Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 04-19-2013, 1:13 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,028
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCDavis View Post
People vote for Democrats because they *dislike* the candidates
the Republicans put out there. If the candidates were more moderate,
you'd see a lot more people being willing to switch sides.
When one votes *against* civil rights, being it against 13th, 15th, 19th, or (gasp), 2nd amendment, the reasons and justifications are not important.

Apologists for the current Democratic party position on 2A are no different than apologists for Jim Crow laws (by the same party) half a century ago.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 04-19-2013, 7:13 PM
BCDavis BCDavis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 312
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Very true that most voters are idiots, and vote without actually
researching the issues or candidates they vote for.

But I know that it goes both ways, in terms of swinging votes.
In a crazy, hypothetical world, if a Republican candidate were anti-gun,
and a very moderate Democrat were pro-gun, many of you would consider
giving your vote to that Democrat.

So what I am trying to point out, is that if one of your Republican candidates
was for some of the issues that Democrats support, then some Democrats
might be willing to support your candidate.

For instance, if you had a pro-pot Republican candidate, maybe you'd get
millions and millions of stoner voters for your candidate. Maybe those
weed smokers don't really care about gun laws, one way or the other.
That might not be their main issue. But if your Republican candidate is
saying he wants to have more jail time for marijuana crimes, and wants
to crack down on drugs, and have more police, do you think stoners
are going to vote for that guy? Hell no. (Not a weed-smoker, BTW)

Maybe you'd get all the tree-hugging hippie voters to vote Republican
if you had a candidate who was saying he was going to save the forests,
stop logging, and stop oil drilling off the coast. If they supported even
some of the liberal views on other issues, maybe the gun issue could
be overlooked by liberal voters.

What I am saying, is that the extreme conservative views of many
Republican candidates tend to scare away many voters who might
actually be willing to vote Republican.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 04-19-2013, 9:36 PM
EM2's Avatar
EM2 EM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Prather, CA
Posts: 1,845
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCDavis View Post
Let me make it very, very clear to those of you who are Republican voters.

People vote for Democrats because they *dislike* the candidates
the Republicans put out there. If the candidates were more moderate,
you'd see a lot more people being willing to switch sides.

Ha, who you kidding?
"If the candidates were more moderate" they wouldn't be republicans.

Piss on moderation, pick a side or get off the ****ing field.
__________________
Quote:
"The 'Spray and Pray' system advances triumphantly in law enforcement. In a recent case in a southwestern city...a police officer, when threatened with a handgun, emptied his 15 shot pistol at his would-be assailant, achieving two peripheral hits. The citizen was charged with brandishing a firearm, but the cop was not charged with anything, lousy shooting not being a diciplinary offense."
--- Jeff Cooper, June 1990

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2
Put you link where your opinion is.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 04-19-2013, 10:16 PM
GunnerB's Avatar
GunnerB GunnerB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 699
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Good job.
__________________
United States Marine Corps
SAF Defenders Club
NRA Lifetime Member
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 04-19-2013, 10:32 PM
rugershooter rugershooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,243
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lasbrg View Post
Good point, but a little bit tricky. Imprisonment is infringing on a person's right to liberty, capital punishment is infringing on their right to life, etc. Both liberals and conservatives alike believe in the idea of "bad people". Only libertarians really think differently about basic rights.

It's no coincidence that it was Rand Paul who was the one to give the filibuster on the use of predator drones against US citizens. "Mainstream" politicians from both parties are quite happy with blowing up people from space. If they have that power, then anything else is just an inconvenience by comparison.
That's why I'm a libertarian. You're right, imprisonment is infringing on people's rights. That's why the Founders prohibited infringement of rights without due process. However, a blanket prohibition on the rights of anybody who is convicted of a felony is not due process. There is no trial. It's automatic; get convicted of a felony and you lose your rights. That is not due process and anybody who thinks otherwise is a fool.

