# United States & Gun Control discussion.



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 14, 2012)

I want to start by apologizing for bring up political issues in the recent school shooting in CT thread. It was disrespectful on my part and I truly did not mean to offend anyone if I did.

Stepping away from the emotions of this tragic event in CT, along with the many tragic gun related violence events that have been taking place in the United States. I think the subject of gun control, more over POTUS’s  comments today regarding putting politics aside and making real change (i.e. new gun control legislation to come), that a level headed discussion on the topic is warranted.

I personally against any and all gun control measures for several reasons, but the primary reason is the United States Constitution. We are a free people, free to defend ourselves and our property and I view gun control measures as limiting the lawful citizen from being able to be free in protection of themselves and property. We obviously have some crazy people in the world, and nobody wants these crazy people carrying guns and killing innocent people. However, the issue really breaks down to either having someone else protect you and your property or taking on the responsibility for providing that protection for yourself.

I think it is pretty clear that historically gun control has not stopped unlawful use of guns to commit violent acts. However, it has also shown that it limits the lawful gun owner from being able to protect  his/her self and I think that is enough reason alone to take an out of the box view on how to curve the violence in the United States.

Using this recent shooting as an example, 26 people (20 of whom were children) lost their lives due to one crazy person armed with several guns. A good amount of people believe this to be the guns fault, that a crazy person armed with a gun caused this incident. They are correct that it was a crazy person armed with a gun caused the event, but I think the real question to be asked here is why did it take so long for him to be stopped, how could a crazy person armed with guns make it into a school, in a state know for strict gun control and murder 26 people?

My outside of the box view is that the teachers and school officials did not have the proper means to stop this crazy person. That a false since of security exists in most of our community’s that the POLICE will be there to stop these individuals and that removing guns from the schools, making restrictions on gun ownership and possession makes everyone safer. I believe this to be incredibly false. The only person who can truly protect you, is in fact you. It becomes very hard in the school setting, we obviously can’t allow young children to carry guns and take on the responsibility of self protection. But we can force schools, teachers, security, etc to provide a better blanket of security for our children. I believe that comes from arming our teachers, having more armed security/police in these schools and requiring these schools to provide better protection from outside and internal threats. Will it stop all school shootings? No. Nothing, to include new gun control legislation will stop school shootings from happening. However, we can learn to deal with this threat better, to minimize the effects of these types of attacks and more over, reduce the amount of life lost.

The primary point is that we have implemented many programs to respond to active shooters within schools, training for the school staff, local LE and the students. But clearly these steps have not worked and something better need to be implemented. I believe that comes in training and arming teachers and other school officials, having more (a lot more) trained and well armed security/LE personnel at these schools and changing our response from a lock down, wait for the cops, to a take action and stop the attack model of protection.


----------



## Lefty375 (Dec 14, 2012)

I think a lot of what you are calling for is going to cost a lot of money we (schools and/or government) don't have. I don't feel the need for the big wonderful federal government to "free" me from things like this either.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 14, 2012)

Lucky 13, I can agree, but I also understand that we need to protect our children better, especially in the school environment. Training teachers and allowing them to carry a weapon is not as costly as you would believe, but to bring it into a clear picture, it could be required for the teacher to seek the training, meet standards, etc. I think teachers would be more willing to do so, to not only protect their students but also themselves.

What do you believe to be a better option?


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 14, 2012)

Teachers here don't want to coach after school sports, I doubt they'd ever want to carry.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 14, 2012)

Harden schools. It can be done economically and damn near seamlessly with no overt elements beyond a big red ohshit button.


----------



## Lefty375 (Dec 14, 2012)

JAB said:


> Lucky 13, I can agree, but I also understand that we need to protect our children better, especially in the school environment. Training teachers and allowing them to carry a weapon is not as costly as you would believe, but to bring it into a clear picture, it could be required for the teacher to seek the training, meet standards, etc. I think teachers would be more willing to do so, to not only protect their students but also themselves.
> 
> What do you believe to be a better option?


 
A sense of community again, where people want to protect their own, instead of having the feds come in and try and regulate their lives. I suppose it's the society we live in, where there are too many sheep but not enough sheepdogs. Not that sheep are bad, but I feel like less and less people are willing to look out for each other. I agree with you though, possibly arming teachers would be a step. I really do try and look at it from the other side (teachers might have a bad day and shoot up kids etc etc), but couldn't they do that anyway? So might as well have some trained in these "gun free zones"


----------



## ShadowSpear (Dec 14, 2012)

In other news....

http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/385705/man-stabs-22-children-in-china-authorities#.UMvfhHdPO8A


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 14, 2012)

(In the same typing and writing spirit of JAB )


I am pro gun. I own one firearm. In the future I will own more. I am against any further firearm control measures as it logical to presume that criminals or those willing to commit criminal acts are not going to follow laws. I do not want my 2nd Amendment to be violated. I do not need the Fed/Big Brother to impose more laws or restrictions on me in the name of "security", "safety" or "protection".  However I do understand and accept that there must be laws to punish those who break said laws; i.e a gang banger carrying an AK-47 should go to prison for a very long time. The penalty for gun related crime should be so high that the criminals (at least in theory) would think twice.

I do agree that mentally unstable people should not have firearms, much the same as felons should not. That is a recipe for disaster.

I and many others on this forum have been trained by amongst the best instructors out there;  i e Army and Marine Infantry, SF and SOF instructors. Our groups has more training than the normal. We of all should be entrusted to carry firearms.

I disagree with arming teachers. I agree with hardened schools yet not turning them into prisons.

I've already had heated conversations with anti gun people. "Ban all guns" or "More gun laws". This, and understandable after an incident like this, is acting on emotion rather than logic.


----------



## Rampart (Dec 14, 2012)

I would like to offer a different perspective. For those who do not know, I an not an American and do not live in the USA. I am a Kiwi and have spent my life in military service and subsequently in Africa in the private military area.

Ever since going private and working in Africa (longer than I like to admit now) one common factor emerges. Those without the tools to realistically defend themselves (Usually subsistence farmers) get subjugated by anyone who so wishes. . Be it bandits, rogue government, militant or cultural groups. The horrors they are subjected to beggar belief. The things that done reduce the hardest men to tears with ease.

Once we have been able to address the immediate issue and neutralise the problem group, we take time to "empower" the victims by way of training to a basic proficiency and "accidentally" leaving a few AKs available these people are not molested again.Many will say we are just exacerbating the issue. I believe that this is not the case. The people we have helped are not interested in anything but getting on with their traditional life style. They have always been this way and have ignored the events around them to the point they have become totally vulnerable to the scum and corrupt .

Why are they left alone?

They can and do defend themselves. That is the only difference. I say again, that is the only difference.

Sadly the next unprepared group will become the object of the attentions of the filth that seek to act against others for no good reason. The absolute tragedy of murdered innocents is abhorrent and despicable and the perpetrators need to be made to pay.

More people are murdered in Africa with knives and axes than with firearms. More die from wild animal attack. All of these statistics change once the potential victim is both prepared equipped. As far as I can see numbers of people killed with non firearms weapons exceeds those killed with firearms the world over.

I can see no good from giving up the basic right to bear arms you have. I can see a lot of potential harm being done to good folk if this right is given up.

Ban guns = bad law.

The issues are not about who has firearms, they are about society and personal responsibility. If someone decides to run amok they will use whatever is to hand. The media seems to want to pump firearms related events way beyond any other type. That is where the danger lies I believe.

How many people die each year in the US as a result of drug overdose or automobile accidents?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 14, 2012)

Keeping with the primary issue of gun control, I want to post a few common sense questions:

1.       Convicted Felons should not have firearms. If we are afraid of a person having a firearm that committed a crime and is now returned to society, why are we allowing them back into society?
2.       If a person is mentally unstable and thus we fear them being in possession of a firearm, why do we allow them to remain a part of society?
3.       How is making a law against possession of a firearm for a criminal or legally mentally incompetent person actually stop them from getting a firearm or using it to commit violent act?
4.       Who is really affected by gun control laws, the person who follows the law, or the person does not follow the law?
5.       Is it a bad thing for a person to use a firearm in self-defense, or is it a bad thing for a government to tell that person they cannot defend themselves?
A member sent me this link, it’s loaded with great statistical data that further drives home the point that gun control has never worked.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Rampart, there is nothing like reality at its most basic levels.  I think your post speaks volumes to human nature and how the right to self protection via proper training and equipment, is not only an issue in the United States but a global issue as a whole.

A few quotes from history:



> "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
> - George Washington
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> ...


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Dec 14, 2012)

It's easier for the gov't to regulate/legislate guns vice trying to do the same thing to citizens, and therein lies the rub.  As JAB and others alluded to, it's the nut jobs (who are getting these guns and using them to carry out these horrific crimes) that need to be dealt with, not the guns.  Unfortunately, until this society gets past the fear (thank you PC police) of pointing the finger and saying, "hey, my buddy needs help, he's been talking about hurting himself and/or others" these travesties will continue.
I also believe that these criminals will continue to find soft targets.  Harden schools, they'll go to malls.  Harden malls, they'll go to restaurants.  Harden restaurants, they'll go to movie theaters...and on and on.  My hope is that if something like this did happen where a law abiding citizen was legally carrying a firearm, he/she would have put in the range time to know how to react and put a stop to the situation instead of making it worse.
As far as the right answer or a good solution, I don't know if there is one.  I wish I did.  Amlove's signature quote comes to mind though.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 14, 2012)

JAB said:


> I personally against any and all gun control measures for several reasons, but the primary reason is the United States Constitution. We are a free people, free to defend ourselves and our property and I view gun control measures as limiting the lawful citizen from being able to be free in protection of themselves and property. We obviously have some crazy people in the world, and nobody wants these crazy people carrying guns and killing innocent people. However, the issue really breaks down to either having someone else protect you and your property or taking on the responsibility for providing that protection for yourself.
> 
> It's even simpler for me.  I--and many of our members--took an oath (some of us did this several times) to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.  Done deal.
> 
> ...


----------



## policemedic (Dec 14, 2012)

JAB said:


> 3. How is making a law against possession of a firearm for a criminal or legally mentally incompetent person actually stop them from getting a firearm or using it to commit violent act?
> 
> Laws were never meant to stop anything, except through fear of consequences.  That's all laws do; they proscribe behavior and describe penalties for violating that proscription.  Any criminal who wants a gun will get one (in my experience, this has mostly been through theft, straw buyers, or black market sales).
> 
> ...


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 14, 2012)

ShadowSpear said:


> In other news....
> 
> http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/385705/man-stabs-22-children-in-china-authorities#.UMvfhHdPO8A


Between 2010 and 2011 alone, China saw at least 7 school attacks, none using a gun, that left at least 21 dead and 90+ injured.

When you have societal issues or mental issues and there is will, there will alsways be a way.

Sadly, it's only a matter of time before one of these animals takes "inspiration" from some methods that have long plagued the Middle East.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 15, 2012)

Etype said:


> JAB, this quote is becoming more and more relevant-
> 
> Since 1794 we've been the world police. We've let ourselves go.


 
I love that qoute, because it gives a real glimpse into how our early history developed this country. Needless to say I fully agree.


----------



## walra107 (Dec 15, 2012)

This is just plainly my opinion and experiences to follow: In my former high school in New York State, we had a full time State Trooper dedicated to the campus. He was of course armed with the usual workings of what most law enforcement officers usually carry, as well as a 12 gauge in the troop car. In addition to said trooper, the campus had a security detail of at least 3 patrols around the clock...Maybe it was overkill, and certainly looked it in my younger rebellious eyes, however I can only imagine the quick response time and possibly different outcome if said shootings had happened in my former school district, and am very thankful (now) that police presence was always on hand. I can recall numerous times when incidents would occur and would be quickly quelled before things got out of hand...though nothing in the nature of what had happened in CT.

As for Gun laws, I am in full agreement with supporting the Constitution...It is my right to own a firearm and to defend myself from those who intend to do me harm. If its not guns, then its knives..if not knives, then sticks and rocks...People killing people has been around a lot longer than gunpowder and lead. its the human psyche that is the main factor in these events.


----------



## Hitman2/3 (Dec 15, 2012)

I won't go too deep into this, as I will end up writing an essay. However, the one thing I will say is that in terms of fixing the problem it is an issue with our society. I.E. lets not fix the real problem because that would be too hard instead lets come up with a quick lazy solution.

An example of this would be our military bases abroad, combat zones to be exact. Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors were NDing like it was cool. Well clearly the problem is that their guns are loaded so we'll just make them walk around with unloaded weapons in a combat zone. Even though anybody with a little bit of intelligence could look at the situation and say maybe its a lack of proper training and exposure that is causing these issues and thats what should be fixed, they took the lazy/easy way out. Until all these "partnered" forces over here started going Ji'had on everybody, then all of a sudden it was like why are our soldiers walking around with unloaded guns.  Even to this day, in the military even the wonderful Marine Corps, the average service members exposure and use of firearms is a joke. I'll shoot more in one day on the range than most will shoot in a four year enlistment.

Getting back on track my point is that the people screaming for more gun laws or just the complete absence of guns are taking that same easy/lazy approach. It won't work because the guns aren't the root of the problem. Now if machine guns were legal and the guy went in their with a M60 then of course I'd be the first one to say hey maybe we should rethink this, but since the issue with a lot of people seems to constantly be all guns are bad I have to think that its once again looking for the easiest/laziest answer. People who have their mind set on killing innocent people will always find a way to do it with or without guns. As Rampart pointed out you don't need a gun to terrorize, as in parts of Africa the machete is even more feared than the gun. Atrocities have always been committed, long before the invention of the gun. Even worse most were and are committed by people who are clinically sane and know exactly what they are doing, so I don't see how removing legally owned guns from the equation will help anyone.


----------



## Gypsy (Dec 15, 2012)

hoepoe said:


> The weapon shouldn't be the issue, guns don't kill, people do. If it wasn't a gun it would have been something else.
> 
> H


 
Very true. The deadliest massacre of school children was in 1927, in Michigan. The bastard used explosives. 45 people were killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

People will use this tragedy to scream for more gun control, already has started.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Dec 15, 2012)

All the experts are out in full force on FB.  Makes me sick...

"Sorry but prayers and giving your kids hugs fix nothing; only having the balls to stand up to our insane selfish gun culture will."  -Bill Maher​


----------



## CDG (Dec 15, 2012)

I fail to follow the logic that arrives at the conclusion that legitimately believes outlawing guns will prevent this from happening. Criminals don't follow laws, that's why they're criminals. Some guy was evil enough to bust into an elementary school and kill 20 kids, 6 adults, and his own mother, but guns being illegal would have prevented that? How does that work exactly? Are there there drugs available for anyone who wants them? Can you get illegal cigarettes, alcohol, prescription drugs, etc.? Oh, but guns will be different? I don't get it. How can you miss that anti-gun legislation will only allow criminals to operate with less fear because they can be reasonably confident the house they are breaking into doesn't contain an armed citizen. or the person they are going to mug/rape/assault doesn't have a concealed weapon?


----------



## JBS (Dec 15, 2012)

CDG said:


> I fail to follow the logic that arrives at the conclusion that legitimately believes outlawing guns will prevent this from happening. Criminals don't follow laws, that's why they're criminals. Some guy was evil enough to bust into an elementary school and kill 20 kids, 6 adults, and his own mother, but guns being illegal would have prevented that? How does that work exactly? Are there there drugs available for anyone who wants them? Can you get illegal cigarettes, alcohol, prescription drugs, etc.? Oh, but guns will be different? I don't get it. How can you miss that anti-gun legislation will only allow criminals to operate with less fear because they can be reasonably confident the house they are breaking into doesn't contain an armed citizen. or the person they are going to mug/rape/assault doesn't have a concealed weapon?


