW ABOUT A NUKE??? where would you all draw the line?

THE CONSTITUTION says we have the RIGHT to own em all if we want to.

I would , say we do have the right. though very few of us could afford to do so.

and sure ,one could wreak some serious havok with such things but if one were really of a mind to do so, they are gonna find a way to do so anyhow.

why do we trust our government with such things when we cannot even trust our own neighbors???


----------



## Mo Mo (Sep 16, 2016)

My goal here was not piss anyone off. Stir the pot I did a little. But hey, I got a conversation started.

I'm all for owning whatever arms you want. In fact, I never said that people should not be allowed to own full auto weapons. It's hard for someone to read what is written, when that person has such blinding haste to tell someone they are wrong because the subject matter directly involves an issue that they are very passionate about and are unwilling to think any differently.

I love you Cat


----------



## texaspredatorhunter (Aug 14, 2014)

Im Your Huckleberry said:


> Now, now, don't fret! I said nothing about any mass shootings or even mentioned one. But since you feel like bringing it up and if you were more educated on this issue, you would know that the Vegas shooting was perpetrated more than 400 yards away from the venue....not a gun free zone. The recent Texas church mass shooting....not a gun free zone. Nightclub shooting...not a gun free zone. The Aurora theater....not a gun free zone. The recent wal mart shooting...not a gun free zone. With that being said, your Chicago rebuttal is pointless. Get your sh*t together. :thumbsup:


The aurora movie theater did not allow firearms on their premises make no it gun free. The concert goers were not allowed to have guns making it gun free. 1050 FEET equals 350 YARDS which is 50 yards less than 400 and not beyond 400. The club in Orlando is gun free by state law. So like I said get educated, I have my sh*t together, so pound sand.


----------



## texaspredatorhunter (Aug 14, 2014)

Im Your Huckleberry said:


> My goal here was not piss anyone off. Stir the pot I did a little. But hey, I got a conversation started.
> 
> I'm all for owning whatever arms you want. In fact, I never said that people should not be allowed to own full auto weapons. It's hard for someone to read what is written, when that person has such blinding haste to tell someone they are wrong because the subject matter directly involves an issue that they are very passionate about and are unwilling to think any differently.
> 
> I love you Cat


Read the second paragraph of your original post. You said" civilians do not need fully automatic weapons". Ring a bell? Crawfish much?


----------



## Mo Mo (Sep 16, 2016)

texaspredatorhunter said:


> The aurora movie theater did not allow firearms on their premises make no it gun free. The concert goers were not allowed to have guns making it gun free. 1050 FEET equals 350 YARDS which is 50 yards less than 400 and not beyond 400. The club in Orlando is gun free by state law. So like I said get educated, I have my sh*t together, so pound sand.


Here we go again.....

As if the concert goers could have returned fire...with a concealed handgun.

Yeah, you're a math wizard. 350 yards to 400 yards, the crime was perpetrated well out of the area of the concert.

The club in orlando was shot up from the front door as the perp was not attending the venue before perpetrating the crime.

Aurora theater was not a gun free zone as you may think as in order to be a gun free zone, signage needs to be displayed, which were never before the shooting happened.

Educate your self, get your sh*t together. Tag you're it.


----------



## Mo Mo (Sep 16, 2016)

texaspredatorhunter said:


> Read the second paragraph of your original post. You said" civilians do not need fully automatic weapons". Ring a bell? Crawfish much?


If you would actually read the information...I said "Civilians don't *need* automatic weapons". Again I never said that they *shouldn't* own one. That is two different things.

After you get your sh*t together, you can teach me how to crawfish. Tag, you're it again.


----------



## texaspredatorhunter (Aug 14, 2014)

Yes master. I’ll get right on that. I’ll go get educated right now. Your like a petulant child. God bless.


----------



## Mo Mo (Sep 16, 2016)

Texas, let's stop the bickering. We shall agree to disagree on this subject, but I look forward to future discussions with you. I have extended the olive branch.