Society has come to believe that every single felony (any many misdemeanors) are worthy of life punishments. I don't believe that. Once you serve your sentence in prison, you should have all of your rights restored. Period. You could look at the current laws in one of two ways: 1) defacto life sentences due to the prohibitions on exercising one's rights even after incarceration. Or 2) violation of rights without due process due to the fact that the actual sentence for the crime does not include prohibitions on exercising one's rights; rather, those prohibitions are written into other laws that have nothing to do with the specific offender and due process is bypassed in order to enact those prohibitions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BCDavis View Post
Let me make it very, very clear to those of you who are Republican voters.

People vote for Democrats because they *dislike* the candidates
the Republicans put out there. If the candidates were more moderate,
you'd see a lot more people being willing to switch sides.
If the Republican candidates were anymore moderate, they'd be blatant, self-admitted socialists. Don't forget that Republicans McCain and Toomey voted in favor of the gun control bill this week. Also don't forget that there were Democrats who voted against it. There is very, very little discernible difference between the two parties now. I don't know why people even care about a candidate's party affiliation anymore. It simply doesn't matter. If he has the same beliefs I do on certain issues, I'll vote for him. If he doesn't, I won't vote for him. I don't care what party he's affiliated with. I'd vote for a Democrat who has the same beliefs I do instead of voting for a piece of s**t like McCain or a f**king socialist like Romney. People who simply vote along party lines are just plain stupid.

Last edited by rugershooter; 04-19-2013 at 10:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 04-19-2013, 10:34 PM
rugershooter rugershooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,243
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCDavis View Post
Very true that most voters are idiots, and vote without actually
researching the issues or candidates they vote for.

But I know that it goes both ways, in terms of swinging votes.
In a crazy, hypothetical world, if a Republican candidate were anti-gun,
and a very moderate Democrat were pro-gun, many of you would consider
giving your vote to that Democrat.

So what I am trying to point out, is that if one of your Republican candidates
was for some of the issues that Democrats support, then some Democrats
might be willing to support your candidate.

For instance, if you had a pro-pot Republican candidate, maybe you'd get
millions and millions of stoner voters for your candidate. Maybe those
weed smokers don't really care about gun laws, one way or the other.
That might not be their main issue. But if your Republican candidate is
saying he wants to have more jail time for marijuana crimes, and wants
to crack down on drugs, and have more police, do you think stoners
are going to vote for that guy? Hell no. (Not a weed-smoker, BTW)

Maybe you'd get all the tree-hugging hippie voters to vote Republican
if you had a candidate who was saying he was going to save the forests,
stop logging, and stop oil drilling off the coast. If they supported even
some of the liberal views on other issues, maybe the gun issue could
be overlooked by liberal voters.

What I am saying, is that the extreme conservative views of many
Republican candidates tend to scare away many voters who might
actually be willing to vote Republican.


Put your bong down. There's no f**king way Republicans are extreme conservatives. If you believe that you're delusional.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 04-22-2013, 1:35 PM
BCDavis BCDavis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 312
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rugershooter View Post
[/B]
Put your bong down. There's no f**king way Republicans are extreme conservatives. If you believe that you're delusional.
Republicans aren't, but their candidates push out some pretty conservative views,
otherwise they would lose their "bible-belt" voters. That stuff is what scares
away a lot of the more moderate voters. Everyone here seems to be focused
on just the gun issue, but you have to remember that there are millions and
millions of other voters out there, who might be wiling to back a Republican
candidate, but they don't, because they don't vote based on gun stuff.
The average Californian, doesn't care that much about gun rights.
They care about the economy, immigration, gay marriage, and a lot of other
issues. Most of them aren't shooters, or gun enthusiasts. But that doesn't
mean they couldn't be persuaded to vote Republican. But the hardcore
viewpoints of many of the candidates scare people away.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 04-22-2013, 1:44 PM
mud99 mud99 is offline
Mall Ninja
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,060
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Typically, Republican candidates have to act very conservative and embrace lots of single issues to win the primary (since only the single-issue voters care enough to vote in the primary)

Once they win the primary, they then have to swap and become as moderate as possible to win the election.