Actually, the reports are that he took guns from his mother- an upstanding citizen, law abiding person who was also a schoolteacher, and owned them all within the constraints of the law. So if these reports are to believed, and if they are accurate, there is literally NO conceivable law which could have prevented this guy from getting his hands on guns and doing what he did. He didn't even own the guns to begin with, so passing a law preventing him from buying - or getting his hands on guns would be have had no effect, since he stole the guns from a legal owner.


----------



## CDG (Dec 15, 2012)

JBS said:


> Actually, the reports are that he took guns from his mother- an upstanding citizen, law abiding person who was also a schoolteacher, and owned them all within the constraints of the law. So if these reports are to believed, and if they are accurate, there is literally NO concievable law which could have prevented this guy from getting his hands on guns and doing what he did. He didn't even own the guns to begin with.


 
I had read that yesterday and that's exactly my point.  You can't legislatively prevent these occurrences.  It's asinine to think you can.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Dec 15, 2012)

Why are some asking for stricter gun control laws?  Simple: people fear what they don't understand.


----------



## Rampart (Dec 15, 2012)

CDG said:


> Criminals don't follow laws, that's why they're criminals. /quote]
> 
> 
> Until those who go endlessly on in a mind numbing whirlwind of hand wringing and looking for fastest way to feel like they have done something realise this point the entire gun control debate will go on. Every citizen must accept that not only do they need to take responsibility for themselves, they must ensure they have and keep the wherewithal to do so. It is not socially responsible to avoid facing the hard truths and pass the buck in the manner so many anti gun protagonists do.
> ...


----------



## AWP (Dec 15, 2012)

Our country is going to make an emotional decision in the next year, one with devestating results to our personal freedoms and how we see gov't. "Pro gun" will become a negative label, and any of us with that label must obviously want more violence to occur. We will forget our country's own history, to say nothing of human nature, when we make this decision. The media will help lead the charge and our "representatives" in Washington, fearful of losing votes, will allow it. Logic and reason were killed in that classroom and deep down every gun hater in this country is grateful for what happened. "This is a tragedy but it shows America that our gun culture is evil". Sympathy followed by "I can fix this if you'll just give away some of your freedom. Just a little, it won't hurt."

Pro-gun arguments will be defeated with a simple "Whargarbl Connecticut school shooting!" and that will suffice. The fence-sitters will follow their emotions and the ambivilent will allow it to happen because they won't wish to stand against massive public opinion.

History, logic, and your personal rights won't matter. Our fear will see to that.


----------



## Rampart (Dec 15, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> History, logic, and your personal rights won't matter. Our fear will see to that.


 
Sadly this may be true


----------



## AWP (Dec 15, 2012)

Chewing my way through an unusually tasty lunch by this place's standards...

I'm tired of hearing about America's "gun culture". Guns, guns, guns, guns, guns...even the NRA and other pro-gun groups are reluctant to address the real issue here, and that is our society. It sucks.

Yeah, I said that. Our society sucks and is the cause for all of this.

I know, I'm using logic and history and that won't have a place in this debate...but look at a recent period and another period everyone loves to drag out: the Cocaine wars in south Florida and the Old West. People would have you believe that this is Dodge City all over again and no one mentions Miami in the early to mid-80's, but look at both periods. Were guns the problem or was society and the environment the problem?

This generation the problem is our gun culture, but what will the next generation use as an excuse? Booze? Tried it, failed, we know this, but what will we use as an excuse in 20-30 years? Violence is up because of...TV? Books? The Internet? What?

Guns aren't letting us down, WE are letting oursleves down. WE are the problem here and no one wants to admit that, it hits too close to home. "I couldn't possible be a part of the problem! I'm a good person!"

Well, if everyone was a good person 20+ people would still be alive. We aren't and they aren't, and blaming our gun culture is a cop-out to avoid the real cause. We have met the enemy and he is us.


----------



## tova (Dec 15, 2012)

My simple little 2 cents worth.

I fully believe that I have every right to have the freedom of choice to decide whether or not to own a gun legally.

I flat refuse to not fight to help keep this right. If it is taken away, even more rights will be eroded - and at that point, might as well move over to North Korea and be done with it.

Freefalling, you are right - our fear is to blame - it is fucking us up - well, most of us. But not all.


----------



## JBS (Dec 15, 2012)

tova said:


> My simple little 2 cents worth.
> 
> I fully believe that I have every right to have the freedom of choice to decide whether or not to own a gun legally.
> 
> ...


It's fucking up about 51% of us, judging by voting figures. Just enough to drag the rest of us through the BS.


----------



## DasBoot (Dec 15, 2012)

I agree with the sentiment that an AWB will only affect those lawful owners, and won't stem violence. But the arguments from Bill Maher and others just pisses me off. Maher has long argued against ending the "War on Drugs" as it is ineffective and people will always get drugs. Now he's arguing against guns, using the same arguments pro-Drug war types have for decades. The hypocrisy is mind blowing.


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 15, 2012)

We don't have a gun problem.  We have a people problem.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 15, 2012)

I went to a gun store in NY today to purchase 50 9mm ball rounds and a storage/lock box for my car in the event I need to lock my loaded Glock 9mm in my car if I can not carry into a certain place or zone. After speaking with all the sales reps business has been picking up since the shooting.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 15, 2012)

I was at Ace Sporting Goods in Washington PA today.  You couldnt even get in the door.  Its a small business but business was really good today.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 15, 2012)

Marine0311 said:


> I went to a gun store in NY today to purchase 50 9mm ball rounds and a storage/lock box for my car in the event I need to lock my loaded Glock 9mm in my car if I can not carry into a certain place or zone. After speaking with all the sales reps business has been picking up since the shooting President gave his speech.


 
Fixed it for you.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 15, 2012)

JAB said:


> Fixed it for you.


 
Odd you should have fixed it for me. One of the salespeople said "President Obama has been good for our business".

I am concerned with this administrations stance on firearms, current laws, proposed laws and Big Brother


----------



## Arrow 4 (Dec 15, 2012)

This is an e-mail I got from a friend of mine today, I think it speaks volumes.

Dear friends and family,

First of all I have to say that I LOVE kids and I LOVE education. I guess that would make sense with my being a 27 year veteran 10th-12th and college educator with a Bachelor's Degree in Secondary Education, a Master's Degree in Educational Administration and a Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction.

Having said that I have to give my "two cents worth" regarding the media and popular culture's RESPONSE to the recent shootings in Aurora, CO, the KC Chiefs football player, and now at the elementary school in Connecticut. If I hear one more journalist or talking head say something like, "I just can't understand why something like this would happen...I can't wrap my mind around it...let's ask this secular progressive psychologist who has letters after her name (e.g. Ph.D., Ed.D., M.D., etc.) and hear what she has to say...I think I will scream (well, in fact, I already did scream while driving to my buddy on the phone!).

Let me try answering WHY this type of ugly, insane, and atrocious act occurs from a Biblical worldview:

1) Sin - I know it is an "outdated" idea that we are ALL sinful (Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.") and in desperate need of a savior especially when our humanist culture through the public educational system and popular media teaches that at the core mankind is basically good. We are being lied to! We are not "good" at heart...we have no where to look at for the source of this evil other than within. 

2) Evolution - Our children (as are we) are being bombarded with the "fact" that each of us is the result of random chance and our heritage is a long line of inanimate objects, cells, amoebas, monkeys, etc. and that we are no better than anything else in creation (a.k.a. public school science classrooms, the extreme environmental movement, media, extreme animal rights activists, etc.). A famous atheist and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) founder Ingrid Newkirk is quoted as saying "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." Yes!, really she did and actually believes it! We never hear that God created us in His image and the crown of His creation. He put His Holy Spirit in us as a sign of His love and special covenant with us. Even after original sin we are born with and still fight daily the desire to turn from Him and neglect Him He sent His son "while we were yet sinners" to save us from eternal damnation. We don't even hear much the child's phrase of "God don't make no junk!" anymore. Since this is where many have come to, it makes perfect sense for those who believe they have no purpose, value, or goals that matter would act out by killing others who are likewise unimportant, insignificant, and nuisances and then commit suicide. This is the logical conclusion to a world view with no basis in God.

3) Lack of personal responsibility - It is obvious that some of us are not raised in the best of homes with God-fearing parents nor are some blessed with a Bible believing church or godly friends to help keep us focused on God's will for our lives and accountable to stay on the straight and narrow. However, none of those challenges abnegate us from doing what is right. Each one of us will be held accountable for our sin and wrongdoing. Of course if God teaches one thing that the world around us says the opposite, "Oh, we need to find out what the killer went through in his life and understand him better." or "We need to see why his girlfriend broke up with him and try to make sure that doesn't happen again." Nowhere do you hear that it was evil and sinful what he did and let's redouble our efforts to teach our children God's word!

Another point here. Jesus did say in Mathew 15: 19 "From a GUN come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander." Oh, maybe that wasn't how it started and was, "Out of the heart comes evil thoughts..."

The problem we are facing is not GUNS, it's sinful PEOPLE! The solution is not GUN CONTROL through legislation it's PEOPLE CONTROL through God's word and His love for them!

4) Divorce - I know that this is a touchy subject because some of you are probably divorced but please know I am speaking the Truth in love. I am not judging those of you who had to deal with unfaithfulness or abandonment. Here I am speaking about the lies that our culture and the world around us are preaching about divorce. Our world tells us that divorce is no big deal and that children who come out of divorced families are just fine so don't worry about it if you want to leave the spouse that you committed to spend the rest of your life with for another person. We are told that if it gets tough or you just "fall out of love" with someone then go try to find "someone who will make you happy." IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU or making YOURself happy. It's about what the God who formed and fashioned us and died for us says will make us happy and that is to love Him, get to know Him on a personal basis, follow His ways, and cling to our Savior. God says "I hate divorce." (Malachi 2:16) and SO SHOULD WE!

 5) Family Breakdown - In addition to divorce we also need to mention the general breakdown of the family in this country! For the first time in American history, more than 50% of all births are to single women. No fathers. No family. Again, contrary to popular culture telling us that one parent is sufficient to the needs of children, God established the family unit – both mothers and fathers – to love, nurture, discipline, and as Proverbs 22:6 says “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.”  Something even many pastors will not remind us of these days is that in Scripture it clearly says that wives should submit to their husbands and husbands are likewise to love their wives “as Christ does the church” which by the way would mean dying for her as Jesus did!  This is where we men must step forward…NOW! As a result of this healthy God-ordained relationship between one man and one woman for life, children see how their parents love and submit one to another and are much more willing to submit to their parents. These things are all part of the fingerprint of God's design and our culture tries hard to offer alternatively lifestyles that CANNOT be substituted for and WILL NOT be able to provide the same results.

Finally, in closing I have a question for you to ponder and meditate on - why all the outrage over 20 kindergarten children getting shot and killed and NOT the same level of guile, disgust, and hatred that each day in our country either a pill is taken or a knife is used to go into the womb and kill millions of babies each year?

A word of encouragement to those of you feeling like you are an alien here in our own beloved U. S. of A. because of the way things seem to be headed. Jesus prayed for us in John 17: 14 "I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world."

Christian friends, let us respond by saying: “We will go for you, Lord Jesus, and will let our light shine before men because we love our fellowman! Come with us!”

Trey


----------



## CDG (Dec 15, 2012)

I have seen two references in the past couple days now to the 2nd Amendment only being applicable to muskets and the arms they had at the time of the framing of the Constitution.  Yet another line of "logic" that I just cannot fathom ever reaching.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 15, 2012)

I have no issue with strengthening the current system however no NEW firearms laws


----------



## Worldweaver (Dec 15, 2012)

Heard something interesting today.

Reporter: "Why does anyone feel the need to own one of these assault rifles?"
Expert:  "Some people think it's sexy or cool...others just think 'well, it's not illegal so i'll get one'".

HaHa, these people are brilliant.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 15, 2012)

Question.  Expert of what.


----------



## Worldweaver (Dec 15, 2012)

I was being facetious about his title, not sure of his credentials


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 15, 2012)

Worldweaver said:


> I was being facetious about his title, not sure of his credentials


Understood.  There are just so many experts out there now-a-days.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 15, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Our country is going to make an emotional decision in the next year, one with devestating results to our personal freedoms and how we see gov't. "Pro gun" will become a negative label, and any of us with that label must obviously want more violence to occur. We will forget our country's own history, to say nothing of human nature, when we make this decision. The media will help lead the charge and our "representatives" in Washington, fearful of losing votes, will allow it. Logic and reason were killed in that classroom and deep down every gun hater in this country is grateful for what happened. "This is a tragedy but it shows America that our gun culture is evil". Sympathy followed by "I can fix this if you'll just give away some of your freedom. Just a little, it won't hurt."
> 
> Pro-gun arguments will be defeated with a simple "Whargarbl Connecticut school shooting!" and that will suffice. The fence-sitters will follow their emotions and the ambivilent will allow it to happen because they won't wish to stand against massive public opinion.
> 
> History, logic, and your personal rights won't matter. Our fear will see to that.


 

I concur. Two issues have been in play for quite a bit of time, they include: responsible ownership, and dealing with those who are likely to act dangerously with firearms.  

I believe that owners of firearms should secure them properly. That means the weapon is on your person, or locked in a firearms safe. The safe should be bolted to the dwelling. I'm not sure if this would have stopped the latest event in CN., but there might have been less to copy. Dealing with those who should not have firearms, is harder.

Background checks with a weapons could be better. Any question about mental disease/defect/instability should be searched for. If evidence of such is found, a higher level of investigation should be taken, and a denial of purchase if necessary. This will take longer to do, and a week's wait for approval could result. Is this something that could/should be supported? Second part is about those who would be denied a purchase.

Many years ago, large state supported mental health hospitals. Patients were cared for for years, with close followup upon discharge. Budget constraints have moved a considerable number of these former patients out into the community, with overworked outpatient clinic followup. These formerly hospitalized patients are in our community, and do well until something happens. They stop taking meds, break a law, scare someone, hurt someone, or kill someone. In any case, they wind up in jail for what they have done, not a care facility. In short, we now criminalize the mentally ill; that is the new standard for care of the mentally ill, in some cases. If the homes these mentally ill people are living in have firearms, are the firearms really secured? If not, the risk is huge; we have seen the results in some cases. It is the interface of mentally ill/ impared/ undertreated individual, with firearms that is the dangerous place. It is also the most expensive, and least likely part that will be addressed.

I think the solution is there, as mentioned above. Is that the road that we will go down? Probably not. Like Free pointed out, emotion will carry the issue into the political arena. The government will be supported to act in a "decisive" way, in a way that demands fast sure solution. It will not include much thought, it will happen quickly, and punished harshly. Smallarms do make is really easy to kill a lot of people in a short period of time. Solution, take them away. They are already "against the law" in some cases, so a stronger law will be expected to solve the problem; take all the guns away. It is just the wrong thing to do. We will continue to treat the mentally ill with a term in jail/prison. People will still scare, hurt, kill people; they will just find another way. A new map will be drawn for others to follow; nothing will really change, in the end.

That's my take; off the soapbox back to my little hole here in The Valley.

