I saw this on Armslist.com yesterday and thought what a great idea. Ruger set up a site to sign a petition for people to express their ideas on gun control. By filling it out they will send a copy to the president and legislators that are in charge of the area where the sender is from. This may be our last ditch effort to be represented by putting pressure on the people who will make these changes. Many politions are now sitting on the fence with this issue and if this gets enough attention maybe we can sway them to our side and save our rights. Don

http:www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeaction.html

Sorry copied address wrong, try this.

http:www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html

Great post. Won't allow me to enter an APO address, but additionally there are other places that support our rights. I am not so sure the NRA is one of them, but:
https://www.facebook.com/rmgofb

http://www.nationalgunrights.org

What they are trying to pull is only the first step, make no mistake. Ask the countries who've gone down this road if it worked. Australia, Great Britain etc. Crime rates have risen since their bans. Go figure.

How accurate the info is, I don't know, but take it with a grain of salt, but I read that Australia's gun associated murder rate rose by more than 100% after their gun ban went into effect. Fight folks, that's all I can say. Fight.

New York has already taken the first step to ban weapons. They will now require a background check to buy ammo... AND, If you have a type of assualt rifle , as a law abiding citizen, you must register it with local law enforcement within the first year...

JD the NRA certainly isn't perfect and I don't agree with some of their philosophies but with out them I think we would have already lost what we are fighting for now. Their endorsement of political candidates who are gun friendly and court challenges to gun ban laws has kept our rights so far. It's these polititions that are under pressure now to side with the gun banners to start the process of total gun control. The general public only hears what the national media wants them to hear and all that info is how much better off we would be without guns. I by no means want to start a political debate on whats right or wrong but am simply stating that if we are to defend our gun rights we only have a small window of time before we are run over with controls that went un opposed because people didn't speak up when they had the chance.

Justin, thanks for the clarification, I had actually read that from 2 sources within the last month, I don't remember where they were, so my "grain of salt" addendum. I don't think that conversations like this are bad so long as people know and understand what they are actually talking about. You get talking heads like Piers Morgan who have no right, nor the knowledge of what they are talking about, and that is when things get out of hand. Kind of like a blanket statement that Morgan recently stated that all semi-automatic weapons need to be banned. Well, that involves double action revolvers too. People need to understand what they are saying. Taking away the 2nd Amendment is just as bad as taking away the 1st.

No worries, and I always appreciate folks who state "hey, this is what I heard" instead of "hey, I know this is absolute fact". I really like talking about this stuff, and appreciate those who can talk about politics in a civil, respectful way. I don't ever expect to change anyone's mind, but I usually learn something valuable. I completely agree that many people (on both sides), especially the talking heads, could stand to do some reading up before opening their mouths. Frankly, I'm a little baffled by the complete and total freak-out our country is having about firearms and mass shootings. If we're going to enact firearms laws that have an actual effect we's need to be addressing handgun violence between people who know each other. As scary as mass shootings are, you're roughly a zillion times more likely to get shot by someone who knows you than in a robbery or other random event. Even then, the risk of getting shot to death is pretty low. For many age categories you're about twice as likely to get killed in an auto wreck than you are to get killed by a firearm, including accidental deaths and suicides.

I usually don't jump in on these type of posts, but I lived in England 5 years. I loved it, but it's not the Utopia Piers Morgan makes it out to be. Check out the facts listed in the clip below.

http://www.fox19.com/category/240225/vi ... Id=8153082

I feel horrible for the families in CT and am a father of 4 young children myself. However, the solutions offered today aren't common sense. They are knee jerk, feel good solutions that ignore the overwhelming evidence; the majority of mass shootings occur via the mentally ill.

Our founding fathers were wise beyond their years and many of them would be absolutely opposed to what the govt is trying to do now.

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

This scares the hell out of me. I no longer believe we live in a "Free" country. Our govt has already proven they will step over the bounds. It's getting too big, with too many perks and costing all us tax payers dearly. The inability for far too many voters to think for themselves and vote based on color, or if they speak well, or whatever, is disastrous to our country. I can respect someone who votes differently than I if that person is truly voting on what they believe and put a lot of thought into it.

