Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Rather than wait for the new Congress to be installed in January, President Obama decided to press forward for the Senate confirmation of Andrew Traver for Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Traver’s most obvious link to those opposed to Second Amendment rights is through his “Summit Membership” in the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). Following their Great Lakes States Summit on Gun Violence in April of 2007, the IACP published its report “Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities.” Included in its many recommendations were the following:

- Establish a “best practices" protocol for voluntary gun surrender programs
- Destroy all firearms that come into the possession of any law enforcement agency (even if such firearms were initially stolen and then recovered)
- Track and follow all private gun sales in a national data base with a mandatory background check on the purchaser
- Limit the sale of “multiple handguns”
- Mandate a “ballistic fingerprint” for every gun that is sold
- Require that every gun come with a lock
- Require that every owner provide for a federally regulated “safe storage” for his weapons, and “prosecute those who fail to comply with [those] safe storage laws.”
- Enact legislation “to allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry.”

Most chillingly, recommendation #22 was: “The federal government should increase funding to the ATF for personnel and technical assistance to combat gun violence.”

Full Story: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php ... o-head-atf

Here's a prototype from the new BATFE approved handgun list



I wonder how many rounds you need to fire for proper break-in?

THis is possibly part of the punishment for the past election losses,,,Obama ,no longer having a slam dunk majority and in danger of having his ass booted out for good in 2012 will still be able to use appointments and regualtion to screw with us.,...My question is where will our two "Pro Gun " Senators fall in the end,,, My bet is they kiss the exalted ones egotistical privelidged butt and approve...They haven't missed a anti gun appointment yet,,,,,,,

Are we surprised?

zephyp wrote:Are we surprised?

No.

Yup, nothing new here

VBshooter wrote:Yup, nothing new here

Speaking of which, where are the democrats and BATFE apologists chiming in about Obama not doing anything against gun rights?

That is odd now that ya mention it.... Today he threw the COngress under the bus by washing his hands of most of the legislation that they want to pursue and he wants to be anonymous to. We have to watch his use of regulators and that sort of back door policy that could bite us all in the ass if we aren't careful...

gunderwood wrote:

VBshooter wrote:Yup, nothing new here

Speaking of which, where are the democrats and BATFE apologists chiming in about Obama not doing anything against gun rights?

Well, up until now, he really hasn't. I will agree this is a fox guarding the hen house situation(which seems very common in politics for the last 150 years or so), and a bad deal for all of us.

Kreutz wrote:

gunderwood wrote:

VBshooter wrote:Yup, nothing new here

Speaking of which, where are the democrats and BATFE apologists chiming in about Obama not doing anything against gun rights?

Well, up until now, he really hasn't. I will agree this is a fox guarding the hen house situation(which seems very common in politics for the last 150 years or so), and a bad deal for all of us.

And for this you sleep well at night with your guns under your pillow? My friend, when they come to take our guns you will be one of us...

Btw, DONT TOUCH MY JUNK...

zephyp wrote:[And for this you sleep well at night with your guns under your pillow? My friend, when they come to take our guns you will be one of us...

Btw, DONT TOUCH MY JUNK...

I have two rifles with 32" barrels, that's my junk and I'm not letting anyone touch it!

zephyp wrote:And for this you sleep well at night with your guns under your pillow? My friend, when they come to take our guns you will be one of us...

Ah, I will be exempt, I just have to wave my Communist Party card and the Obamafascist robots (trust me, they are operational) will simply wander off and kill the nearest mildly ill senior.

Seriously though, I have long felt gun rights groups focus way too much on "the base" (preaching to the choir), and should approach less traditional partners in protecting our Second Amendment rights that are receptive to the message of self-defense and raw statistics proving the safety and positive crime reducing effects of gun ownership for home and community.

If more people were on board from different political backgrounds stuff like this would NOT go down so smoothly. Don't forget the role the "blue dog" dems have had in protecting the Second, that line of thinking can be adopted by more politicians once they realize a broad base wants it protected.

Kreutz wrote: Seriously though, I have long felt gun rights groups focus way too much on "the base" (preaching to the choir), and should approach less traditional partners in protecting our Second Amendment rights that are receptive to the message of self-defense and raw statistics proving the safety and positive crime reducing effects of gun ownership for home and community.

If more people were on board from different political backgrounds stuff like this would NOT go down so smoothly. Don't forget the role the "blue dog" dems have had in protecting the Second, that line of thinking can be adopted by more politicians once they realize a broad base wants it protected.

I agree, however, we have to be careful to ensure the entire principle of the 2nd is emphasized...otherwise we find ourselves wrapped up in the dangerous notion (and associated laws) that guns are A-OK for self and home defense as long as they never leave your house and are kept disassembled and locked in a safe...

zephyp wrote:

Kreutz wrote: Seriously though, I have long felt gun rights groups focus way too much on "the base" (preaching to the choir), and should approach less traditional partners in protecting our Second Amendment rights that are receptive to the message of self-defense and raw statistics proving the safety and positive crime reducing effects of gun ownership for home and community.