RF 1


----------



## pardus (Dec 15, 2012)

The 2nd amendment is going to be under serious attack soon I think.


----------



## Worldweaver (Dec 15, 2012)

pardus said:


> The 2nd amendment is going to be under serious attack soon I think.


 
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/opinion/zuckerman-connecticut-shootings/index.html

Reading some of these comments I'm afraid it's already here.  Not that it's a surprise that people make ignorant statements but these are above and beyond what I usually hear from the anti-gun crowd.  It's coming down the pipes, things will get interesting.


----------



## Rapid (Dec 15, 2012)

I believe that people should be able to own handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, assault rifles, sniper rifles, light machine guns... or whatever else. However, to say that these rights shouldn't come with any responsibilities (safekeeping), duties (immediately reporting missing weapons) or conditions (limiting/excluding these rights from the severely deranged or criminals) just seems crazy to me.



JAB said:


> I personally against any and all gun control measures for several reasons, but the primary reason is the United States Constitution.


 
This is a similar reasoning to that which causes people to fly planes into buildings. The USC is truly great, but one's interpretation of a single text is hardly the only source of information which one should use to base an entire judgement. Regardless, the USC doesn't say that you should have an _unrestricted_ right to bear arms. Adding conditions to certain rights does not defeat/infringe on those rights. Nearly all of our rights in Western countries are restricted, and for good reason, because there are always dicks out there who'd like to abuse them to the detriment of others. Deciding what restrictions are acceptable is down to us.

Do you really not see the issue with _all_ people, even those with serious mental health issues or major criminal records (the bulk of these mass murderers), being able to own and carry lethal weapons? Please tell me you believe in _certain_ limitations.

If we decided that it was a good idea to get people to pass a course before they could drive a car, then it's probably a good idea to get them to obtain a license (e.g., similar to a CCW) before they can own, carry and use something which could potentially be far more dangerous than a car. Maybe then people would learn about a lot of neglected subjects, such as how to secure your weapon so your psychopath son doesn't steal it and go on a rampage at your local school? I'm sure it'd cut down on a lot of accidental deaths and injuries too.

I'm against most gun restrictions, which are just plain dumb (e.g., the AWB), but I do advocate laws that make gun ownership a real, personal responsibility. Being able to safely operate a weapon is one of the biggest and most basic of all military duties, for which everyone must pass training, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be the same in the civilian world, since it works so well for us.



JAB said:


> I view gun control measures as limiting the lawful citizen from being able to be free in protection of themselves and property.


 
And some people may view driving licenses as measures to limit lawful citizens from being able to move about freely, but maybe they don't see that they're just there to make sure we exercise that right responsibly?



JAB said:


> why did it take so long for him to be stopped, how could a crazy person armed with guns make it into a school, in a state know for strict gun control and murder 26 people?


 
Maybe because his mother was too irresponsible to exercise safe storage of firearms? A lot of stupid shit like this happens because:

A) Guns are legally or illegally sold to people who have no social responsibility of owning them (i.e., the mentally disturbed, criminals, etc). <- This can be limited with regulations similar to those which decide who is responsible enough to drive a car or not.

B) Guns are stolen by those with malicious intent. <- This can't be limited unless people stop being idiots when it comes to how they store their weapons. So, maybe introduce gun laws which actually make sense? Instead of stupid crap like the Assault Weapons Ban, politicians should try introducing something which would make people a lot more responsible for keeping their weapons _secure_.



JAB said:


> I believe that comes from arming our teachers [...]


 
This is just too unrealistic. Teachers aren't exactly stereotypical advocates of gun ownership... let alone people who would want to carry guns around children. It also adds to possibilities of guns being stolen as soon as someone, like a teacher, (inevitably) gets lazy at some point. The only solution is to lock-down entry/exit points at schools and focus security on those. Having a SWAT team at every hallway isn't a solution. Let schools be schools, not military bases. It's already sad enough that, in a first world country, school entrances need to be locked down with armed security.


----------



## pardus (Dec 15, 2012)

I just became a life member of the NRA. I'm hoping my money helps in the fight to preserve this freedom of ours.


----------



## Rapid (Dec 15, 2012)

pardus said:


> I just became a life member of the NRA. I'm hoping my money helps in the fight to preserve this freedom of ours.


 
I hope so too. You wouldn't want a knee-jerk reaction like the Dunblane massacre created in the UK.

Like I said, banning firearms is stupid... but, IMO, people do need to be made more responsible for their ownership, if they want to have that right.


----------



## Ex3 (Dec 15, 2012)

CDG said:


> I have seen two references in the past couple days now to the 2nd Amendment only being applicable to muskets and the arms they had at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Yet another line of "logic" that I just cannot fathom ever reaching.


Yeah, that was me. I'm happy to cop to it. My point was that as amazing a document the Constitution is, it was written at a time when the Founding Brothers could never imagine what the future would look like. It'd be pretty hard to kill 26 people with a musket.

As I said, I know my opinion isn't gonna be a popular one around here and I'm okay with that.

Arrow 4 - you seem to focus almost exclusively on the lack of religion in our society. IMHO, this horror had everything to do with mental illness. Why or how could someone this sick and damaged not get the help he needed? His mother had to have know he had some serious issues - why didn't she secure her legally obtained weapons so he (or anyone else for that matter) didn't have access to them?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 15, 2012)

Which is fine, but weapons technology was progressing and had progressed during the founding fathers lifetime... therefore your argument is based on fallacy and big appleism, not fact nor even common sense.


----------



## JBS (Dec 15, 2012)

Ex3 said:


> Yeah, that was me. I'm happy to cop to it. My point was that as amazing a document the Constitution is, it was written at a time when the Founding Brothers could never imagine what the future would look like. It'd be pretty hard to kill 26 people with a musket.
> 
> As I said, I know my opinion isn't gonna be a popular one around here and I'm okay with that.


Anyone who thinks the Founding Fathers wanted us using muskets in perpetuity would also have to explain if they think we should be using quill pens and India ink in tiny glass vials by candlelight as well.

The purpose of arming a populace, as the Founding Father's writing is utterly replete with references to, is to serve as a final guarantor of liberty if- and when- a tyrannical government began exceeding it's boundaries. When a people finally have no recourse and feel they are living in tyranny, they will be able to dissolve the standing government and in it's place erect a new one. Without weapons- contemporary weapons- such a scenario would end in any revolution being crushed. No Founding Father would have wanted to strip away the power to rise against tyranny for future generations.



pardus said:


> The 2nd amendment is going to be under serious attack soon I think.


We have already rounded the bend. Our nation has been fundamentally transformed, and I do not believe we will soon return to the ways of the past. The inner cities and ghettos and large cities, combined with millions of new un-assimilated immigrants have with the power of their numbers changed the fabric of America without regard for the values held by the Founding Fathers. A huge percentage of Americans no longer even know what this country is about, much less it's origins, or the history of revolution that brought us here.

No offense, Ex3, but ask the average New Yorker who the Founding Fathers were. You'll burn through a hundred passerby's before you find one who can even name one. But they can tell you when the subways run, how to hail a taxi and where to find a good slice of pizza. This country, and in particular the massive population centers are good at pumping out millions of high schoolers into the system who can't even read, let alone identify with what this country stands for, or it's incredible history.  The same is true of every large city in America, particularly in the Northeast and California.   Go to small towns, and you will still find ignorance, but there will still be a reverence for the basic liberties in the Constitution.

We have already rounded the bend. The fabric of America has changed and they WILL support gun control. It's a matter of time.


----------



## AWP (Dec 15, 2012)

I'm not typing it again. LOL

http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threa...lation-happening-now.15916/page-2#post-245302


----------



## Ex3 (Dec 15, 2012)

JBS said:


> No offense, Ex3, but ask the average New Yorker who the Founding Fathers were. You'll burn through a hundred passerby's before you find one who can even name one. But they can tell you when the subways run, how to hail a taxi and where to find a good slice of pizza. This country, and in particular the massive population centers are good at pumping out millions of high schoolers into the system who can't even read, let alone identify with what this country stands for, or it's incredible history.
> 
> We have already rounded the bend. The fabric of America has changed and they WILL support gun control. It's a matter of time.


Not sure what your point is....you think New Yorkers are dumb?  Because they aren't.  

Not for nothing, but I think that fact that a mass shooting like they one yesterday or in Columbine  has never happened in NYC says the more strict control of guns in the city is working.  Notice I didn't say outlawing of guns, just stricter control.


----------



## 0699 (Dec 15, 2012)

Ex3 said:


> Yeah, that was me. I'm happy to cop to it. My point was that as amazing a document the Constitution is, it was written at a time when the Founding Brothers could never imagine what the future would look like. It'd be pretty hard to kill 26 people with a musket.
> 
> As I said, I know my opinion isn't gonna be a popular one around here and I'm okay with that.
> 
> Arrow 4 - you seem to focus almost exclusively on the lack of religion in our society. IMHO, this horror had everything to do with mental illness. Why or how could someone this sick and damaged not get the help he needed? His mother had to have know he had some serious issues - why didn't she secure her legally obtained weapons so he (or anyone else for that matter) didn't have access to them?


 
It's also hard to reach the minds of a billion people with a speech given on a soapbox.

I know we're going to disagree on this, but everytime I hear of a proposed law/regulation/etc for firearms, I ask myself "would this make sense if we replaced the word "gun" with "speech".  For every restriction on an Americans right to keep & bear arms, why aren't the same strictures placed on freedom of speech?  Need a permit to own a gun?  Why not a permit to have a web site?  Is not the pen mightier than the sword?


----------



## Ex3 (Dec 15, 2012)

0699 said:


> It's also hard to reach the minds of a billion people with a speech given on a soapbox.
> 
> I know we're going to disagree on this, but everytime I hear of a proposed law/regulation/etc for firearms, I ask myself "would this make sense if we replaced the word "gun" with "speech". For every restriction on an Americans right to keep & bear arms, why aren't the same strictures placed on freedom of speech? Need a permit to own a gun? Why not a permit to have a web site? Is not the pen mightier than the sword?


Also harder to kill someone with a pen.  ;)  xx


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 15, 2012)

Rapid said:


> Your post


 
Rapid I don’t have the time right now to respond to your whole post, but I will later. Just a quick few tid-bits:
1. The United States Constitution is the law of the land for the federal government. It restricts the government from restricting rights of the people. Just because the federal government has been adding restrictive laws, doesn’t make them legal or right. The states however, have the power to make laws that do restrict things, such as requiring a driver’s license or CCW training, ect. However, the state is also bound by the constitution as well. Again just because the governments have been trampling all over the people’s rights, doesn’t make it legal.

2. I agree with gun-owner responsibility laws (i.e. keep them locked up if they are not on your person, ect). However, it would only be enforceable as reactive law. Meaning that something would have to go wrong for someone to be punished, same goes for more restriction on being able to buy a gun, thus continuing the cycle of laws being made that do not fix the actual problem.

3. Teachers being armed should be up to the teacher, and I do believe that they should be requirements in training before being allowed to carry in a classroom. However, I think it is absolutely idiotic to not allow teachers to protect themselves along with the students they are responsible for. The only person, who is going to stop an active shooter from killing more people, is an armed person there as it happens….period. I wonder how teachers protected their students 200 years ago? How did parents protect their children 200 years ago? With a gun, no special license, no special laws, just the right person, at the right place, armed with a gun.

4. You can write all the special laws in the world, but at the very end of the day, it all boils down to, there are bad people out there, and the only way that anyone can protect themselves from them, is to have the means to do so. In this age that is still a gun, and as long as it is the arms of choice, people should not be restricted from having those means. Again, as PoliceMedic has posted, laws are reactive, they only offer a consequence to an act, and they do not stop the actual act. So making any laws, that restrict gun ownership, really will only affect those who respect the law, and that pretty much excludes the criminal and mentally ill element. What’s left? The people who need those guns to protect themselves from the criminal and mentally ill people.

More to follow…


----------



## Rapid (Dec 15, 2012)

JBS said:


> The purpose of arming a populace, as the Founding Father's writing is utterly replete with references to, is to serve as a final guarantor of liberty if- and when- a tyrannical government began exceeding it's boundaries. When a people finally have no recourse and feel they are living in tyranny, they will be able to dissolve the standing government and in it's place erect a new one.


 
I could write a whole book about how it would never go down like that, but come one, let's be real... The only realistic reason for gun ownership these days is self-preservation. And that's the only reason you need.

In case of a situation that actually warranted a mass, popular uprising... the government's protectors, i.e., the military and other security forces, would be the first to mutiny -- since these days they are comprised of its own, upstanding citizens (not foreign mercenaries who'll just follow any orders). And if they didn't, then god help the people, because Average Joe with his AR-15 and lack of training would never be able to take down such a force (which, again, won't happen because most of the military wouldn't be ready to start slaughtering its own citizens -- it's not Syria, after all).


----------



## JBS (Dec 15, 2012)

Ex3 said:


> Not sure what your point is....you think New Yorkers are dumb? Because they aren't.
> 
> Not for nothing, but I think that fact that a mass shooting like they one yesterday or in Columbine has never happened in NYC says the more strict control of guns in the city is working. Notice I didn't say outlawing of guns, just stricter control.


Not about intelligence, about culture.  The culture of the cities and urban centers is dramatically different than that of the rural and suburban areas.


----------



## JBS (Dec 15, 2012)

Rapid said:


> I could write a whole book about how it would never go down like that, but come one, let's be real... The only realistic reason for gun ownership these days is self-preservation. And that's the only reason you need.
> 
> In case of a situation that actually warranted a mass, popular uprising... the government's protectors, i.e., the military and other security forces, would be the first to mutiny -- since these days they are comprised of its own, upstanding citizens (not foreign mercenaries who'll just follow any orders). And if they didn't, then god help the people, because Average Joe with his AR-15 and lack of training would never be able to take down such a force (which, again, won't happen because most of the military wouldn't be ready to start slaughtering its own citizens -- it's not Syria, after all).


 
I respect your view, but I disagree with you.  Without writing a lengthy post I will just say that it is possible to envision a realistic scenario in which a future government bolstered largely by drones, armored vehicles and small security teams could suppress a revolution.  Remember, we're not talking about a situation where the "right" side is so clear.   This would be a simplistic rendering.  In some future conflict, there will be loyalists and rebels, just as there are in most revolutionary scenarios.


----------



## DasBoot (Dec 15, 2012)

Arrow 4 said:


> This is an e-mail I got from a friend of mine today, I think it speaks volumes.
> whole post...
> 
> Trey


So because we teach evolution and not some creationist nonsense, we are going to experience mass shootings? What uter crap. It amazes me how those on the Christian right are so quick to capitalize on these tragedies as a means of furthering their message and picking on the groups they don't like. I'm the product of a divorced family- so are about half the kids in this country at this point. With that number, wouldn't you think these mass shootings would be much more frequent? No- they're not. And that's because our parents with their "alternative lifestyles" did a fine job of raising us. And of course they have to bring the abortion debate into this... I won't even touch on that as that is a whole other thread.  

These types of killings have gone on for decades- just like the aforementioned school bombing that killed 45. We have a media that exposes us to these things more and more. Look around the world, and see all the "good" religion has done. If some people find solace in religion, good for them. But it is not the key to dealing with these sorts of things. Better mental health treatment and school safety is.