Ultimately more gun control is NOT the answer. There is resounding evidence of such. More guns in the hands of responsible people does, but that doesn't fit our govt. agenda to make us sheeple.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

I don't care about one side or the other. I grew up with guns, but the wife went to school in boulder...so I had to sell em all. To the gun control people...you can't ban them because there are already to many in circulation and dammit if someone has a gun you need a gun to defend yourself. To the the anti-guncontrol people....fine new people to represent you cause the squeaky wheels you have on the front lines representing you are nut jobs. How about repealing all the restrictions placed on the atf the nra snuck in under the patriot act and let people enforce existing gun laws...then maybe something can be accomplished without any new restrictions?

To the crazy gun owners...no one is going to take your guns away..there are no black helicopters, you don't have to fight a war and if you did it would be due to a zombie apocalypse not due to an impotent government. Own guns, but with common sense.... you don't need to buy all the ammo off the shelves at Walmart every time someone mentions banana clips and assault weapons. Remember that when founding fathers wrote it all up they had black powder muskets...so maybe a semi automatic with a clip that o my holds 11 rounds still meets the spirit of the right, eh? Besides if the government really wanted to take you down that pea shooter, fully auto or not would be nothing against the fully armored might of the us military.

Justin - good reply.

I wanted to point out that you are ok with competent people owning firearms; as I am. You also mention that we as a collective people put these officials in power by voting them in. So is there anything wrong with me saying I don't have a problem with those same competent people voting and only those people? Voting is a right just as bearing arms. There are millions and millions of incompetent people voting and that's leading us the direction we are headed. There are so many who have rec'd handouts from the govt and they certainly don't want that to change. They don't want to get a job and contribute to society instead of being a drain on it. So they are the ones keeping the folks in office that are there now. There are times people or families need help, but there needs to be morals for that person to do the right thing and get back to the work force if at all possible.

As far as Britain and Australia freedoms being impinged - look at the crime rates involving firearms. From what I have seen, nearly all have risen across the board on both countries. Why? Because the criminals who don't care about laws or gun restrictions see an unarmed society as an easy target.

This is a hard subject because everyone has a strong opinion. But it is an important one nonetheless.

"There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics." I agree that the numbers can be bent any number of ways, and that the reality is almost impossible to find. I also agree that the country is trending more to the left than it has over the past 10 years. I think it's cyclical, and that it'll continue to swing left for awhile, go farther than the majority wants, and trend back again in 5-10 years. We're still well right of where we were during the Clinton years, especially on gun control. I suspect that some major gaffes by individual Republicans combined with a public perception that the party as a whole is ridgid and unwilling to negotiate has cost a number of votes. An unwillingness to work together by members of either party drives me nuts. Despite leaning pretty left, I'd vote for a moderate Republican if I though they'd work in a common-sense, bipartisan way, and I won't vote for Dems that won't talk either.

HIX, well put. I'm curious to know if Wayne LaPierre understands how rabid he looks to some of us. I suspect that someone with the same opinions but a gentler touch would accomplish more.

I've got some pretty strong opinions on this subject, as some of you might imagine. I have refrained, thus far, from replying to this thread because the idea of written debate makes me want to slam my head in to a wall repeatedly. Its the actual writing, second guessing, rewriting, editing, submitting, regretting, etc. that drives me absolutely mad.

Anywho, know that this thread and the posts contained within have served as fuel for many a spirited debate within my office over the last week. Kudos to those on all sides for your civility as well as your content.

We'll have to hash it out over a beer one of these days. I'd love to hear your take on it.

Just one snippet.

National firearms registry.
Most in the anti-gun control lobby will cry fowl and run screaming when you mention this. I'm not opposed to one. Think of this, every time you purchase a firearm through a retailer or FFL holder, you fill out an ATF form 4473. This is the standard firearms transaction form. This form is sent to the ATF and other law enforcement agencies for your background check, etc. So, if everyone in the country is already submitting paperwork to the ATF when they purchase a new gun, then why is creating a national registry such a big deal? They already have a record of your purchases.

The Gun Show Loophole.
Let's call it what it really is, the Personal Transaction Loophole. There is no means to attend a gun show and buy a firearm from a dealer without filling out a form 4473. It's how FFL holders are able to keep their licenses. The label Gun Show is applied because gun shows just happen to be that one place where people seeking firearms congregate. Obviously, two people, one selling a firearm (who is not an FFL holder) and another looking to purchase a firearm, who happen to meet up at a gun show and agree to make a transaction are currently not bound by federal law to process this type of paperwork, and this is where the "loophole" comes in to play.