If more people were on board from different political backgrounds stuff like this would NOT go down so smoothly. Don't forget the role the "blue dog" dems have had in protecting the Second, that line of thinking can be adopted by more politicians once they realize a broad base wants it protected.

I agree, however, we have to be careful to ensure the entire principle of the 2nd is emphasized...otherwise we find ourselves wrapped up in the dangerous notion (and associated laws) that guns are A-OK for self and home defense as long as they never leave your house and are kept disassembled and locked in a safe...

and don't shoot anything over .10 cal or faster than 200fps, or are black, hold more 3 rounds, weight less than 50lbs, have a scope < 2x power, no pointy object attachments...

Recent article at Right to Keep and Bear Arms..........

Forget the 2nd Amendment and concentrate on our Constitution
By Michael Swickard, Ph.D. • 11/18/10, 4:52 pm • Print


Our Constitution’s Second Amendment does not mention guns. It speaks to “arms,” but the word “militia” makes it impossible to understand today. So, let’s forgot it entirely. Instead, we should focus on something constitutionally far more important.

Sounds familiar,,,,,

http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/2010/11 ... stitution/

zephyp wrote:I agree, however, we have to be careful to ensure the entire principle of the 2nd is emphasized...otherwise we find ourselves wrapped up in the dangerous notion (and associated laws) that guns are A-OK for self and home defense as long as they never leave your house and are kept disassembled and locked in a safe...

See, we can agree on what really matters. When I talk about about "non traditional groups", I mean people that have had historic problems with being the victims of criminal gun violence and would need to protect themselves, in home and while out and about.

I'm talking about low income minority communities which have suffered at the hands of criminals long enough, homosexuals who might face violence for being gay, upper class yuppie types etc., there is a strong possibility these groups could be shown the value of responsible gun ownership and self-defense and would wildly broaden the base of gun owners and we all couldn't be steamrolled so easily.

Very rarely have I seen pro-gun literature directed at these groups, actually, almost never. I believe there is an organization called the "Pink Pistols" dedicated to getting gay people armed.

Kreutz wrote:

zephyp wrote:I agree, however, we have to be careful to ensure the entire principle of the 2nd is emphasized...otherwise we find ourselves wrapped up in the dangerous notion (and associated laws) that guns are A-OK for self and home defense as long as they never leave your house and are kept disassembled and locked in a safe...

See, we can agree on what really matters. When I talk about about "non traditional groups", I mean people that have had historic problems with being the victims of criminal gun violence and would need to protect themselves, in home and while out and about.

Ah yes. I see. You mean people like Brady and Feinstein, right?

Schumer too,

Kreutz wrote:

zephyp wrote:I agree, however, we have to be careful to ensure the entire principle of the 2nd is emphasized...otherwise we find ourselves wrapped up in the dangerous notion (and associated laws) that guns are A-OK for self and home defense as long as they never leave your house and are kept disassembled and locked in a safe...

See, we can agree on what really matters. When I talk about about "non traditional groups", I mean people that have had historic problems with being the victims of criminal gun violence and would need to protect themselves, in home and while out and about.

I'm talking about low income minority communities which have suffered at the hands of criminals long enough, homosexuals who might face violence for being gay, upper class yuppie types etc., there is a strong possibility these groups could be shown the value of responsible gun ownership and self-defense and would wildly broaden the base of gun owners and we all couldn't be steamrolled so easily.

Very rarely have I seen pro-gun literature directed at these groups, actually, almost never. I believe there is an organization called the "Pink Pistols" dedicated to getting gay people armed.

The gun literature I have seen doesn't care what your background is. I think we should commit to only one type of outreach, namely outreach to people. If you must, we can limit it to just Americans, but liberals are all to caught up in pandering to people's differences.

Just because SIG doesn't make a "Black Panther Special Edition" doesn't make them racists.

zephyp wrote:

Kreutz wrote:

zephyp wrote:I agree, however, we have to be careful to ensure the entire principle of the 2nd is emphasized...otherwise we find ourselves wrapped up in the dangerous notion (and associated laws) that guns are A-OK for self and home defense as long as they never leave your house and are kept disassembled and locked in a safe...

See, we can agree on what really matters. When I talk about about "non traditional groups", I mean people that have had historic problems with being the victims of criminal gun violence and would need to protect themselves, in home and while out and about.

Ah yes. I see. You mean people like Brady and Feinstein, right?

No, the people that would vote for them, NO OTHER WAY TO MAKE THE ANTI-GUN POLS LISTEN! If you aren't a constituent; they don't care what you think, plain and simple.

Think big picture.