----------



## JBS (Dec 15, 2012)

mrob said:


> I think I'm going to make myself rather unpopular around here with this post, but so be it.
> 
> Since 1996, the US has witnessed 58 mass shootings/school shootings. In that same amount of time, just 12 have occurred in Europe. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html). And as we all know the EU is pretty anti-gun. Now, you could come to several conclusions from just that statistic alone, but one conclusion gun supporters might come to is that even with the EU's anti-gun policies and attitude in general, mass shootings do in fact still occur. And just as many have pointed out, criminals, if strongly committed, will manage to get their hands on a gun one way or the other. But with the US having nearly 5x as many mass shootings, not including all the other gun-related crime, something is seriously going wrong and we need to seriously reconsider the status quo and make policy changes.
> 
> ...


When you get done banning guns/tactical rifles, make sure you look into banning cocaine. There's supposedly been a real problem with that the past 30 years, and it'd be nice if we could get it outlawed so the problem would go away.


----------



## DasBoot (Dec 15, 2012)

JBS said:


> Not about intelligence, about culture. The culture of the cities and urban centers is dramatically different than that of the rural and suburban areas.


I wouldn't pick on cities too much. I grew up in the suburbs of Tampa and hung out with a lot of rednecks from Polk county. They're just as ignorant and uninformed as any kid in an urban enviornment.


----------



## JBS (Dec 15, 2012)

DasBoot said:


> I wouldn't pick on cities too much. I grew up in the suburbs of Tampa and hung out with a lot of rednecks from Polk county. They're just as ignorant and uninformed as any kid in an urban enviornment.


There's dummies everywhere. Nevertheless, the cultural climate in Chicago, New York, San Francisco, or LA is going to be radically different than that of the rural or even suburban areas. I've lived in New York and Miami (the former for 3 years and the latter for 16 years), so I know urban culture. Hell, you don't even have to compare New York to the outlying small towns. I live in a fairly affluent /comfortable community around Lake Norman nowadays, and these are suburban communities with decent grassy plots of land, sidewalks and well-kept playgrounds. The culture here is nothing like a large urban population center, and the values are radically different as well.

If you want to know who is going to support gun control, it's going to be the 51% who voted in Obama, and all you need to do to see a glaring example of that is Google the Florida voter/election map-2012 to see where those people are concentrated. Inner city, ghettos, urban areas, and (relatively) tiny isolated pockets of very affluent Left-thinking people.


----------



## Ex3 (Dec 15, 2012)

JBS said:


> There's dummies everywhere. Nevertheless, the cultural climate in Chicago, New York, San Francisco, or LA is going to be radically different than that of the rural or even suburban areas. I've lived in New York and Miami (the former for 3 years and the latter for 16 years), so I know urban culture. Hell, you don't even have to compare New York to the outlying small towns. I live in a fairly affluent /comfortable community around Lake Norman nowadays, and these are suburban communities with decent grassy plots of land, sidewalks and well-kept playgrounds. The culture here is nothing like a large urban population center, and the values are radically different as well.


So we have no values?  Then explain why all this mass murders have happened in the 'burbs?


----------



## JBS (Dec 15, 2012)

Ex3 said:


> So we have no values? Then explain why all this mass murders have happened in the 'burbs?


You might not be a victim of a "mass shooting" in New York, but you're something like 16 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in New York when compared to a typical small town.

Are you seriously arguing that New York is a safer place to live than suburban America?

EDITED TO ADD: And no, I didn't say New York has no values.  I said the set of values in New York (or any urban city) are going to be radically different than small town America or the 'burbs.


----------



## Rapid (Dec 15, 2012)

JAB said:


> Meaning that something would have to go wrong for someone to be punished, same goes for more restriction on being able to buy a gun, thus continuing the cycle of laws being made that do not fix the actual problem.


 
That's not a problem, since none of our laws are able to fix any problems all by themselves. Does that mean we shouldn't have any laws, since to some people they're just a suggestion? No, because they are there to help and they do help. Hefty punishments should be enough of a persuasion to at least make a difference to people's poor weapon storage practices.



JAB said:


> Teachers being armed should be up to the teacher


 
I've seen enough idiotic or plain irresponsible ones to know that I wouldn't want just any old teacher to be able to carry a gun around kids just because they passed some training. Who should be allowed to carry a gun, or not, should be up to the head teacher/principal, and should be made public knowledge so anyone with a problem with that can take their kids out of the school. Ideally, you want to stop the problem before it even gets to the classroom anyway (i.e., just secure your entries/exits), since the teacher would just become the first person to be shot and then would be useless again.



JAB said:


> the only way that anyone can protect themselves from them, is to have the means to do so.


 
Restrictions (the right kind) don't mean you can't have the means to do so. They are just there to persuade certain people to use their rights more responsibly, or to keep those rights away from people who aren't capable of those responsibilities.



JAB said:


> So making any laws, that restrict gun ownership, really will only affect those who respect the law


 
Anything I suggested would only affect those who it needs to affect. If you are a criminal or mentally disturbed individual, your avenues for acquiring weapons would be drastically cut... especially if on top of that, stealing one would be much harder (which, again, will only happen if people are forced to take more responsibilities with the safekeeping of their weapons). Anyone who respects the law and is responsible enough to own a weapon (i.e., in full possession of their mental faculties and of good legal standing) would still be able to bear arms. Again, it wouldn't eliminate all of these crimes... but it could damn well limit them. That's the whole point of laws, and the limits of their efficiency, so unless you're just going to throw them all away and replace them with a suggestion book for everyone, then there really isn't an issue.


----------



## Ex3 (Dec 15, 2012)

JBS said:


> Are you seriously arguing that New York is a safer place to live than suburban America?
> 
> EDITED TO ADD: And no, I didn't say New York has no values. I said the set of values in New York (or any urban city) are going to be radically different than small town America or the 'burbs.


Speaking for myself, I feel safer here.  I think it's a safety in numbers kind of thing.  I can't tell you how many times I've listened to my mother tell me about the latest horrific crime that happened in Virginia Beach - girls seem to be getting abducted right and left down there.  That doesn't happen here because there are always people around.


----------



## Rapid (Dec 15, 2012)

JBS said:


> I respect your view, but I disagree with you. Without writing a lengthy post I will just say that it is possible to envision a realistic scenario in which a future government bolstered largely by drones, armored vehicles and small security teams could suppress a revolution.


 
Okay, so how is Average Joe with his AR-15 and lack of training any more likely to beat this behemoth of a force (it sounds like it would be even more unlikely)? It's not like you have common access to powerful explosives, like in much of the third world, which is pretty much one of the few things that gives insurgents any kind of chance of even making a dent against a superior enemy.

There is simply too much of a power divide between the military and civilians, much greater than it was in the days of the FF anyway (when something like this was more plausible). I don't think it matters anyway, because, like I said, the only reason needed for gun ownership is self-preservation.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 15, 2012)

I'd love that inexperienced teacher on the verge of a mental breakdown thanks to shit arse teenagers* to have a pistol.

*Seen it, a number of times.


----------



## TH15 (Dec 15, 2012)

I've never understood how the 2nd Amendment could ever be misconstrued with implying that Americans can only have muskets or use them for hunting purposes. IF we did a good job at teaching history, and in particular sharing with students quotes from the Founding Fathers themselves and how THEY envisioned the 2nd Amendment, there would never be an argument as to not only what the 2nd Amendment means, but why it's second on a list of ten. The argument that stems from the Left regarding the 2nd Amendment is simply a cop out to support their own ideology- it is not based on anything other than that.

I don't think America has a gun problem. I think America has a culture issue. I don't know when it started, or what happened, but I believe that firearms are disrespected by far too many people. If America had a gun problem, mass shootings in such high concentrations would have occurred since our nation's inception.

No politician or law can teach anyone to respect a firearm, or force one to use them and take care of them properly. That has to come from family, or extra firearm training, or a combination of the two.

I don't have any real solution to the problem, but hearing all of the fucking cop outs and excuses lately is unnerving.


----------



## Arrow 4 (Dec 15, 2012)

DasBoot said:


> So because we teach evolution and not some creationist nonsense, we are going to experience mass shootings? What uter crap. It amazes me how those on the Christian right are so quick to capitalize on these tragedies as a means of furthering their message and picking on the groups they don't like. I'm the product of a divorced family- so are about half the kids in this country at this point. With that number, wouldn't you think these mass shootings would be much more frequent? No- they're not. And that's because our parents with their "alternative lifestyles" did a fine job of raising us. And of course they have to bring the abortion debate into this... I won't even touch on that as that is a whole other thread.
> 
> These types of killings have gone on for decades- just like the aforementioned school bombing that killed 45. We have a media that exposes us to these things more and more. Look around the world, and see all the "good" religion has done. If some people find solace in religion, good for them. But it is not the key to dealing with these sorts of things. Better mental health treatment and school safety is.


 
I don't think I was trying to capitalize on this tragedy, just voicing my opinion like everyone else on this board. Many people rightly argue that it is not gun laws that need fixing. I believe that fighting the evil/wickedness in our society would go a very long way to curbing violence of all kinds. I am not in anyway suggesting that these types of incidents can be completely stopped. You are welcome to your opinion, but as far as I am concerned we are suffering in large part because we have turned our backs on God.


----------



## mrob (Dec 15, 2012)

JBS said:


> When you get done banning guns/tactical rifles, make sure you look into banning cocaine. There's supposedly been a real problem with that the past 30 years, and it'd be nice if we could get it outlawed so the problem would go away.


 
Well cocaine is illegal so not sure what you mean by banning it too. Unless you mean to use cocaine as an example against banning weapons because it doesn't work? Either way not really sure how you can compare the two. If there was anything to take away from my previous post, it should be the link I provided. The point I tried to make was that mass shootings would never go away, but the number of times they occur could be diminished.

I just want to clarify: I believe in the 2nd amendment, but I also do not accept that we as a country continue to let these mass shootings occur. Whatever means are necessary I will accept if that's what it takes to prevent something like Newtown from happening again. How that could possibly be bad you tell me. Something must change. A cultural change will not happen overnight. That will take a generation at least. However, I feel policymakers in this case need to be the catalyst for that change.


----------



## DasBoot (Dec 15, 2012)

Arrow 4 said:


> I don't think I was trying to capitalize on this tragedy, just voicing my opinion like everyone else on this board. Many people rightly argue that it is not gun laws that need fixing. I believe that fighting the evil/wickedness in our society would go a very long way to curbing violence of all kinds. I am not in anyway suggesting that these types of incidents can be completely stopped. You are welcome to your opinion, but as far as I am concerned we are suffering in large part because we have turned our backs on God.


I guess I would agree with you... If there weren't countless voices over the centuries echoing your same sentiments. And we're all still here, the world hasn't ended, America has adapted and persevered...


----------



## Ex3 (Dec 15, 2012)

TH15 said:


> I've never understood how the 2nd Amendment could ever be misconstrued with implying that Americans can only have muskets or use them for hunting purposes. IF we did a good job at teaching history, and in particular sharing with students quotes from the Founding Fathers themselves and how THEY envisioned the 2nd Amendment, there would never be an argument as to not only what the 2nd Amendment means, but why it's second on a list of ten. The argument that stems from the Left regarding the 2nd Amendment is simply a cop out to support their own ideology- it is not based on anything other than that.
> 
> I don't think America has a gun problem. I think America has a culture issue. I don't know when it started, or what happened, but I believe that firearms are disrespected by far too many people. If America had a gun problem, mass shootings in such high concentrations would have occurred since our nation's inception.
> 
> ...


When I mentioned muskets, I was being facetious.  Again, my point was that the world has changed A LOT in 200+ years in terms of technology.  It was impossible to massacre a large number of people in 1791 with a musket.   If every gun owner in America were like the fine folks on this board, we wouldn't have a problem.  But we all know most people are irresponsible idiots that shouldn't be allowed to drive, much less have access to a a gun.  This kid's mother owned two guns, but somehow her mental ill son gained access to them.  How could she be so careless?  If he hadn't had access to them, those beautiful little kids would probably be getting tucked into bed right now.


----------



## Lefty375 (Dec 16, 2012)

Arrow 4 said:


> I don't think I was trying to capitalize on this tragedy, just voicing my opinion like everyone else on this board. Many people rightly argue that it is not gun laws that need fixing. I believe that fighting the evil/wickedness in our society would go a very long way to curbing violence of all kinds. I am not in anyway suggesting that these types of incidents can be completely stopped. You are welcome to your opinion, but as far as I am concerned we are suffering in large part because we have turned our backs on God.


 

Which one? There are a lot. Hard to make all of them happy.


----------



## 0699 (Dec 16, 2012)

Ex3 said:


> Also harder to kill someone with a pen. ;) xx


 
This is why I shy away from arguements about religion, guns, and politics.  People are never able to discuss these subjects objectively, they're always emotional.  On both sides of the issues.


----------



## walra107 (Dec 16, 2012)

Being a resident of New York State, to own a handgun in this state you have to practically jump through hoops of fire on one leg and still wait 9 months for you licence to process. The process to get a pistol permit here is almost a deterrent to actually purchasing and owning a handgun, even though I am an enthusiast of handguns and rifles. However the strict processing of getting a pistol permit here certainly doesn't lower the violent crime rates in some of our bigger cities, and even in some of our rural and suburban towns. So to argue about increasing gun laws IMO is almost a waste of time, like most have posted on here already, it's not going to stop random disgusting acts of violence such as the events in CT. If it is not guns, its knives and clubs and fists. Violence is violence regardless of means...

On a different side, if we increased penalties for weapons violations...stricter sentencing might lead to a deterrent in the sales of weapons, Just a thought, probably wouldn't change anything until we institute a Thunderdome-like death sentencing procedure.


----------



## Worldweaver (Dec 16, 2012)

walra107 said:


> Being a resident of New York State, to own a handgun in this state you have to practically jump through hoops of fire on one leg and still wait 9 months for you licence to process. The process to get a pistol permit here is almost a deterrent to actually purchasing and owning a handgun, even though I am an enthusiast of handguns and rifles. However the strict processing of getting a pistol permit here certainly doesn't lower the violent crime rates in some of our bigger cities, and even in some of our rural and suburban towns. So to argue about increasing gun laws IMO is almost a waste of time, like most have posted on here already, it's not going to stop random disgusting acts of violence such as the events in CT. If it is not guns, its knives and clubs and fists. Violence is violence regardless of means...
> 
> On a different side, if we increased penalties for weapons violations...stricter sentencing might lead to a deterrent in the sales of weapons, Just a thought, probably wouldn't change anything until we institute a Thunderdome-like death sentencing procedure.


 
I'm not for a ban of any sort, but the argument about "if not guns, its knives and clubs and fists" doesn't do it for me.  You can't tell me that someone is going to inflict as much damage with a knife, or fist, or club as they will with an assault rifle, it's a ridiculous argument.  People will commit crime and there will always be violence, but an assault rifle makes it much easier for the perpetrator to inflict maximum damage.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 16, 2012)

Ex3 said:


> Not sure what your point is....you think New Yorkers are dumb? Because they aren't.
> 
> Not for nothing, but I think that fact that a mass shooting like they one yesterday or in Columbine has never happened in NYC says the more strict control of guns in the city is working. Notice I didn't say outlawing of guns, just stricter control.


 
Speaking purely as a professional, there is no one specific reason New York City has not had an incident like Newtown, CT.  It simply hasn't happened...yet.   It also never happened in Newtown, CT...until it did.  The same is true of the Nickel Mines, PA school shooting.  It never happened there, either...until it did.