The democrats do the same, just in the other direction.

If you are a moderate you will not be elected by the voters for either party.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 04-22-2013, 2:02 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,028
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCDavis View Post
The average Californian, doesn't care that much about gun rights.
Since gun rights are now civil rights, those who support attack on the gun rights are anti-civil liberties, which is inconsistent with claiming to be "liberal," i.e., open minded and receptive to change. The gun debate has changed after Heller and McDonald while supposed "liberals" are acting as the most fanatical "conservatives" fighting the change using the most extreme measures. Just look at the type of legislation proposed in CA. It's all about sticking it to the gun owners in the way that will cause them the most damage. Pure hate.

I don't mind a bigot who is aware of his bigotry - it's a free country. I mind a bigot who wants to claim the high moral ground because "guns are icky."
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 04-22-2013, 3:35 PM
Bruce's Avatar
Bruce Bruce is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,077
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Reading the OP made be think of this from last week:

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/a-wa...on-explosions/
__________________
GOD SAVE THE UNITED STATES!
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 04-22-2013, 6:54 PM
Tyrone's Avatar
Tyrone Tyrone is offline
Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: East Bay, SF Bay Area
Posts: 266
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by decepticon6551 View Post
That's relative, depending on your age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_...umbia#Decision
This is true in California as well with limited excpetions. See Govt Code 845 and Hartzler v. City of San Jose.

Govt Code 845: § 845. Failure to provide any or adequate police protection; Responding to alarm

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.

A police department shall not fail to respond to a request for service via a burglar alarm system or an alarm company referral service solely on the basis that a permit from the city has not been obtained.

Hartzler: http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/51629
__________________
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 04-23-2013, 9:44 AM
wecf's Avatar
wecf wecf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the pumpkin before the valley
Posts: 284
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nhr310 View Post
I wrote a letter today for the first time ever about any subject to a bunch of politicians. Including Boxser, Fienstien,Brown, Villaragosa, Waters and a few more.

heres a copy let me know what you think. Keep in mind brothers and sisters we must rally support on both sides of the aisle to keep our right from being infringed.

Governor Brown

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. I am not a member of the NRA; I support gay-rights, I agree with universal background checks with no national registry, and identify myself as a democrat supportive of President Obama. I am strongly opposed to any new gun laws being added to the books in the wake of the Newtown Massacre. A law should not be based on emotion but what is right and wrong. If a law was based on emotion whichever group displays the largest emotion would win. Abortion may be a differnt story (as we are seeing in other states) if emotion was greater than support of an individuals right to choose. Please do not take any action or move forward on any new Gun control legislation that infringe on our rights.
The 2nd amendment has deeper meaning than hunting and home protection and that should be genuinely acknowledged. I agree that military weapons to do not belong on the streets of Los Angeles however the people should be able to arm themselves at a level equal to their local law enforcement agency. We rely on local law enforcement to "protect and serve” as required. Should they fail or be hindered in ability to fulfill their duty an individual should be able to protect their lives and the lives of others as well as personal property.

I was 11 years old when the city of Los Angeles erupted in riots after the verdicts of the police charged in the Rodney King beating were given. I remember the skyline filled with smoke trails from fires. The rampant crime and violence was everywhere. I remembered the police left us, they ran, they were overwhelmed, they fled, they re-grouped, they abandoned us....whatever you want to call it. They left the people to fend for ourselves. Over the next 6 days with police grossly overwhelmed and with the National Guard called in the riots claimed 58 lives. Loss was in the hundreds of millions.

It is important as I stated the 2 Amendment is rooted in our most sacred of documents. I truly believe that everyone should take the time sit down and read it and most importantly ask why? Why? Why did our founding fathers see such an importance in acknowledging the average person has a right "to bear arms that shall not be infringed upon"? Tyranny does exist hopefully we will never have to deal with that. Civil unrest, natural disaster, disease outbreak, terrorism and crime in general all could create a situation where a person may need to defend themselves and protect their loved ones from harm.
I'm just going to say it, I thought it over and this is what I have to say.

