Proposed gun ban may affect reenactors

Discussion in 'Todays Battlegrounds' started by Yanky, May 10, 2007.

  1. Yanky

    Yanky New Member

    A New Jersey Star-Ledger article says:

    "The Continental Army and the Redcoats may have to go at each other with baseball bats in New Jersey.

    "Revolutionary War buffs who annually re-enact historic conflicts like the Battle of Monmouth with muskets contend they will be disarmed by a proposed gun ban aimed at modern .50-caliber rifles that gun-control advocates call potential terrorist 'sniper' weapons. . . ."
  2. Uncle Ben

    Uncle Ben Member

    Seeing that NJ is one of the "Peoples Socialist Republics" along with MA, CT, and MD, I am not surprised. We are holding an event 9-10 June at Bordentown NJ and I will have more update then.
    BTW, some years ago there was the same fear about a rule in MA regarding our weapons. It seems that the 75cal Brown Bess fits the liberals definition of an assult weapon. All was cleared up prior to the event. Also some years ago there was a rumor about police impounding Rev War cannons being transported on the NJ turnpike.
    It is amazing that when ever liberals get involved, common sense goes out the window.
  3. AmandaLynn

    AmandaLynn New Member

    Oh for the love of Pete!   :mad:

    You know, someone needs to remind these propeller-heads that it wasn't guns that took out the pilots of the planes that crashed into the Trade Center -- it was those little utility knife thingies.  Yes, there's no legislation in effect banning them from public use.  ::)

    A pencil can kill a person too, but you still see them in use.  Then again, what about all those people taking tae kwan do and judo classes? Are they going to be banned from going out in public?

    These numbskulls who are trying to pass thie bill in NJ are going to need to understand that terrorists don't give a rat's patoot about our laws -- including those for gun control.

    Re-enactors are the LEAST of their worries.

    NJ has the Bordentown event and the Battle of Monmouth event coming up in June. And they also have 2 Civil War re-enactments coming up this summer. I hope they get things straightened out by then.

  4. Yanky

    Yanky New Member

    A case of "jumped the gun"? Today's Star-Ledger follows up:

    "Muzzleloader firearms used by war re-enactors and New Jersey deer hunters were exempted from a proposed ban on certain .50-caliber rifles yesterday when an Assembly committee released the bill while recommending other changes be considered.

    "Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer), lead sponsor of bill (A3998), introduced four modifications to the measure to ensure replica muskets, in-line muzzleloaders and other types of black-powder guns were not swept up by legislation targeting modern .50-caliber BMG rifles."
  5. thomas pendrake

    thomas pendrake Active Member

    I would have trouble envisioning Revolutionary War re-enactors needing modern 50 caliber sniper guns. Of course, a good Virginia or Kentucky long rifle does make an excellent sniper weapon. Just remember, gun fanatics are the biggest danger to gun rights of the rest of us. When you put a fully automatic Uzi in the hands of a 9 year old girl you put all of us in danger Those sniper weapons will still be available to people we want to have them. There are plenty of people who should not have such a weapon.
  6. Kate

    Kate Active Member

    I see this original post was from 2007 (wow, the forum's been around the block... that's great!)... and I never heard more about this (well actually I didn't hear about it seven years ago either.) Anyone know how this issue resolved?

    I'm assuming this refers to the reenactment shows where guns may be fired and not the "camp-outs" that happen continually, especially with Civil War reenactments? Because those guys don't tote "real" guns around with them!
  7. gmckee1985

    gmckee1985 Member

    Haven't heard about this previously. Since it's New Jersey it doesn't really surprise me. It's not really a 2nd amendment friendly state. They're a big fan of government control up there in all areas. I've always thought most gun restrictions are silly.
  8. thomas pendrake

    thomas pendrake Active Member

    Timothy McVeigh thought gun restrictions silly. Protecting gun rights does not mean putting military weapons into the hands of any lunatic who wants an armory in their basement. I and most of my family have guns and i want to keep it that way. Gun fanatics are the greatest threat to the 2nd amendment, not liberals. Boko Haram puts Uzis in the hands of 9 year olds.
  9. gmckee1985

    gmckee1985 Member

    What does Timoth McVeigh have to do with anything? James Madison and Thomas Jefferson probably thought gun restrictions were "silly". Although I'm sure they would use much stronger language than that, considering they were strong advocates of limited government and were opposed to tyranny in all of it's various forms.
  10. Gin0710

    Gin0710 Member

    I don't understand how people think stricter gun laws will make a freaking difference? You have people who actually follow the law and use guns safely who don't need a background check, and the ones that do need a background check are the ones who STEAL the guns they use to shoot people. Does any of this make sense?
    Kate likes this.
  11. Kate

    Kate Active Member

    It makes no sense whatsoever, @Gin0710 ... but the people who enjoy arguing the other side will get all bent out of shape throwing up their same weak arguments because there are no strong ones.

    Sometimes I think they really believe that if a law says "Okay, you bad dudes and dudettes, line up and give us your guns so you can't shoot anyone" that they'll have a stampede of bad people rushing to get into that line. Sometimes all we can do is shake our heads. That makes as much sense as thinking the mass murderers are going to walk into a gun store and buy/register a gun in their own name and then go out and use it. The evil side of life doesn't work that way.

    All that said, guns scare the devil out of me. But people trying to steal even more of my amendment rights? Nope, that just doesn't set right and it needs to be fought.
  12. Gin0710

    Gin0710 Member

    Guns don't scare me. The people who are mentally unstable are what scares me. I think keeping potentially dangerous people locked up or some place where they can seek help will eliminate a lot of the gun violence in this country. Giving up the right to protect yourself is not a smart decision. I would hate to see what happens when that day comes where we, as Americans, are going to seriously need some kind of protection from God knows what, and we won't have it because we gave up our rights to bear arms.
  13. gmckee1985

    gmckee1985 Member

    We need to reform our mental institutions in this country. There are way too many people roaming around in society with obvious mental problems. That shouldn't be tolerated. It is immoral. We should want to help those who have mental problems. And it's also very dangerous to those who aren't mentally challenged.
  14. Gin0710

    Gin0710 Member

    The shootings are not about guns. They're about people who are mentally unstable and need help. Whether someone uses a gun or a machete, it doesn't matter. I use a bus to get to work because it's more convenient than driving. People who use guns to kill use them because they're quicker and not as messy and it's easier to use on themselves. Guns aren't the problem. People are the problem.
  15. nailah783

    nailah783 Member

    That is going too far. Why? They aren't hurting anybody or anything. They are just replaying something that already happened in history. It's like going to a play, are we really going to take away props and say that it is for gun safety. Who are you trying to protect from the war games? Really? I'm so confused by this. I really am.
  16. GearZ

    GearZ Member

    Man the Irony-O-Meter redlined on this one. And banning flintlocks? Get real. Of course, we're talking about New Jersey, so this shouldn't be that big of a shock in terms of a bad law.

Share This Page