The laws in NYC haven't stopped anything.  Case in point- the guy shot in the head in midtown Manhattan a few days ago.  The shooting happened in broad daylight within view of a school and not far from Carnegie Hall.

And just so I don't need to make a second post, I'd like to point out that since he killed his mother, it's entirely possible she had properly secured her weapons and he obtained them after killing her.  

Even before he got to the school--where no one can possess a weapon by federal law--he had committed a capital crime and several felonies.  Clearly, he was unfazed by the law or any possible penalties he might have to suffer.  Having another law in place would not have mattered.


----------



## pardus (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> Well cocaine is illegal so not sure what you mean by banning it too. Unless you mean to use cocaine as an example against banning weapons because it doesn't work? Either way not really sure how you can compare the two. If there was anything to take away from my previous post, it should be the link I provided. The point I tried to make was that mass shootings would never go away, but the number of times they occur could be diminished.
> 
> I just want to clarify: I believe in the 2nd amendment, but I also do not accept that we as a country continue to let these mass shootings occur. Whatever means are necessary I will accept if that's what it takes to prevent something like Newtown from happening again. How that could possibly be bad you tell me. Something must change. A cultural change will not happen overnight. That will take a generation at least. However, I feel policymakers in this case need to be the catalyst for that change.


 
So you believe in one of our rights? Good. But you are OK with it being trampled on to make things possibly a little better? Bad. 

*”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” ​*


----------



## walra107 (Dec 16, 2012)

Worldweaver said:


> I'm not for a ban of any sort, but the argument about "if not guns, its knives and clubs and fists" doesn't do it for me. You can't tell me that someone is going to inflict as much damage with a knife, or fist, or club as they will with an assault rifle, it's a ridiculous argument. People will commit crime and there will always be violence, but an assault rifle makes it much easier for the perpetrator to inflict maximum damage.


 
Point and I agree somewhat, I probably should have chosen my way of explaining my view a little better. I certainly agree that an assault rifle inflicts much more damage especially in a shorter amount of time, no debate there, what I am trying to say is that violence is an unfortunate trait of human nature, acts like these have been committed throughout history long before the assault rifle came about.  Since the dawn of man, man has committed violent acts. I am not a staunch supporter of either anti gun laws or the second amendment. I feel that it should be a *privilege* to own a weapon, not a right, but if I have earned that privilege in one way or another I should be able to exercise that privilege by owning a weapon of my choice(short of high grade explosives of course  ). I want to be able to "inflict maximum damage" on somebody threatening harm to me or my family.


----------



## Rampart (Dec 16, 2012)

There is unfortunately not going to be a wealth of reasoned debate on this topic. Opportunistic media, short sighted politicians and severely misinformed groups are going to scream to the heavens. They will work on the approach that if they scream loud and long enough the more reasoned debaters will not be heard. If the true American people want to avoid a real and determined attempt at the rights enshrined in the constitution this may well be the seminal moment.

I sincerely hope common sense and reason win out. The options are unspeakably wrong on so many levels. I am very concerned about this. I am not directly affected but there are ramifications for the entire western world, particularly via the UN and its policy on small arms. 

Somehow the idiots that want yet more laws/ restrictions etc to stop those who clearly have no regard for the laws in place need to be educated to that point. Nothing else will work.


----------



## Tana (Dec 16, 2012)

God, Guts, Guns.  Be humble before a higher power, be brave enough to stand up and defend the Constitution of this land, and have the firepower to back it up.  
That's my two cents.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 16, 2012)

Rapid said:


> Blah-Blah-Blah


 
Man, I was going to respond with all kinds of deliberate contrast to your lengthy post, but then you went on with this other, and being as intoxicated as I am now…well I really just can’t see the point, you are so damn contradictory to your own posts, well it’s kind of…silly.

“I am all for gun ownership” well, as long as these people don’t have them, and these people don’t carry them, and well these people keep them locked up….and well these people are idiots and they should not have them….blah, blah, blahhh…

Dude! This is exactly why our country (the United States) has a constitution, to keep the flip-floppers, from injecting there “this moment” of reasoning/new laws from affecting the masses. Contrary to modern politics, the constitution is a document that guards against ignorance and intolerance. You cannot say “I am all for civil liberty, but only for these people”, it is either for EVERYONE or not.

Main point I will make before I pass the fuck out, is that whatever (anyone) can dream up as better for A, B and C, will never be good for the whole dam alphabet. Any of you, who feel that limiting one persons liberty (i.e. any person, ignorant, intelligent, mentally ill, or whatever you can come up with), either it be freedom to bear arms, freedom of speech, ect, ect… Have a true misunderstanding of what liberty truly is. It is not just to keep government from infringing upon those liberties, but also to keep all of you (and your bright ideas) from infringing on those rights as well.

I shall pass the fuck out now.


----------



## Andraste (Dec 16, 2012)

It's not about gun control. It's about treatment for the mentally ill and the inability to have teens and adult children committed.

This mom says it all:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...er-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

Long read but a great perspective.


----------



## mrob (Dec 16, 2012)

pardus said:


> So you believe in one of our rights? Good. But you are OK with it being trampled on to make things possibly a little better? Bad.
> 
> 
> *”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” *​


 
Preventing possible massacres is more than a little better. Let's be real. This is not the 18th or 19th century anymore. The United States is not a little child state like it was in the past. People are not living isolated from main streets and society like they were in the past. We also have LE professionals doing a great job everyday to help maintain law and order. There just isn't a big enough threat to our day-to-day lives for most people to feel compelled to own a gun. And while that quote is great, it's not exactly practical.


----------



## CDG (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> Preventing possible massacres is more than a little better. Let's be real. This is not the 18th or 19th century anymore. The United States is not a little child state like it was in the past. People are not living isolated from main streets and society like they were in the past. We also have LE professionals doing a great job everyday to help maintain law and order. There just isn't a big enough threat to our day-to-day lives for most people to feel compelled to own a gun. And while that quote is great, it's not exactly practical.


 
So nullifying the 2nd Amendment is the answer?  No one ever needs a gun, until they need a gun.  Then what?  Guns are already banned on school property.  Did that stop the Newtown shooting?  No, it didn't.  Did guns being banned in a theater stop the Aurora shooting?  No, it didn't.  This is exactly the problem, this ridiculous thought process that somehow arrives at the end state of thinking more gun control is going to fix anything.  Your comment about "preventing possible massacres" is ignorant, short-sighted, and designed to make someone attempting to get you to pull your head out of your ass look like they want massacres.  You need a better argument.


----------



## AWP (Dec 16, 2012)

I've done it twice already and don't feel like taking a few hours to do it a third time, but corrolate the FBI's own violent crime statistics with states and their gun laws for the last 3-5 years. I'll give everyone a hint though: states with CCW or open carry friendly policies have lower violent crime rates than states that do not.


----------



## Scotth (Dec 16, 2012)

It looks like Fienstein is going to re-intoduce the ASW ban next week.  The problem I had with what she said was there is still 900 models not covered by the ASW.  If your arguing that having the guns is the problem but your solution is to leave 900 models still available what kind of solution are you really offering?  After Columbine we had a mall shooting in Minnesota were the perp used a shotgun and handgun.

I think there a reasonable things you can do that don't limit access.  Closing the gun show loop hole could be one of those and tougher penalties and actual enforcement for straw purchasing.  Make a mandatory minimum penalty of straw purchasing of like 5 years per incident.


----------



## Ex3 (Dec 16, 2012)

Andraste said:


> It's not about gun control. It's about treatment for the mentally ill and the inability to have teens and adult children committed.
> 
> This mom says it all:
> 
> ...


 
This story is heartbreaking. I can't imagine how this woman must feel.

If the CT shooter was anything remotely like the writer's son, why in God's name did his mother think it was a good idea to keep guns in their house? If Adam Lanza hadn't had access to those guns, he might still have found a way to lashed out, it's true. He was sick and needed help. But I doubt that 26 people would be dead today.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> Preventing possible massacres is more than a little better. Let's be real. This is not the 18th or 19th century anymore. The United States is not a little child state like it was in the past. People are not living isolated from main streets and society like they were in the past. We also have LE professionals doing a great job everyday to help maintain law and order. There just isn't a big enough threat to our day-to-day lives for most people to feel compelled to own a gun. And while that quote is great, it's not exactly practical.


Is it practical to bring back prohibition and ban cars too?  Think of all the drunk driving massacres that would be prevented.


----------



## Rampart (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> Preventing possible massacres is more than a little better. Let's be real. This is not the 18th or 19th century anymore. The United States is not a little child state like it was in the past. *People are not living isolated from main streets and society like they were in the past. We also have LE professionals doing a great job everyday to help maintain law and order. There just isn't a big enough threat to our day-to-day lives for most people to feel compelled to own a gun.* And while that quote is great, it's not exactly practical.


 
Sorry, this is clearly not an accurate statement. There are a great many people who live in rural and similar areas who will never be able to rely on *TIMELY* LE assistance when faced with violent offending. You need read victim and witness statements to see most violent crime is well and truly over long before any LEO is able to be on scene. Reliance on LE professionals is for prevention is a mythical idea at best even in the biggest cities.

I suggest you (Or anyone advancing the more laws argument) get an accurate list from the local LE professionals in CT of exactly how many laws in total were broken in this tragic and despicable act. Kindly list each one for us and explain why it did not prevent the act. They did not so how will more laws achieve this? Then explain how any new laws will succeed where these have failed. I say (so will any LEO you ask) they will not as the perpetrators of such crimes do not give consideration to the consequences of the law thus rendering any and all law ineffective against such actions.
You need to face up to the reality of the situation. If your argument was able to hold any water the Law (ignored by the offenders) and local PD (on scene after the fact) would have prevented the various school massacres giving rise to this thread. Please explain exactly how and why the Law and LE professionals did not meet the performance expectations you say remove the need for gun ownership at CT for example.

Ask your local PD how many gun crimes are committed with legal firearms by licensed owners versus crime committed by illegal possession/ illegal firearms. Then again explain how more laws will stop this.

The offender was not legally in possession of the weapons. He committed murder in the process of obtaining the weaponry (which shows exactly how premeditated this was and how ineffectual law is) and this alone demonstrates the total folly of trying to argue your case.

No one knows what the next hour, day month or year may bring. We each have a responsibility created by those who won our current freedoms, to future generations to ensure freedom is neither wrested from us or eroded piecemeal so it is continued intact for all who come after us.

This is no time to take a lazy quick fix approach, which any honest person knows will not work, just to make it appear something is being done and possibly make yourself feel as though you have been useful.

This is a time for logic, reason and actual facing up to the real truths. This means finding political will and means to deal with the underlying social and health issues which give rise to the situation in the first place. This will not only address "gun crime" but also a vast array of other violent offending and social mayhem.


----------



## JBS (Dec 16, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> Is it practical to bring back prohibition and ban cars too?  Think of all the drunk driving massacres that would be prevented.


Well said.

More Americans die in alcohol related automobile accidents in one year than every American who died in 10 years of the Vietnam War.


----------



## mrob (Dec 16, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> Is it practical to bring back prohibition and ban cars too? Think of all the drunk driving massacres that would be prevented.


 
Unlike cars, guns are not critical to the functioning of our economy. The 2nd amendment is never going to go away, but I still think there is a lot of room for us to cut down on violent gun crime and the number of mass shooting incidences. How that is accomplished, I'm open to all ideas, but when I look at other countries that have strict gun control laws and relatively low rates of violent crime I'm more inclined to think that solution is more credible than simply arming more people.


----------



## Rampart (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> Unlike cars, guns are not critical to the functioning of our economy. The 2nd amendment is never going to go away, but I still think there is a lot of room for us to cut down on violent gun crime and the number of mass shooting incidences. How that is accomplished, I'm open to all ideas, but when I look at other countries that have strict gun control laws and relatively low rates of violent crime I'm more inclined to think that solution is more credible than simply arming more people.


 
Where do you get your information from. In the UK for example gun crime went up after the handgun ban. Yemen has very liberal gun laws and low violent crime.

Please be very careful not to be emotive and select violent crime statistic in place of gun crime statistics.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 16, 2012)

The way our government is going I could see them banning cars and forcing everyone to take public transit. Why not? You cant get a Big Gulp in NYC. But you can smoke pot in Colorado and Washington. Go figure.
I just was reading this article from 2008. I think this should seriously be explored for all schools.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,404721,00.html


> "When you make schools gun-free zones, it's like inviting people to come in and take advantage," Thweatt told FOXNews.com.
> In order for teachers and staff to carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations and must use ammunition that is designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls.


----------



## Ex3 (Dec 16, 2012)

Rampart said:


> Sorry, this is clearly not an accurate statement. There are a great many people who live in rural and similar areas who will never be able to rely on *TIMELY* LE assistance when faced with violent offending. You need read victim and witness statements to see most violent crime is well and truly over long before any LEO is able to be on scene. Reliance on LE professionals is for prevention is a mythical idea at best even in the biggest cities.


Just to show I'm not an anti-gun nut, I basically agree with this statement.  

I live in Manhattan, I also have a house in a rural part of upstate NY.  If a bad guy comes sniffing around and I call 911 up here, I'm sure it'd be at least 15 or 20 mins to get a response just because I'm in the middle of nowhere.  So I have a double barral shotgun that is hidden and has a trigger lock.  And thanks to Marauder06 and pardus, I now have a shooting range on the property, too. :)

On the other hand, in Manhattan, if I call 911, I'd get a response from the NYPD in seconds.  The way I see it, having a gun in the city would cause more harm than good, at least in the hands of someone like me who isn't proficient like most of you are.  And I think a majority of gun owners in this country are much more like me than all you professionals on this board.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 16, 2012)

How many seconds would you get the response?


----------



## Ex3 (Dec 16, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> How many seconds would you get the response?


90 give or take.  I've called 911 for others twice in the past.


----------



## mrob (Dec 16, 2012)

Rampart said:


> Sorry, this is clearly not an accurate statement. There are a great many people who live in rural and similar areas who will never be able to rely on *TIMELY* LE assistance when faced with violent offending. You need read victim and witness statements to see most violent crime is well and truly over long before any LEO is able to be on scene. Reliance on LE professionals is for prevention is a mythical idea at best even in the biggest cities.
> 
> Ask your local PD how many gun crimes are committed with legal firearms by licensed owners versus crime committed by illegal possession/ illegal firearms. Then again explain how more laws will stop this.
> 
> The offender was not legally in possession of the weapons. He committed murder in the process of obtaining the weaponry (which shows exactly how premeditated this was and how ineffectual law is) and this alone demonstrates the total folly of trying to argue your case.


 
You are right, there are a great number of people who live in rural areas who might not be close enough to LE to receive any assistance in a timely manner. So let them own a pistol, or shotgun, or rifle, but is an AR-15/any assault rifle absolutely necessary for the majority of people to defend themselves and their home? I mean does anyone really need one? Does anyone really need hi-cap or drum magazines?

And come on... It's not like he had to go to great lengths to get the weapons. His own mom had them. Why did his mom have two pistols and an AR anyways? Newtown is not exactly known for its high crime rate. I live several towns away. Most of this area is relatively safe with very low murder rates/violent crime. He was able to get the weapons so easily because the mom was able to get the weapons easily when she probably had no business in owning an assault rifle and two other guns in the first place.


----------



## walra107 (Dec 16, 2012)

Rampart said:


> Where do you get your information from. In the UK for example gun crime went up after the handgun ban. Yemen has very liberal gun laws and low violent crime.
> 
> Please be very careful not to be emotive and select violent crime statistic in place of gun crime statistics.


