Ruger's Position

[Backpack Hunter]

Ruger Firearms has made it easy to participate in helping us preserve our gun rights.

I hope you'll join with us in letting our elected officials know how we feel.

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

 

[Justin Crossley]

I did it! Thanks Ruger!

 

[hunthard]

Signed it, Thanks. will forward to everyone I know.

 

[bbrown]

This is perfect - thanks Ruger! And thanks Backpack Hunter!!!

 

[dotman]

Signed!

 

[MOcluck]

Arms maker for responsible citizen,s HELL YA . Thanks for the thread, signed up! Spread the word!

 

[Kevin Root]

It only took a minute and each signature or voice tells your vote or stand. Thanks for the post Backpack Hunter. Signed.

 

[7mag.]

Done. Thank you for the link.

 

[couesbitten]

Done, and posted a link on facebook as well.

 

[ScottR_EHJ]

Every relative i have will be sending one.

 

[badkneesbro]

sighned

 

[ohhiitznik]

Signed, Thanks!

 

[tstowater]

Done and I hope it makes a different. Thanks for the link.

 

[Brock A]

Sent, Thanks!

 

[mtnkid85]

Keeping this one up. It is important.

 

[rhendrix]

I'm having a hard time understanding the uproar from everyone about this...from 1994-2004 there was an assault ban, and for all intents and purposes mass shootings declined, whether that was because of the gun ban or not is hard to say, but unless I'm misunderstanding something the legislation in 1994 still allowed the legal use and carry of pistols, rifles and shotguns for shooting enjoyment and hunting. I don't know of many people that use an AR-15 or AK-47 for home defense, not to say that they're aren't any, but you still have the God given right and ability to defend yourself with a pistol or shotgun if you had to during the 10 year period the gun ban was in effect. It just seems like people are immediately becoming defensive over "potential" laws that do not really effect the vast majority of gun owners rights to keep and bear arms. What's the population segment of tactical gun ownership in reference to total gun ownership, am I missing something?

 

[Shrek]

I'm having a hard time understanding the uproar from everyone about this...from 1994-2004 there was an assault ban, and for all intents and purposes mass shootings declined, whether that was because of the gun ban or not is hard to say, but unless I'm misunderstanding something the legislation in 1994 still allowed the legal use and carry of pistols, rifles and shotguns for shooting enjoyment and hunting. I don't know of many people that use an AR-15 or AK-47 for home defense, not to say that they're aren't any, but you still have the God given right and ability to defend yourself with a pistol or shotgun if you had to during the 10 year period the gun ban was in effect. It just seems like people are immediately becoming defensive over "potential" laws that do not really effect the vast majority of gun owners rights to keep and bear arms. What's the population segment of tactical gun ownership in reference to total gun ownership, am I missing something?

Once you start negotiating your rights away it is a slippery slope. Rights are rights not privileges to be negotiated.

Old joke , a guy goes into a bar and asks a woman if she would sleep with for $50. She slaps him and says " I am not a whore ". The guy wanders off. A little while later he comes back and asks if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. Sha answers "heck yes " ! The man shoots back " I don't really have a million dollars but how about $100 ?". She says " I told you I'm not a whore " . Man says " we have already established you are a whore , we are just negotiating the price. "....I will never prostitute my rights !
As to hunting and such , it was never the point of the 2nd amendment. It is there to insure the ability of the people to rise up and overthrow a corrupt or despotic government. Our founding fathers had a deep distrust of absolute power and made sure our government did not have absolute power in any part of our system and in the 2nd amendment they enshrined the ability to resist if the government became despotic.
"

 

[Backpack Hunter]

To begin with it's an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. The outrage is coming from our political leaders over stepping their bounds and basically declaring the 2nd Amendment null and void.

The 2nd Amendment is not there for our politicians to choose who can and who can't keep and bear arms, it is for all citizens. The 2nd Amendment was created if for nothing else than for a means of which the people can defend themselves against tyranny.

This ban they are trying to create would make a lot of "sporting" guns into "assault" weapons. Take a look at what NY just did.

This uproar is because people can see that what our government is doing is following the lead of other countries in disarming their public. It begins with magazine restrictions, then to registration, then moves to confiscation of "evil" guns, then to confiscation of all guns. If you do not believe that then take a look at history.

 

[Dixie07]

It doesn't matter how many gun owners it affects, or how many people are for or against it. Believe it or not, we do not live in a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. Our rights are protected by the Constitution. It is my RIGHT in the CONSTITUTION to own and bear arms. In case you aren't familiar with it, it reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If I can afford it, I should be able to own a M1 Abrams tank. Owning an AR-15 and AK-47, or any weapon for that matter, is not for home defense, or for hunting, it is to support an uprising against a tyrannical Government, which we are edging on now. Just because you don't own an assault rifle or don't want one, doesn't mean that I shouldn't be allowed to own one. Chipping away at our rights just a little bit off the block a little at a time is how in the end they will eventually confiscate all guns. Also during 1994-2004, take a look at gun violence during that time, it did absolutely NOTHING statistically to it. Maybe you have heard of the Columbine school shooting as well that took place in that time frame. "Assault weapons" ban did a lot to stop that one.

I'm having a hard time understanding the uproar from everyone about this...from 1994-2004 there was an assault ban, and for all intents and purposes mass shootings declined, whether that was because of the gun ban or not is hard to say, but unless I'm misunderstanding something the legislation in 1994 still allowed the legal use and carry of pistols, rifles and shotguns for shooting enjoyment and hunting. I don't know of many people that use an AR-15 or AK-47 for home defense, not to say that they're aren't any, but you still have the God given right and ability to defend yourself with a pistol or shotgun if you had to during the 10 year period the gun ban was in effect. It just seems like people are immediately becoming defensive over "potential" laws that do not really effect the vast majority of gun owners rights to keep and bear arms. What's the population segment of tactical gun ownership in reference to total gun ownership, am I missing something?

 

[rhendrix]

Can anyone send me a link that shows the ramifications of the gun ban they are trying to enact? I couldn't find anything in the 5 or do minutes I looked earlier that was official.

I am trying to become as informed as possible about this issue before I decide my stance. Not owning or needing an AR or AK for any reason I think my views may be different than the majority.