You are part of the problem.

You vote for and support those that oppose the US Constituion. You believe that it is OK to give away everyone elses RIGHTS, WE don't need people like you.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 04-23-2013, 9:58 AM
lasbrg's Avatar
lasbrg lasbrg is offline
Another 180ls1 avatar guy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange County, NC
Posts: 4,241
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wecf View Post
I'm just going to say it, I thought it over and this is what I have to say.

You are part of the problem.

You vote for and support those that oppose the US Constituion. You believe that it is OK to give away everyone elses RIGHTS, WE don't need people like you.
Who is "WE"?

Someone else complained about the OP's spelling, so I think I will do the same (something I normally never do) and inform the group you represent that it's "Constitution", not "Constituion" and "everyone else's", not "everyone elses".
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 04-23-2013, 10:00 AM
gemoose23's Avatar
gemoose23 gemoose23 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Escaped CA to Iowa
Posts: 1,081
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Please keep writing, emailing and faxing.. one letter isn't enough.
__________________
Hornady LnL, Dillon Precision, RCBS, Lee Precision and Lyman User
If You want Match or Leadless hunting Ammo check out Monolithic Munitions Yes I am a shill, friends with the owners.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 04-23-2013, 10:11 AM
ccmc ccmc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,684
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Since gun rights are now civil rights, those who support attack on the gun rights are anti-civil liberties, which is inconsistent with claiming to be "liberal," i.e., open minded and receptive to change. The gun debate has changed after Heller and McDonald while supposed "liberals" are acting as the most fanatical "conservatives" fighting the change using the most extreme measures. Just look at the type of legislation proposed in CA. It's all about sticking it to the gun owners in the way that will cause them the most damage. Pure hate.

I don't mind a bigot who is aware of his bigotry - it's a free country. I mind a bigot who wants to claim the high moral ground because "guns are icky."
Good post. I was having a conversation about the gist of your last paragraph last week with a black friend whom I've known since we were kids when FL still had Jim Crow laws on the books. He said much the same thing as you only the topic was race relations and the invasion of northerners our county has seen over the last 25 years.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 04-23-2013, 1:45 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,028
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccmc View Post
Good post. I was having a conversation about the gist of your last paragraph last week with a black friend whom I've known since we were kids when FL still had Jim Crow laws on the books. He said much the same thing as you only the topic was race relations and the invasion of northerners our county has seen over the last 25 years.
Glad it was part of the conversation. The true liberal will have to embrace the gun rights if they want to stay liberal.

The real problem is that Feinstein/Boxer/Pelosi were all at some point for advancing liberties, but as they got old, they became very conservative in the sense that they wish to preserve the status quo in the society as envisioned by them. The way they fight cultural effect of expanded gun ownership and rights is no different than the way any group of "old politicians" fights any societal change they find morally reprehensible.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 04-23-2013, 2:56 PM
rugershooter rugershooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,243
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCDavis View Post
Republicans aren't, but their candidates push out some pretty conservative views,
otherwise they would lose their "bible-belt" voters. That stuff is what scares
away a lot of the more moderate voters. Everyone here seems to be focused
on just the gun issue, but you have to remember that there are millions and
millions of other voters out there, who might be wiling to back a Republican
candidate, but they don't, because they don't vote based on gun stuff.
The average Californian, doesn't care that much about gun rights.
They care about the economy, immigration, gay marriage, and a lot of other
issues. Most of them aren't shooters, or gun enthusiasts. But that doesn't
mean they couldn't be persuaded to vote Republican. But the hardcore
viewpoints of many of the candidates scare people away.
Name 5 "extreme" conservative views that Republican candidates have espoused in the past few years. I bet you can't do it.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 04-23-2013, 3:09 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,028
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rugershooter View Post
Name 5 "extreme" conservative views that Republican candidates have espoused in the past few years. I bet you can't do it.
1) 2A protects an individual right which really includes "little people."
2) 2A protects more than just muskets.
3) One should keep what one earns instead of having it redistributed.
4) There is nothing wrong with 32.1oz sodas.
5) Payouts to unions don't structurally stimulate economy.