National/State Firearms License.
If you want to drive a car in this country, you have to have a license to do so. If you want to sell pot in Colorado, you have to have a license. If you want to VOTE in this country, you have to be registered. So, why not have a license to own firearms? Because it's a constitutional right and should not require someone to register? Well, voting is also a constitutional right and it requires people to register to do so.

So, let's combine these three talking points in to one proposed solution.
1) Require anyone wishing to own firearms to first attend a firearm's safety course/firearm's policy course. Beyond the obvious safety measures associated with owning firearms, instruction is also provided on how to legally transfer ownership from sellers to buyers.
2) Require that new firearms purchased under a license by registered owners be added to the license/account of the registered owner.
3) Require that firearms transferred from one owner to another be subject to the same procedures as a new purchase made from an FFL.
4) Make the possession of firearms by unlicensed individuals a class 1 felony under both state and federal laws, punishable by up to, say, 15 years in prison.

I cannot buy a car in this country without filing paperwork with the state, whether it be from a dealer or an individual. I cannot operate a car in this country without registering it with the state. And even once registered, I still must possess a valid license to operate it.

I just spent an hour writing out a lengthy response to this only to have it lost when I hit submit because it took so long to write that my session expired. I will try and rewrite it in a bit, but bottom line is I was proposing a structured level of gun owner licenses.

Just an FYi when an FFL submits your background check all the ffl is required to enter is if its a long gun or pistol. The FFL holder is required to keep the serial number. make and model of your purchase. The FFL is required to hold these records for 20years and after 20 years from the purchase date the FFL can discard the information. The Only time this info goes to the BATF is if the FFL expires or the BATF request the info. So in theory All your new purchases are not registered.

I personally dont like the registration idea. The government doesn't need to know what I own or how many.

Magpul has announced that if the high capacity magazine ban is voted in to effect in Colorado that they will leave the state and take all manufacturing and jobs with it.

That is horrible, especially for the people losing jobs, but that is one way to make a statement and take a stand.

Just a few opinions here:

#1 There are no shortage of laws on the books regarding firearms that are not enforced or are poorly already. Adding any new ones seems redundant and reactionary and will not solve anything.

#2 Personal transfer of firearms - the so called "gun show loophole" should not be regulated or recorded in any way. For example, my wife and sons gave me a 22 lever action riffle for Christmas 2 years ago. She is the registered owner of said gun. If some day I should decide to pass this gun on to my heirs, it should not be recorded. The government does not need to know every single thing in my life.

#3 a firearms registry of all new firearm purchases (and those that they can include from past transactions) is just fine. And if a gun owner sells or transfers a gun from his possession, he can have that gun removed from the registry by providing proof that he did in fact transfer it. All persons who wish to own a firearm in this country should have to go through a training course (like hunters do) and posses a firearms license. Part of this course might include some mental health evaluation though I have not yet figured out how that will work.

#4 Large and / or unusual purchases of ammo should also be registered. Yeah - maybe I am sponsoring a skeet shooting team and wish to order all the ammo in one purchase for a whole year. And that is easy to explain. It is not unlawful to make such a purchase, just that someone should look into it.

#5 As far as "assault weapons" being banned. That is a bunch of crap, same with the large capacity magazines. Any person with a semi auto hand gun with a 9 round mag that came that way from the factory could do the same damage just by having a few more spare mags. If you pull the trigger one time and one bullet comes out the barrel, then it is no different. My previously mentioned .22 has an 18 round mag. and looks like the old guns. It is a lever action rifle. Not quite as fast as a semi auto but still, could do plenty of damage. My next one will be a 30-30 and by the standards I hear tossed around, it would also be considered an assault rifle.

now I am not a gun collector, gun nut or 2nd amendment guy. I have only one gun that I play with, it is that .22. I have a 7mm magnum I hunt with and a 12g pump I hunt with as well. No hand guns. But I will go to bat with anyone who wants to defend the right to own them. Just as I will go to bat for the right to own and drive our older, less efficient vehicles. And I will always go to bat against the government adding regulations to limit our rights.