 
Agreed Rampart, last time I looked, the shooter aquired his weapons by stealing them...not by lawful means of purchasing. so you really cannot blame the process in which we own firearms here in America. A perpetrator is going to think twice about opening fire into a crowd of people if those people start to fire back. However some folks are just plain nuts and don't give a damn as long as they take someone with them, but again, thats more of a human nature issue rather than gun law issue.

And Mrob, if you take an actual look at the firearms industry, tell me again if you think it is not critical to our economy. Minus Department of Defense contracts, private and recreational firearms purchasing plays a major role in that industry. If you call for strict weapons laws, you're going to see a ton of people out of jobs IMO...strictly my philosphy not gospel. And yea, you can add all the gun laws you want but its not going to cut down on violent gun crimes...I saw a previous post referencing prohibition, read up on that and tell me how that worked out in the 1920's...I do believe it lead to the rise of organized crime...but I could be wrong. Again this is just my opinion....


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 16, 2012)

Ex3 said:


> 90 give or take. I've called 911 for others twice in the past.


I was just wondering what would or could occur while awaiting assistance even in Manhattan.
Just a quick Google got me this:


> Crime may be at near record-low levels, but it took cops an average of 9.1 minutes last year to respond to crimes in progress — the NYPD’s worst performance since Mayor Bloomberg took office in 2002.
> Figures released yesterday as part of the semiannual Mayor’s Management Report showed police response times slowed by 42 seconds to 9.1 minutes in the 2012 fiscal year, which ended on June 30.
> For most of the mayor’s tenure, cops were able to reach crime scenes in less than 8 minutes. In 2007, they made it in just 6.9 minutes.
> That changed in 2011, when the average response time zoomed to 8.4 minutes.
> ...


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/slow_to_the_scene_aTvC00aFCavAazJHohpJfJ


----------



## walra107 (Dec 16, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> I was just wondering what would or could occur while awaiting assistance even in Manhattan.
> Just a quick Google got me this:
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/slow_to_the_scene_aTvC00aFCavAazJHohpJfJ


 
And that is a major metro area...I work in emergency services in a very rural area where the LE is located centrally in the county so it could be a good 15-20 minutes before the first patrol shows up, and that doesnt account for dispatching time...That leaves an awful lot of time for the worst to happen.


----------



## mrob (Dec 16, 2012)

Rampart said:


> Where do you get your information from. In the UK for example gun crime went up after the handgun ban. Yemen has very liberal gun laws and low violent crime.
> 
> Please be very careful not to be emotive and select violent crime statistic in place of gun crime statistics.


 
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/public.../crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary

page 64. The section relating to gun-related offenses starts on 55.


----------



## Ex3 (Dec 16, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> I was just wondering what would or could occur while awaiting assistance even in Manhattan.
> Just a quick Google got me this:


Just passing on my personal experience, for what it's worth.


----------



## JBS (Dec 16, 2012)

Ex3 said:


> 90 give or take. I've called 911 for others twice in the past.


When seconds count, cops are minutes away.

Just as a general statement, I think it is worth noting that every major mass shooting: VA Tech, the Batman shooter, the post office shootings from a few years ago, the Columbine shooting, etc., - were all in GUN FREE ZONES.


----------



## Ex3 (Dec 16, 2012)

Obviously I'm not gonna change any hearts and minds here.  Have a super day.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 16, 2012)

Ex3 said:


> Just passing on my personal experience, for what it's worth.


You are most certainly entitled to your opinion however I prefer, and my state and city laws allow me to be proactive in my own safety. I live in a small but densely populated boro on the edge of the city. We have a limited number of officers on each shift to answer calls for 9000 plus residents as well as all the transient traffic through here on any given day. Ive had reponse times from less than a minute up to 20 minutes. There are many variables that can and will affect response times. As they say Id rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.


----------



## walra107 (Dec 16, 2012)

Law enforcement response times are just a nature of the beast unfortunately, nothing much anybody can do about it, they do the best they can. You'll very rarely if ever have the ability to stop a crime like this as it is occuring without some sort of tragedy awaiting first responders, again its not anyone's fault jsut a nature of the beast. Unless you put a cop on every street corner anywhere...but I don't need to get into that.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> Preventing possible massacres is more than a little better. Let's be real. This is not the 18th or 19th century anymore. The United States is not a little child state like it was in the past. People are not living isolated from main streets and society like they were in the past. We also have LE professionals doing a great job everyday to help maintain law and order. There just isn't a big enough threat to our day-to-day lives for most people to feel compelled to own a gun. And while that quote is great, it's not exactly practical.



You don't know what you don't know.


----------



## cbtengr (Dec 16, 2012)

policemedic said:


> Speaking purely as a professional, there is no one specific reason New York City has not had an incident like Newtown, CT. It simply hasn't happened...yet. It also never happened in Newtown, CT...until it did. The same is true of the Nickel Mines, PA school shooting. It never happened there, either...until it did.
> 
> The laws in NYC haven't stopped anything. Case in point- the guy shot in the head in midtown Manhattan a few days ago. The shooting happened in broad daylight within view of a school and not far from Carnegie Hall.
> 
> ...


 
I am glad you said it, very well stated!!  If one does a little digging into violent homicide statistics for 2011 you will find that the state of NY had just over 774 ranking the state 3d in the nation behind   California and Texas.  http://www.statista.com/statistics/195331/number-of-murders-in-the-us-by-state/ Then if you visit the following NYC GOV website http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/2011_murder_in_nyc.pdf you can get a breakdown of the homicides within NYC,  NYC had 515 homicides in 2011 this is 66% of the states total homicides, now if you break that down further by method you will find that 61% of the homicides were by shooting thats something in the neighborhood of 314 deaths by shooting. That NYC has not had a mass murder by guns is just plain luck, luck that will no doubt run out one of these days. Honest responsible gun owners are going to bear the brunt of the political aftermath of this tragedy, guns do not kill people, you all are familiar with the last part of this statement, people kill people and all the laws in the world are not going to change that fact.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 16, 2012)

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

_George Mason_
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788


----------



## Rampart (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/public.../crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary
> 
> page 64. The section relating to gun-related offences starts on 55.


Mrob
Thanks for that link. Please note the fact that *Handguns were used in 44% of gun crime despite the fact they are totally banned* in the UK, further in crime *where firearms were discharged, handguns make up 71%* of the figure. That ban on handguns is clearly ineffective law and has not prevented handguns being used in the commission of crime!

You will also note that the single most common weapon is the humble air rifle/ BB at 84% of gun crime. More evidence that any attempt at gun control laws based on firearms type is a farce.

You will also note that the current reduction in crime reported is opposed to an increased crime as a result of the police reporting in 2001-2002. Things are now back to where they were but there have been no law changes in the period 2001 to now. There has been a huge effort since 2002 to focus on addressing all "petty crime" by Police, the courts and health system. These have effected real social changes address root causes of crime in general. As a result criminal offending has been reduced at the violent end of the scale by big margins as the potential violent gun criminal is being removed from the streets and either incarcerated or treated/ rehabilitated. In other words the system is working as a preventative rather than just parking an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

The many graphs charts and conclusions in the report clearly show this and what they do not show in my first (and rapid reading) is if the weapons used were obtained legally and used by legally entitled owners. Given the handgun statistics at least 44% of gun crime was not committed by legally entitled owners as they are completely illegal.

After the Dunblane (1996) massacre and subsequent handgun ban, gun crime went up hugely. I know this is Wikipedia but the figures are availible elsewhere as well....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Dunblane_massacre
Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[59] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. Most of the rise in injuries were in the category slight injuries from the non-air weapons. "Slight" in this context means an injury that was not classified as "serious" (i.e., did not require detention in hospital, did not involve fractures, concussion, severe general shock, penetration by a bullet or multiple shot wounds). In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. In 2007, the British government was accused by Shadow Home Secretary David Davis of making "inaccurate and misleading" statements claiming that gun crime was falling, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a rise in non-fatal injuries.[60][61] In 2007, Justice Minister Jack Straw told the BBC, "We are concerned that within the overall record, which is a good one, of crime going down in the last 10-11 years, the number of gun-related incidents has gone up. But it has now started to fall."[62]


----------



## Ex3 (Dec 16, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> You are most certainly entitled to your opinion however I prefer, and my state and city laws allow me to be proactive in my own safety. I live in a small but densely populated boro on the edge of the city. We have a limited number of officers on each shift to answer calls for 9000 plus residents as well as all the transient traffic through here on any given day. Ive had reponse times from less than a minute up to 20 minutes. There are many variables that can and will affect response times. As they say Id rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.


To be clear, I wasn't stating my opinion, I was telling you about something that actually happened to me personally.  The police response was very quick and they were very professional.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> You are right, there are a great number of people who live in rural areas who might not be close enough to LE to receive any assistance in a timely manner. So let them own a pistol, or shotgun, or rifle, but is an AR-15/any assault rifle absolutely necessary for the majority of people to defend themselves and their home? I mean does anyone really need one? Does anyone really need hi-cap or drum magazines?
> 
> And come on... It's not like he had to go to great lengths to get the weapons. His own mom had them. Why did his mom have two pistols and an AR anyways? Newtown is not exactly known for its high crime rate. I live several towns away. Most of this area is relatively safe with very low murder rates/violent crime. He was able to get the weapons so easily because the mom was able to get the weapons easily when she probably had no business in owning an assault rifle and two other guns in the first place.


Posts like this coupled with your other ones are starting to make me think you're trolling here.  
Who are you to say what's needed and what isn't?  The 2nd amendment doesn't have an asterisks with a foot note at the bottom that says *only if needed.  
How many people on this board do you think own pistols, shotguns or rifles?  How many do you think own high powered assault rifles, high capacity or drum magazines? There's a thread on here that will start to answer those questions.  Have any of our members committed acts like this?  Probably not, otherwise they'd be banned.
And what does crime rate have to do with gun ownership?  Again, there are no caveats about only owning a gun (or multiple guns) only in areas where murder rates/violent crimes are above a certain level.  Where are you coming up with this stuff?


----------



## mrob (Dec 16, 2012)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Posts like this coupled with your other ones are starting to make me think you're trolling here.
> Who are you to say what's needed and what isn't? The 2nd amendment doesn't have an asterisks with a foot note at the bottom that says *only if needed.
> How many people on this board do you think own pistols, shotguns or rifles? How many do you think own high powered assault rifles, high capacity or drum magazines? There's a thread on here that will start to answer those questions. Have any of our members committed acts like this? Probably not, otherwise they'd be banned.
> And what does crime rate have to do with gun ownership? Again, there are no caveats about only owning a gun (or multiple guns) only in areas where murder rates/violent crimes are above a certain level. Where are you coming up with this stuff?


 
Not trolling. Just posting my opinions, which clearly go against what the majority of members of this board think, but I expect that regarding this issue here. The Constitution was written to be a framework for how the government was run, but it was also written to address real problems they faced at the time. Look at the 3rd amendment for example that states soldiers cannot be quartered in a time of peace or war in someones house without the owners consent. I would say that has almost no relevance to modern day, but when it was written but at the time I'm sure it was very important. It directly addressed their grievances with British troops quartering themselves in colonists homes without their consent and so they wanted to prevent their very own government from ever doing that to their own citizens. The point is, times change and with that context changes. The times and context in which the 2nd amendment was written makes absolute sense, but in today's world it's just not the case.


----------



## JBS (Dec 16, 2012)

I'm going to get some hate now, but that's never stopped me before. I apologize in advance if this sounds insensitive, but after hearing about Feinstein, and listening to that schmuck Mayor Bloomberg telling Obama to get his ass in gear, and after hearing Joe Lieberman on FOX News saying we need to ban "assault guns", this shit is really getting to me.

26 people get shot up (obviously a terrible tragedy) and now everyone has their panties in a bunch and want to ignore the 2nd Amendment. This is a country of 300 million people, folks. Can we please take a collective step back, take a deep breath and calm down for a minute before we commit to burning the Constitution and plunging us into anarchy?


----------



## JBS (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> Not trolling. Just posting my opinions, which clearly go against what the majority of members of this board think, but I expect that regarding this issue here. The Constitution was written to be a framework for how the government was run, but it was also written to address real problems they faced at the time. Look at the 3rd amendment for example that states soldiers cannot be quartered in a time of peace or war in someones house without the owners consent. I would say that has almost no relevance to modern day, but when it was written but at the time I'm sure it was very important. It directly addressed their grievances with British troops quartering themselves in colonists homes without their consent and so they wanted to prevent their very own government from ever doing that to their own citizens. The point is, times change and with that context changes. The times and context in which the 2nd amendment was written makes absolute sense, but in today's world it's just not the case.


Please elaborate on which part makes no sense.


----------



## Rampart (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> And come on... It's not like he had to go to great lengths to get the weapons. His own mom had them.


 
He apparently killed his mum to get them. that seems like a fair bit of effort to me. Just saying..... 

Your post does not explain how any new law will work where numerous others clearly have not. please be a little more enlightening in this area so we can understand you properly.


----------



## mrob (Dec 16, 2012)

JBS said:


> Please elaborate on which part makes no sense.


 
Well, for one do we even have state militias anymore? State militias are not even relevant anymore. They were necessary in the past when we had a weak central government who had little powers to raise an army quickly and efficiently to defend the nation. The federal government also had little power in raising taxes to pay for war so it was necessary that state's had a way to quickly and efficiently organize militias to be able to defend itself, hence the reason people needed to keep and bear arms because what good was man in a militia if he had no weapon. Now, states militias could just provide those weapons if it were needed. Guns were also more important to people's livelihoods than they are today. It was necessary to hunt for food then. It's not anymore. None of these problems exist today.


----------



## Rampart (Dec 16, 2012)

The people now as then are the militia, formalised or not.

I suspect you are up to something rather more than debating the subject matter. Most of what to say seems to ignore the actual realities of many people and the entire spirit/ intent of your constitution. 

It is far too late to try and arm yourself once attacked, in your home or as a nation. This you need to assimilate fully.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 16, 2012)

Ex3 said:


> To be clear, I wasn't stating my opinion, I was telling you about something that actually happened to me personally. The police response was very quick and they were very professional.


Im not trying to be argumentative. I too was stating my experiences. Im glad you had a good outcome but that is not always the case for everyone in every circumstance.


----------



## reed11b (Dec 16, 2012)

According to Mother Jones, in their rush to show how evil "Assault Weapons" are, a .22lr Marlin semi-auto rifle is an assault rifle. A-fucking-mazing. Why bother with honesty when you can just change the facts around to fit your agenda.
Reed


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> Well, for one do we even have state militias anymore? State militias are not even relevant anymore. They were necessary in the past when we had a weak central government who had little powers to raise an army quickly and efficiently to defend the nation. The federal government also had little power in raising taxes to pay for war so it was necessary that state's had a way to quickly and efficiently organize militias to be able to defend itself, hence the reason people needed to keep and bear arms because what good was man in a militia if he had no weapon. Guns were also more important to people's livelihoods than they are today. It was necessary to hunt for food then. It's not anymore. None of these problems exist today.


 
_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._



> Well, for one do we even have state militias anymore? State militias are not even relevant anymore.


The "militia" is usually considered to be every able-bodied male able to bear arms.  This is an individual right, not something that ends at the state level.  But, the states do have a quasi-militia, it's called the National Guard.  But a discussion of the Guard and state-level militias is moot, because again, this is an individual right.