There you have it. All extreme.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 04-23-2013, 3:41 PM
rayrayz rayrayz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 464
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCDavis View Post
People seem to forget that there are more issues in politics, and an election, than just gun rights. As the OP said, things like wasteful wars, stock market and bank regulation, social issues, environmental issues, gay rights, health care, and so on.

If you are already Republican, or conservative, you probably disagree with Obama and most Democrats on many of those issues. But for other Democrats, they might agree with Obama on 75% of his viewpoints, but dislike his view on the other 25%. So they won't vote for a Republican, who will possibly fight against a bunch of things they feel are important.

I tend to vote Independent or Libertarian. But when looking at many Republican candidates, I see people who cater to rich people, and cater to corporations. I know the Democrats are also sell-outs, but I think the biggest problem is the candidates the Republican party pushes out. Especially in CA. To actually get votes in CA, Republicans need to be a hell of of a lot more moderate, if they want to win over Democratic and Independent voters. They need to be gay-friendly, latino-friendly, environment-friendly, etc, if they want CA voters to support them.

I actually think the OP's letter, while somewhat biased, at least gets a good point across.

This ^
__________________
d-55ir trail cam FS/T http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=634343
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 04-23-2013, 3:56 PM
rugershooter rugershooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,243
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
1) 2A protects an individual right which really includes "little people."
2) 2A protects more than just muskets.
3) One should keep what one earns instead of having it redistributed.
4) There is nothing wrong with 32.1oz sodas.
5) Payouts to unions don't structurally stimulate economy.

There you have it. All extreme.
You forgot to add this:
/sarcasm
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 04-23-2013, 4:01 PM
sammich sammich is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 694
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rugershooter View Post
Name 5 "extreme" conservative views that Republican candidates have espoused in the past few years. I bet you can't do it.
1. Mitt Romney vows to ban pornography by installing a filter on every U.S. PC

2. Bachmann Signs Pledge for Ban on Porn and Same-Sex Marriage

3. Herman Cain Changes Tune: Amend Constitution To Ban Gay Marriage, Abortion

4. Rick Santorum declares war on pornography: I will ban hardcore porn if I’m elected President

5. Could 'personhood' bills outlaw IVF? (Paul Ryan's HR 212, the Sanctity of Human Life Act)

6. Gingrich vows to ban embryonic stem-cell research, questions in vitro practices

And the one candidate that the "conservatives" all hate:

Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 04-23-2013, 4:55 PM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

To the OP: before discussing politics on this forum read some other threads. The vast majority of users share a single view on what gun control should be... NONE. Disagree with them at your own peril because if you don't 100% agree then you're pro gun control/anti-gun.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 04-23-2013, 6:42 PM
mud99 mud99 is offline
Mall Ninja
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,060
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonshine View Post
To the OP: before discussing politics on this forum read some other threads. The vast majority of users share a single view on what gun control should be... NONE. Disagree with them at your own peril because if you don't 100% agree then you're pro gun control/anti-gun.
I agree with this statement completely, but I'd like to point out that the reason most people on here have drawn a line in the sand is due to the constant push towards gun regulation by politicians over the past 30 years.

Even things which might seem like a good idea, such as background checks, are not viewed as such. We have seen too many laws which have unforeseen consequences, either at the time they passed, or at some point in the future.

Politicians are trying to move towards full gun control, we are trying to move as far away from it as possible.

There is probably a middle ground somewhere, which will likely be decided at some point by the Supreme Court.

I still maintain that you cannot vote democrat, and say you are pro-gun. They are the ones picking fights with us, and by that definition, an enemy.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:02 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.