----------



## youngdon (Mar 10, 2010)

Thank you for the act of civility Huck. 
You know it's funny that as pro second amendment people we sure do argue amongst ourselves about the rights we have and where the limits should be as much as the libs argue with us. Let's remember we're all on the same side in the end.


----------



## Ruger (Jan 22, 2011)

AH, HECK, People wanna argue about whether they have the right or need to have this gun or that gun and they all know that they're not gonna change anyone's mind, but it's still fun to stir the pot. As far as I'm concerned I'm hoping to get a little time off of work and maybe get the chance to hunt a few coyotes and share my results with the members here, despite what firearms I might or might not have. 
That's what Predator Talk was meant to be.


----------



## glenway (Mar 27, 2011)

"Civilians do not *need* automatic weapons." My antenna always goes up when someone injects the word "need."

We don't need a lot of things like ice cream, 700 horsepower Corvettes, and bubble baths to name a few; need is irrelevant, and thus the idea to justify need is bogus.

But, in the event of the unthinkable, as played out in the little church in Texas, I'd want - and, maybe even *need -* a firearm that could trump the bad guy(s), if I were the one to confront the bastages.

But, please remember, gents, that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to protect individuals from our own government. Did we forget that part of "shall not be infringed?"

When the Bill of Rights were ratified, there was no resistance to the language from liberals or conservatives. The word "need" is nowhere to be found.


----------



## kiyote (Jun 15, 2014)

not stirring the pot , merely asking a serious question, so, again I ask, WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE? how much firepower is TO MUCH? how do we decide as a society ? and why do most believe our neighbors cannot be trusted but are so willing to trust an untrustworthy government?

my earlier post says my beliefs. what are yours(all forum members)???

to me, SHALL NOT INFRINGE , means just that. SHALL NOT!

no need to bicker. just state what your opinion is on subject. I feel no great urge to sway ones mind, just curious as to what all your thoughts are on subject.


----------



## youngdon (Mar 10, 2010)

I agree "SHALL NOT" is what the founding fathers meant. Nothing less. 
The Feds have of course tampered with it a bit through the years. You can own a fully automatic if you jump through the right hoops. Same with a "silencer". Will they add the bumpstocks to the list ?


----------



## azpredatorhunter (Jul 24, 2012)

I signed it...

INFRINGE :

* actively break the terms of ( a law, agreement etc ).

* act so as to limit or undermine ( something ) encroach on.


----------



## glenway (Mar 27, 2011)

That's what I was thinking, YD. Add it to the NFA list.

But, does anyone recall how the common American law-abiding citizen lost the right to defend himself with one of the best close-quarters combat firearms ever: the sawed off shotgun? I guess we don't need those either, right? Even though the bad guys don't hesitate to use them in certain situations. Or, maybe that's just the movies.

Oh, and so many hoops. When the all-knowing Feds say jump, the good guys only ask how high. Not exactly what the designers of our Constitution had in mind.

It resembles our military's level of restraint displayed with the inane hoops of the "rules of engagement." The enemy laughs. So do the home-grown bad guys. That's why we call them bad guys. They don't play by the same rules.

Think about this: Whatever gets banned, (and, in some unexplained way gets eliminated) it would naturally make whatever is left the most dangerous firearm in the eyes of the gun grabbers. Logic dictates for them to keep going until there are no more guns. But, nobody ever seems to explain how they'll get the bad guys to give up their tools of their trades. When they do that, the tool makers will rule the world.

As far as what we could be trusted to have? Just about everything the G men and women say we can't. That's as far as I'm going right now.


----------



## kiyote (Jun 15, 2014)

we have been programed our entire lives to believe compromise is good.

IT IS NOT GOOD!

we ARE the nation willing to sell our freedom for security and because we are so weak on principle ,we will soon lose both.

the way a nation loses it's freedom is when it's fellow citizens strip the rights of others ,merely because they themselves don't care to exercise those rights.

that, in a nutshell , is the spirit behind , no one NEEDS.