> Now, states militias could just provide those weapons if it were needed.


The state having control of all the weapons is exactly what the 2nd Amendment seeks to prevent.



> Guns were also more important to people's livelihoods than they are today.


Perhaps, but they're not less important to our freedom today than they were back when the Constitution was written.



> It was necessary to hunt for food then.


The Second Amendment is not about hunting. 



> what good was man in a militia if he had no weapon.


That's exactly right.  The ultimate guarantor of freedom in this country has always been, and always will be, a man with a gun.  What good is the militia (i.e. every able-bodied man) when it comes to defend his freedom if he is unarmed?


----------



## Mac_NZ (Dec 16, 2012)

When I was a kid on the farm we had a stray dog get in among the sheep (no, I didn't root them).  He chased them around picking off the slower ones, just savaging them and then chasing after the flock.  The sheep ran back and forth around the paddock bleating and trying to get away from the dog with the odd one being taken out now and then.  We saw it from the house and jumped on the quad to get over there but it takes time to get through gates and such.

Now here's the clincher.  We had a sign up on the boundary fences saying "No trespassing, dogs will be shot".  He just completely ignored it and went after our sheep.  There was even a law about dogs worrying sheep but he ignored that as well.  The cheek.

The problem was solved when Grandad shot him.  True story by the way, we used to get pig dogs that had run off in the bush coming down and attacking sheep every other year.

WTF has this got to do with the current situation you say.  Well right now America reminds me of a flock of sheep running around bleating trying to find a safe corner of the paddock.  Someone has ignored the signs and the law so the solution must be bigger signs and more laws, surely those will be obeyed.  That or ban all dogs over a certain size, capable of a certain speed and exerting "X" psi with their jaws.

No one wants to admit that its a bad world and sheep get attacked, the only solution that works is to stop being a sheep.


----------



## AWP (Dec 16, 2012)

Andraste said:


> PLEASE--no drunk posting in this thread tonight!


 
Mod elections are next Sep. If you have an issue with a post, report it. Otherwise, let the staff do our jobs.


----------



## walra107 (Dec 16, 2012)

reed11b said:


> According to Mother Jones, in their rush to show how evil "Assault Weapons" are, a .22lr Marlin semi-auto rifle is an assault rifle. A-fucking-mazing. Why bother with honesty when you can just change the facts around to fit your agenda.
> Reed


That's actually a really good point that I think has been overlooked here...the shooter wasn't exactly using an AK 47 drum fed or an M4... So automatically attacking assault weapons seems like an easy target to boost ones own political ideologies. To use a tragedy such as this for political gain is awful. Take care of the roots of the problems not just hanging the scapegoat


----------



## reed11b (Dec 16, 2012)

walra107 said:


> That's actually a really good point that I think has been overlooked here...the shooter wasn't exactly using an AK 47 drum fed or an M4... So automatically attacking assault weapons seems like an easy target to boost ones own political ideologies. To use a tragedy such as this for political gain is awful. Take care of the roots of the problems not just hanging the scapegoat


I believe in THIS case the user was using a derivative of the M4. However, MJ did a "study" of past shootings and there are multiple .22lr rifles listed as assault weapons.
Reed


----------



## walra107 (Dec 16, 2012)

Reed, you are right, my hands got typing faster than my brain...again...:wall:



mrob said:


> Well, for one do we even have state militias anymore? State militias are not even relevant anymore. They were necessary in the past when we had a weak central government who had little powers to raise an army quickly and efficiently to defend the nation. ...Guns were also more important to people's livelihoods than they are today. It was necessary to hunt for food then. It's not anymore. None of these problems exist today.


 
Mrob, yea militias don't exist anymore, and they might not be relevant NOW...however the spirit and the idea that the people have the ability to take up arms in the event it is warranted under oppression and tyranny is what the second amendment is all about. As I have stated before I am certainly not a fanatical when it comes to gun laws, and I feel regulation is necessary, but you cannot take away liberties and principles that ths country was founded on. If it were my family being harmed in a manner like this, you better believe my 12 gauge will be up someone's A$$ in a heartbeat.


----------



## Seajack (Dec 16, 2012)

Just today my high school passed a rule to let the retired State police that work as security guards carry. A lot of my fellow seniors are up in arms about it for some reason, with no real reason other than to bitch about something. I personally know most of the guards and they're great guys that have been waiting for this for a while.


----------



## 8654Maine (Dec 16, 2012)

Never go shopping when hungry.

Pertinence to this: never make an emotional decision when clear, concise rational thought is required.

Mrob is a classic example of a troll. And has no clue about the Constitution or our current body politic, except how things make him FEEL.  And fully expected his views to be antagonistic to the majority on this board.

Why is that?  Cause we are all just some dumb military drones who have no individual thought or are incapable of self deduction?  Just because we wore the uniform does not make us ritualistically stupid.  You'd be surprised at how varied we are.  Your sarcastic view probably would have been better received if you were not so insulting.

The preamble to the Constitution included the following: "...to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."

Boy, were they prescient. Cause folks just are so willing to redact liberty.

Franklin, another one of the old white guys that our current society seem to love to second guess, stated it perfectly: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Some folks seem content to be subjects rather than citizens.


----------



## Gypsy (Dec 16, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> Im glad you had a good outcome but that is not always the case for everyone in every circumstance.


 
When seconds count...the police are just minutes away.

LEOs do a great job but the fact of the matter is they cannot be everywhere at every minute.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 16, 2012)

I only rely on myself for my personal protection and security. Which is why I carry.


----------



## mrob (Dec 16, 2012)

8654Maine said:


> Mrob is a classic example of a troll. And has no clue about the Constitution or our current body politic, except how things make him FEEL. And fully expected his views to be antagonistic to the majority on this board.
> 
> Why is that? Cause we are all just some dumb military drones who have no individual thought or are incapable of self deduction? Just because we wore the uniform does not make us ritualistically stupid. You'd be surprised at how varied we are. Your sarcastic view probably would have been better received if you were not so insulting.


 
I have been on these boards for close to three years, I just don't have a post count to show for it. I have great respect for members of this board and those who serve and I hope to follow in many of your footsteps one day. I have not once been disrespectful to anyone. But just because my views differ from most people on this board I am somehow ignorant? Don't presume to know me and paint me as something I am not. Please PM me if you (or anyone) would like to continue this further.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> I have been on these boards for close to three years, I just don't have a post count to show for it. I have great respect for members of this board and those who serve and I hope to follow in many of your footsteps one day. I have not once been disrespectful to anyone. But just because my views differ from most people on this board I am somehow ignorant? Don't presume to know me and paint me as something I am not. Please PM me if you (or anyone) would like to continue this further.


Post _count_ makes no difference. _Content_ does.
Where did anyone call you ignorant?
And just ask JBS , Scotth and lately parallel about differing opinions. Difference is, their discussions (while heated at times) are backed in research and facts.

ETA:  If you can bring some support to back up your posts, they will be received much better.  We might still disagree and argue our side, but they won't be so easily picked apart.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> I have been on these boards for close to three years, I just don't have a post count to show for it. I have great respect for members of this board and those who serve and I hope to follow in many of your footsteps one day. I have not once been disrespectful to anyone. But just because my views differ from most people on this board I am somehow ignorant? Don't presume to know me and paint me as something I am not. Please PM me if you (or anyone) would like to continue this further.


 

The Founding Fathers believed that a well armed people would be a check against a government that would seek to enslave them as my earlier quote stated. I will defend such a right. I have already gotten into real life long winded debates with those acting on emotions rather than logic. We must preserve our 2nd Amendment now more than ever.

It seems your points are either not making sense or you are coming off of as a troll. It appears you are missing what is being said. Debate is one thing, discussion another but you're missing the forest for the trees here.


----------



## mrob (Dec 16, 2012)

Marine0311 said:


> The Founding Fathers believed that a well armed people would be a check against a government that would seek to enslave them as my earlier quote stated. I will defend such a right. I have already gotten into real life long winded debates with those acting on emotions rather than logic. We must preserve our 2nd Amendment now more than ever.
> 
> It seems your points are either not making sense or you are coming off of as a troll. It appears you are missing what is being said. Debate is one thing, discussion another but you're missing the forest for the trees here.


 
I was trying to argue that view is no longer relevant and that the amendment has become a symbol of our freedom more than a protector of it in today's world and newer problems that our Founding Fathers could not foresee have now taken precedent and need to be addressed.


----------



## CDG (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> But just because my views differ from most people on this board I am somehow ignorant?


 
No, you're views are ignorant because they are.....ignorant. You exhibit an astounding lack of understanding about our history, the history of the Founding Fathers, the Constitution as a whole, and the 2nd Amendment in particular. Had you done any reading or research on these subjects, you would not be able to rationally hold the views you have. Differing opinions are one thing, opinions based on absolutely nothing substantial are ignorance. Therefore, you are ignorant. If that hurts your feelings, then pick up a book and fix the problem. Here, I'll even get you started.

“A free people ought...to be armed” 
― George Washington

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” 
― Thomas Jefferson

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” 
― Thomas Jefferson, _Complete Jefferson_

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.” 
― Noah Webster


----------



## Rampart (Dec 16, 2012)

Once the reading indicated by CDG is complete few rational people will argue gun control..... and they should be awed at the powerful foresight displayed.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> I was trying to argue that view is no longer relevant and that the amendment has become a symbol of our freedom more than a protector of it in today's world and newer problems that our Founding Fathers could not foresee have now taken precedent and need to be addressed.


 
Which view exactly? The U.S Constitution (and in effect the first 10 Amendments known as "The Bill of Rights") are what our Founding Fathers decided after much long and heated debate. They were written to ensure the right and freedoms that the country was founded on preserve and defend the country from many elements sometimes even there own people as evidenced in the rash of emotional based arguments concerning the CT school shootings.

All the rights are relevant to degrees IMO however they must be preserved and defended or else we will lose our rights and freedoms due to laziness.


----------



## 8654Maine (Dec 16, 2012)

Why go private?  Let's air this moldy jockstrap.

I judged based on your previous posts in this thread.  I have no preconceptions of who you are or what your agenda is.

Your words:  "Just posting my opinions, which clearly go against what the majority of members of this board think, but I expect that regarding this issue here."

Again, why would you write this unless you were making certain assumptions?  That we all think alike?  Because of being on this board?  Some of the most rational beings are folks in uniform.  Especially when it comes to violence.  Because we are the ones to bear the brunt of such policy.

Your statements about militias, day-to-day violence not being real, questioning why a mom would have weapons, and guns only for hunting are just examples of your lack of insight.

Now remember, proper debate dissects the discussion points.  Not dismembers the participant.  Proper debate should not highlight debater's naivety, experience nor immaturity.  That is not it's purpose.

In case you are wondering, I may actually agree with some (little) of your points and am more than willing to learn something from everyone, but my pet peeve is your comment about the members on this board and your expectations regarding our attitudes.  Besides your other points.

Do not go gently into that good night.
Have you ever pissed off a DI?


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 16, 2012)

OK guys, keep this thread on the subject at hand, any mano a mano is best settled via PM, or via the "ignore" function.  Any individual member discipline will be handled by the site staff.

Muchas gracias <-- that's three semesters of Spanish for you, right there.


----------



## 8654Maine (Dec 16, 2012)

Roger that.


----------



## Scotth (Dec 16, 2012)

8654Maine said:


> Now remember, proper debate dissects the discussion points. Not dismembers the participant. Proper debate should not highlight debater's naivety, experience nor immaturity. That is not it's purpose.


 
Great comment!


----------



## mrob (Dec 16, 2012)

Marine0311 said:


> Which view exactly?


 


			
				Marine0311 said:
			
		

> The Founding Fathers believed that a well armed people would be a check against a government that would seek to enslave them as my earlier quote stated


 
With today's technology and advanced weaponry, I can't really see civilians with guns having great effect against the full power of the US government, so that check against the government is no longer relevant. 

The 2nd amendment is here to stay. Again, I can't see it going anywhere. The issue is and should be how to prevent mass shootings from happening and that can be done without getting rid of the 2nd amendment. Morally, I don't think it is right to use the 2nd amendment as a reason to not do anything. In my first post I noted we have had 58 mass shootings to Europe's 12 since 1996. Clearly, we have room for improvement and we should welcome changes that will reduce these incidences.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> I have been on these boards for close to three years, I just don't have a post count to show for it. I have great respect for members of this board and those who serve and I hope to follow in many of your footsteps one day. I have not once been disrespectful to anyone. But just because my views differ from most people on this board I am somehow ignorant? Don't presume to know me and paint me as something I am not. Please PM me if you (or anyone) would like to continue this further.


 


mrob said:


> I was trying to argue that view is no longer relevant and that the amendment has become a symbol of our freedom more than a protector of it in today's world and newer problems that our Founding Fathers could not foresee have now taken precedent and need to be addressed.


 
This is constructive criticism, which you are free to accept or disregard at your own choosing.  Ordinarily this would be coming to you via private message, but there are a lot of new joins who could probably benefit from hearing this, so it's public.

It's fine to go against the prevailing wisdom of the site.  In fact, I encourage it.  But there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it.  You have gone about it the wrong way in this thread.  

Look at the way users like Scotth or CDG or JBS present their arguments.  There are many others but I'm using them as an example because their usernames are easiest to type.  Their arguments are well-researched and well-thought-out, and are backed by facts and verifiable sources.  It's pretty obvious that you didn't do any real research on this topic before jumping in with both feet, and now you're in over your head.  Your posts reveal what is to me a stunning lack of understanding of the basic aspects of this discussion.  Now you're left with arguing from emotion, which isn't going to get you far here.  It makes you look worse than uninformed, it makes you look ignorant and troll-like.

So, if you really want to continue this discussion, go and do some real research and come back with a more-than-surface-level understanding of the major issues.  I'd start with Googling "why do we need gun control," then try "why we don't need gun control."  These will give you a better understanding of the base arguments on both sides, the relevant case law, and the underlying Constitutional issues.  That way you can make a much more coherent argument, one that others might disagree with but will still respect you for having.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> With today's technology and advanced weaponry, I can't really see civilians with guns having great effect against the full power of the US government, so that check against the government is no longer relevant.
> 
> The 2nd amendment is here to stay. Again, I can't see it going anywhere. The issue is and should be how to prevent mass shootings from happening and that can be done without getting rid of the 2nd amendment. Morally, I don't think it is right to use the 2nd amendment as a reason to not do anything. In my first post I noted we have had 58 mass shootings to Europe's 12 since 1996. Clearly, we have room for improvement and we should welcome changes that will reduce these incidences.


 
I disagree and that it one of the reasons that the FF put the 2nd Amendment in; to prevent a government from enslaving it's people through force of arms.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 16, 2012)

We are talking in circles, maybe a 24 hr break from this thread to gather new ideas would be worth it. This thread looks like the comments section of a story on Yahoo.


----------



## mrob (Dec 16, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> This is constructive criticism, which you are free to accept or disregard at your own choosing. Ordinarily this would be coming to you via private message, but there are a lot of new joins who could probably benefit from hearing this, so it's public.
> 
> It's fine to go against the prevailing wisdom of the site. In fact, I encourage it. But there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. You have gone about it the wrong way in this thread.
> 
> ...


 
Understood. I guess the lines between discussing and debating got blurred. I was more or less discussing my thoughts and opinions, not trying to persuade or pick apart people's posts. I'll excuse myself from this thread and do more reading before I decide to post here again.


