Hunting Forum

It's ok to use the other sites to send messages to the government, but anyone who isn't also making phone calls, sending letters as well as emails needs to start filling up these peoples phonelines, mail boxes and inboxes with their feelings on the issue of gun and ammo control and taxes or registration of guns. If all people do is send one email, that's not enough. These people are in the business of giving lip service and telling lies, not representing the people they represent. If they can't ignore use they may just decide to represent us. Be a thorn in their sides, tell them you are a voter, threaten their job if they don't support any issues that support all of our rights, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Tell them these documents were put in place to protect us from them, not for them to ignore or change to suit their personal views. I am tired of having to fight for my rights, and am contacting alll my state and federal politicians to tell them so. If not already doing so, support NRA ILA and other gun rights groups that support and lobby for our rights. It's time to quit sitting back and thinking someone else will do it, make sure friends and family are also contacting these people. We have to finish this battle now, not try to fight it after the fact. Posting on social sites isn't going to get the job done, they aren't reading our posts, and if they were it would mean nothing to them because it isn't directed to them only. Be courteous in your letters, but tell them what is expected from them, tell them you are a voter and their job is to represent you.
Steve Albers,
NAHC L.M., NRA, Patriot, Hunter and Bow Hunter Ed. Instructor

I've used petitions on the Ruger site, the NRA site, the Second Amendment site, the GOA site, Grassroots site,and about a dozen other petitions on facebook, as well as sent personal e-mails directly to my Senators and Reps, as well as the Governor and the state Senator and my district's rep. Every day, if I come across a different petition or letter writing campaign, I'm participating on them as well.

I hope everyone else is doing the same!!!!!

what he said good job now here is a guy that gets it

I applaude you RT, that's what it's going to take from all of us to make a difference. It is happening, but there are still a lot of people acting deaf and blind. Now is the time to sh*& or get off the pot, before they start coming for them. I don't care about what list i'm on, my rights won't be infringed on. I too contact them all regularly and from many different sources.

Just a Shotgunl


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..

Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't 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 Emneth, 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 shotguns..

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 Hungerfordmass 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 Dunblane , Scotland , 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 Dunblane 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 Martin's 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 Dunblane 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 AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.

You had better wake up, because Obama is doing this very same thing, over here, if he can get it done
The UN Small Arms Treaty that Hilary is negotiating would take away our 2nd Amendment rights.

And there are stupid people in congress and on the street that will go right along with him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just remember - the reason the Japanese didn't invade the USA is because they knew that Most
of the citizens were armed.

I signed Rugers and some other petitions. Also posted some of these links to facebook. Obama doesn't give a chit about us gun owners. From listening to him he wants you to believe that the public out cry for his agendais overwhelming. His using letters from children to push his agenda is outragous. Like a child can realize what the consiquences would really mean to their future.

I like healy's post about England. I fear that Obama's EO on gun owners keeping their guns safe, locked up in a gun safe could make us liable if we don't abide and one of our guns was ever stolen and used in a crime. I don't keep any guns loaded in my home for personal safety, but I would have a better chance in grabbing one out of my closet than I would in trying to get one out of a safe.

Since when Has Obama cared about the law it a bad thing to have someone making the rules up as they go

When I heard BO talk about keeping the guns out of the wrong hands, I though about the Fast and Furous operation, and how he is not puting hold in that catagory.

Three of his twenty three EOs signed yesterday are obviously unconstitutional. Appointing a head of the BATFE without Congressional authorization, expanding the CDC's powers beyond the scope of their charter without Congressional authorization, and overriding a provision of his own Affordable Health Care Bill, without Congressional authorization. Several weren't anything more than what the NRA has suggested for years, as far as enforcing the existing laws. The rest were policy statements that in effect lack any backing unless Congress actually adopts them as legislation and passes them in both houses. The worst part was in the continued misleading and false propaganda statements while using children to bolster his agenda.

Your right ckell he should practice what he preaches and now they are calling the NRA cowards for their ad using OB's kids his kid are no better than mine I want armed guards in their schools just like his

The man is despicable so I hope all the gun owners out there that voted for him are happy this is only the beginning

Liberal tactics use guilt, pity, and shame; if the other side uses your tactics, show them as mean hearted, uncaring, unreasonable. It would seem reasonable to inquire on the mental health in a background check. If any one suggest that it could be used the wrong way, is a back door to gun control, paint them as fear mongering.

As horrible as sandy hook was, as well as the others, they are still isolated events for the most part. It is not an everyday thing. A few days ago, 80+ students killed in a bombing in Syria, everybody kind of just blew that off as an everyday event in those countries, as it does seem to be. Using sandy hook as a way to get tougher gun control is just as much fear mongering as they portray the NRA and Pro-gun people to be.

here in Missouri a state rep is pushing a bill that would make it a felony for feds to take away a gun from a Missourian