----------



## Eyeman (Oct 14, 2017)

Im Your Huckleberry said:


> Although I agree that there is very vague language, and I also signed the petition, I will say, had this been better written and prohibiting the "bump fire" stock, I would not oppose this.
> 
> Civilians do not need automatic weapons. After serving my time in the service, automatic weapons are only for one purpose that cannot be argued. A bump fire stock is made for one purpose and one purpose only. No one needs a stock that "bump fires" the weapon to shoot as fast as a full auto. And no matter how someone wants to twist it, or how much they have convinced themselves otherwise, items like the "bump fire" stock do not and should not fall under the 2nd.
> 
> ...


Agree100%. If someone wants a full auto let them go through the proper channels

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kiyote (Jun 15, 2014)

just saw on tucker carlson.... gabby gifford has a bill to stop the violence by banning all muzzleloaders.

would be the funniest thing I ever heard if her ignorance wasn't so truly frightening.


----------



## glenway (Mar 27, 2011)

Yes, it's true! Funny thing, though. Never saw a muzzleloader with a sound suppressor built right in, or even one with a threaded barrel, but maybe they are out there. Never saw a sound suppressor that could be purchased online without credentials, at least. But, my previous point is made clear by the gun grabbers: To them, there is no such thing as a good gun.

This text is from Giffords (the new name of Gabby Giffords gun control group):

_The group views the centuries-old firearms technology, which was rendered obsolete shortly after the Civil War due to advancements in self-contained ammunition cartridges and semi-automatic; self-loading firearms, as dangerous because a silencer can legally be attached to it without the paperwork or tax stamp associated with other firearms silencers._

_"Cue the .50 caliber muzzleloader, which delivers a particularly lethal .50 caliber round," the report said. "This weapon is designed with a built-in device to suppress its sound. If any other firearm were built with such a device, it would be subject to the NFA as a silencer. But since this device is designed to suppress the sound of something that is exempt from federal firearms laws, it is not considered a silencer and not subject to the NFA. In fact, it is not subject to any laws at all and can be bought online."_

_The group called on Congress to take action and pass new laws restricting muzzleloaders and the other products outlined in the report._


----------



## texaspredatorhunter (Aug 14, 2014)

This is the muzzleloader they are throwing a fit about:

https://silencerco.com/maxim50/

CNN had a huge fit about it too. It's nothing new that muzzleloaders have never required a background check so why now are they crying.


----------



## youngdon (Mar 10, 2010)

Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## glenway (Mar 27, 2011)

I stand educated even more, thanks to the link from Texaspredatorhunter. So, there you have it - a suppressed muzzleloader sure to be the next mass murder tool of choice.

Like I mentioned, there are no good guns in the eyes of the gun grabbers and they'll not stop their antics.


----------



## kiyote (Jun 15, 2014)

texaspredatorhunter said:


> This is the muzzleloader they are throwing a fit about:
> 
> https://silencerco.com/maxim50/
> 
> CNN had a huge fit about it too. It's nothing new that muzzleloaders have never required a background check so why now are they crying.


cool !

I didn't want one ...but now I do


----------



## kiyote (Jun 15, 2014)

glenway said:


> I stand educated even more, thanks to the link from Texaspredatorhunter. So, there you have it - a suppressed muzzleloader sure to be the next mass murder tool of choice.
> 
> Like I mentioned, there are no good guns in the eyes of the gun grabbers and they'll not stop their antics.


next time the libs set up a mass shooting event,to help push forth their agenda, we can only hope the muzzleloader is their go to weapon.lol.


----------



## prairiewolf (Feb 19, 2012)

Ok, I have sit back and read everything, this is my take on it. I will possess any dam weapon I want.


----------



## texaspredatorhunter (Aug 14, 2014)

I’m with ya PW.


----------



## knapper (Feb 5, 2010)

I saw a muzzle loader rifle with a built on suppressor the other day and I could not believe that it existed.


----------



## azpredatorhunter (Jul 24, 2012)

Correct me if I am wrong... Gabriel Giffords carried a concealed handgun before she was shot in Tucson. She was also pro gun to a degree....Obviously someone is exploiting her, I won't say any names but I am sure that short little bald bastard has something to do with it.. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see she's not the same upstairs.


----------



## youngdon (Mar 10, 2010)

Agreed ! Great references AZP


----------