----------



## 0699 (Dec 16, 2012)

Rampart said:


> Once the reading indicated by CDG is complete few rational people will argue gun control..... and they should be awed at the powerful foresight displayed.


 
If people argued this topic rationally.  But they don't.  People will always argue this point on emotion, not logic.



mrob said:


> With today's technology and advanced weaponry, I can't really see civilians with guns having great effect against the full power of the US government, so that check against the government is no longer relevant.
> 
> The 2nd amendment is here to stay. Again, I can't see it going anywhere. The issue is and should be how to prevent mass shootings from happening and that can be done without getting rid of the 2nd amendment. Morally, I don't think it is right to use the 2nd amendment as a reason to not do anything. In my first post I noted we have had 58 mass shootings to Europe's 12 since 1996. Clearly, we have room for improvement and we should welcome changes that will reduce these incidences.


 
What's nice about your posts is I don't need to read them.  I can just scroll along and click "disagree" everytime I see your name without having to blink an eye...


----------



## policemedic (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> With today's technology and advanced weaponry, I can't really see civilians with guns having great effect against the full power of the US government, so that check against the government is no longer relevant.
> 
> The 2nd amendment is here to stay. Again, I can't see it going anywhere. The issue is and should be how to prevent mass shootings from happening and that can be done without getting rid of the 2nd amendment. Morally, I don't think it is right to use the 2nd amendment as a reason to not do anything. In my first post I noted we have had 58 mass shootings to Europe's 12 since 1996. Clearly, we have room for improvement and we should welcome changes that will reduce these incidences.



So, you're going to argue that an insurgency the size of the American gun owning population is easy to defeat?

Allow me to refer you to Iraq. 

Stop digging.


----------



## AWP (Dec 16, 2012)

Historically speaking, insurgencies start with the weapons at hand. Look at the last 100 years: Vietnam, Central America, Africa, Afghanistan in the 70's, the Moros, the Bolsheviks, etc.....before they were funded by outside sources they all started with what was on hand, what was in their homes.


----------



## CDG (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> With today's technology and advanced weaponry, I can't really see civilians with guns having great effect against the full power of the US government, so that check against the government is no longer relevant.


 
Wow. Just....... wow.  I don't even know where to start with this statement.  Even if it were true, which it is not, your answer would be to just quit and let the government do whatever it wants?  "Well, fuck it fellas, we probably can't win so let's just surrender.  We don't need no stinkin' freedoms and liberties!"


----------



## parallel (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> With today's technology and advanced weaponry, I can't really see civilians with guns having great effect against the full power of the US government, so that check against the government is no longer relevant.
> 
> The 2nd amendment is here to stay. Again, I can't see it going anywhere. The issue is and should be how to prevent mass shootings from happening and that can be done without getting rid of the 2nd amendment. Morally, I don't think it is right to use the 2nd amendment as a reason to not do anything. *In my first post I noted we have had 58 mass shootings to Europe's 12 since 1996.* Clearly, we have room for improvement and we should welcome changes that will reduce these incidences.


Wow... just wow. I purposely avoided this thread because I just KNEW there would be stuff like this being posted. I was tagged or whatever and now I can't unread what I've read.

As policemedic has already said, one needs look no further than the Iraqi insurgency to see the fallacy of your position. Add to that the fact that U.S. Military personnel made an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and therefore the "full power of the US government" wouldn't be in effect.

Now, before I get added to any lists out there... I have no doubt that we're no where near any kind of situation in which an insurgency is even remotely necessary. I'm saying that it is indeed POSSIBLE should the need arise.

As for the bold part of your comment... you will note that many of those mass shootings occurred AFTER the federal assault weapons ban (which was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) was passed into law. Hmmmm... imagine that... a bunch of laws originating from D.C. banning this and that did next to nothing in it's stated goal of "Violent Crime Control" much less the type of mass shootings we're talking about here. I do find it odd that so many anti-gun people are invoking morality when it's those with whom they identify politically who have removed morality from the public discourse.


----------



## parallel (Dec 16, 2012)

LOL... "Wow just wow" just seems to be the only words many of us could conjure.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 16, 2012)

mrob said:


> With today's technology and advanced weaponry, I can't really *see civilians with guns having great effect against the full power of the US government*, so that check against the government is no longer relevant.


 
See, this is another example of what I was talking about earlier.  All someone has to do in order to completely destroy this line of reasoning is to introduce you to our friend Mr. Afghanistan.  Freefalling and a number of other site members know Mr. Afghanistan pretty well, maybe they can tell you about him sometime.



mrob said:


> ...I noted we have had 58 mass shootings to Europe's 12 since 1996. Clearly, we have room for improvement and we should welcome changes that will reduce these incidences.


 
OK, now with this, I can see the beginning of a good argument in support of your position.  You should develop this more.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 16, 2012)

I dont mean to interrupt the direction the thread has taken but when I read this:


> With today's technology and advanced weaponry, I can't really see civilians with guns having great effect against the full power of the US government, so that check against the government is no longer relevant.


 
I thought of this:


> *Japan would never invade the United States. We would find a rifle behind every blade of grass. Isoroku Yamamoto *


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 17, 2012)

Maybe asking the question in the other direction will offer some much need understanding into how some justify gun control in their own minds.

·         Who are you to tell me or anyone else we cannot own a gun, a type of gun or limit our carrying of said gun?
·         What authority does anyone, government or civilian have to tell the people that I cannot be armed?
·         Where did the authority come from to allow the removal of the people’s rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution?

I think it is real easy to forget about the people, everyone else, when injecting the thought of change. Either it be gun control, limiting freedom of speech, etc. What may make you feel safe may make the rest of us feel unsafe. So how can you justify it outside of simply giving an opinion? The point here is that it is perfectly fine to have an opinion, but to push those opinions into laws limiting the peoples rights is unjustifiable to the masses. I would love to have laws against people like the Westboro baptist church being able to protest my brothers and sisters funerals. However, the constitution protects them, and if I am going to take my oath serious, I have to respect their rights to do so. I don’t have to like it; I can hate them, what they do and who they are. But I do have to respect their rights as American citizens….The same way I expect everyone else to respect my rights to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Arrow 4 (Dec 17, 2012)

Here is another thing to consider...while this and the other mass shootings (Oregon, Ft. Hood, Virginia Tech, Columbine, and others) are horrific, shocking, sad, gut-wrenching, etc., consider the following:


In 2008 (most recent data available), about 3200 babies were aborted *each day* in the US (Guttmacher Institute)
In 2008, there were 45 homicides *every day* in the US (www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates.html)
In 2008, 847 children 16 and younger were victims of homicide - on average, 2.3 *per day* in the US (www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates.html)
 
These facts escape the media frenzy yet are also horrific, shocking, sad, gut-wrenching, etc. to those involved. There is evil and darkness in our nation every single day.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 17, 2012)

One thing does bear mentioning.

When you use the term _assault weapon_, you are allowing the other side to dictate the terms of the debate.  There is no such thing as an _assault rifle, assault pistol _or any other type of assault anything.  We know this, and we know better, but the term has become so commonplace that we use it without thinking.  And when we do, we reinforce through the power of semantics and imagery the (allegedly) horribly evil and dangerous nature of these inanimate objects that the other side is trying to sell.

Even the phrase _military-style rifle/pistol/shotgun/spork_ is problematic.  A 1911 is military-style, and so are Berettas and Glocks and Sigs because they've been used by our nation's warfighters.  Should we ban them simply because of their association with the military?  In terms of rifles, the military uses bolt action rifles.  Does that mean the Remington 700 you own to hunt deer (not that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with hunting) should be outlawed because at its core it is reminiscent of the M24 sniper weapon system?

When we debate this issue--though why there is a debate puzzles me--we must be sure that in making our points we do not undermine our position by letting the other side frame the debate.

Words matter.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 17, 2012)

policemedic said:


> One thing does bear mentioning.
> 
> When you use the term _assault weapon_, you are allowing the other side to dictate the terms of the debate. There is no such thing as an _assault rifle, assault pistol _or any other type of assault anything. We know this, and we know better, but the term has become so commonplace that we use it without thinking. And when we do, we reinforce through the power of semantics and imagery the (allegedly) horribly evil and dangerous nature of these inanimate objects that the other side is trying to sell.
> 
> ...


 
Agreed. The media seems to ignorant and unwilling to educate itself proper. Much like "TODAY OUR SPECIAL OPERATIONS BLACK NINJAS DID X, Y AND Z"

That is one point of conversation I throw at them along with a few other key terms. Then when you correct them they say "yeah but those assault weapons..."


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 17, 2012)

^ I'll dovetail on the points from a few of the posts above.

We need to get past the Red Herring that is guns and start examining the root cause behind the desire to commit mass murder.

The interesting thing is that many crime statistics show an overall decline and is near historical lows:
FBI: Violent crime rates in the US drop, approach historic lows - U.S. News


> Violent crime rates in the U.S. are reaching historic lows, according to new FBI data released Monday.
> 
> Instances of murder declined overall by 1.9 percent from 2010 figures, while rape, robbery and aggravated assault declined by 4 percent nationwide, according to records from more than 14,000 law-enforcement agencies around the country...
> 
> According to FBI analysis, the homicide drop would mean that nearly 280 fewer Americans were murdered last year, which would be the lowest homicide death toll since the mid-1950s.


So, considering the information from the article above, the focus on guns as the problem appears very much misplaced.

Yet, people will still call for a ban on certain weapons (as posted earlier, the wheels are already in motion). But we've been there, done that. The result? Well, consider the following WT article based on a report from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ):
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/#ixzz2FHgALPuP


> “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence...
> 
> ...It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence. Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement"


 
To me, all this seemingly points to a greater underlying societal issue or perhaps a dark side of human nature. Neither of which will be solved with another law.

As our society grows and technology evolves, we are more connected and in tune to issues than we've ever been before. Thus, our visibilty/awareness of such violence is greater.


----------



## JBS (Dec 17, 2012)

For those of you still unsure about how vocal and active you should be about this issue *RIGHT NOW**, TODAY,* all across every blog and forum you might frequent, as well as with your friends and neighbors, the hour that many of us have feared (and expected) is now upon us.






These are examples of the flood of headlines almost everywhere across American media- print, electronic and radio as well.

An assault weapons ban will be rolled out, and it probably has already been drafted, sitting in a locker and collecting dust for just such a time as this. The call is about to go out and those of us who want to keep the 2nd Amendment had better be ready to mobilize and act when it does. Unlike the Clinton AWB, they won't stop with "Assault Weapons" this time. Obama has set the precedent for taking this country into territory we never thought we'd see.  And, with the recent flood of unassimilated, illegal immigrants and mass production of the _dumbest youth our nation has ever produced_, the fabric of the country has changed just enough in the past 3-5 years to make his agenda actually possible.







And we know that the Obama Administration comes from the Chicago school of politics, where you never want a good crisis to go to waste:


----------



## JBS (Dec 17, 2012)

If you haven't already, start watching the reports on gun legislation about to be rolled out and get involved with every pro-2nd Amendment organization you can find. If you want to keep your liberty, it is all going to come down to this effort that is merely being made out to look like a "knee jerk" reaction by the Left. In reality, they've been waiting patiently for the chance to act by leveraging public sentiment and the perfect blend of ignorance and lethargy so prevalent in our culture today.


----------



## 8654Maine (Dec 17, 2012)

^^^^Amen


----------



## 0699 (Dec 17, 2012)

policemedic said:


> One thing does bear mentioning.
> 
> When you use the term _assault weapon_, you are allowing the other side to dictate the terms of the debate. There is no such thing as an _assault rifle, assault pistol _or any other type of assault anything. We know this, and we know better, but the term has become so commonplace that we use it without thinking. And when we do, we reinforce through the power of semantics and imagery the (allegedly) horribly evil and dangerous nature of these inanimate objects that the other side is trying to sell.
> 
> ...


 
That's what Mexico does... :wall:


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 17, 2012)

Contact your local, state and federal officials


----------



## 8654Maine (Dec 17, 2012)

Marine0311 said:


> Contact your local, state and federal officials


 
More than that: Get INVOLVED.

Don't be like so many who would ignore or hide from this encroachment.

Use Psy-Ops: infiltrate the bastions of plurality and liberalism.
Get involved in politics.
Enter the educational system and teach the future minds and voters.
Get involved in media. Use it to show the rational side in otherwise emotional issues.

Lord knows, I sometimes feel like I'm finning against a 10 knot sea in civilian medicine, but it's gotta be done. You should see the liberal, "be free, be me, gimme, gimme" BS that is in healthcare nowadays.

I say get subversive.  Am I preaching to the choir?


----------



## JBS (Dec 17, 2012)

8654Maine said:


> More than that: Get INVOLVED.
> 
> Don't be like so many who would ignore or hide from this encroachment.
> 
> ...


The time will come.

In the meanwhile we need to come out of the woodwork.


I just bought the tackiest 2nd Amendment T-Shirts that I never would ordinarily wear just for the express purpose of going into downtown and doing my best to express my views. One voice, but it's all I have. And I'm going to multiply my presence everywhere I can by posting coherent, factual counter points every time I have a spare minute to scan an anti-2nd Amendment news article.






It's horrible that the death of 20 kids is the currency of the Leftists, to purchase gun control, so we should be fearless in defending the principles of the 2nd Amendment. We have to do much better than we did during the Clinton Administration.


----------



## pardus (Dec 18, 2012)

I feel like we are on the brink of loosing our liberty and it worries me a lot. America will not be America without the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## JBS (Dec 18, 2012)

Fund management groups begin sell off of gun-maker/manufacturer stocks; hitting them in the pocketbook now:

http://news.yahoo.com/cerberus-sell-gunmaker-freedom-group-u-school-shooting-062303957--sector.html




> (Reuters) - U.S. private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management said on Tuesday it will immediately begin selling its investment in gunmaker Freedom Group in light of last week's school shooting in Connecticut.
> 
> Pressure mounted on Cerberus as the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) said on Monday it was reviewing its investment with the private equity firm after the Connecticut school shooting.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rapid (Dec 18, 2012)

JAB said:


> Man, I was going to respond with all kinds of deliberate contrast to your lengthy post, but then you went on with this other, and being as intoxicated as I am now…well I really just can’t see the point, you are so damn contradictory to your own posts, well it’s kind of…silly.


 
Nothing I have written has contradicted itself; you can try rereading it when you're not inebriated.



JAB said:


> “I am all for gun ownership” well, as long as these people don’t have them, and these people don’t carry them, and well these people keep them locked up….and well these people are idiots and they should not have them….blah, blah, blahhh…
> 
> Dude! This is exactly why our country (the United States) has a constitution, to keep the flip-floppers, from injecting there “this moment” of reasoning/new laws from affecting the masses. Contrary to modern politics, the constitution is a document that guards against ignorance and intolerance. You cannot say “I am all for civil liberty, but only for these people”, it is either for EVERYONE or not.


 
For centuries, the laws of Western countries have guaranteed many liberties for their citizens, but they have also conferred duties upon them.

I don't know where you got the idea that one's rights shouldn't be taken away in any circumstance, but guess what? They should. Not because of dumb laws (such as the AWB), but because of _one's own dumbass actions._

Commit a murder? You lose your freedom. Molest a kid? You lose your freedom, and you lose the right to be around kids. Maliciously and repeatedly hack government and/or private websites? You lose some of your rights when it comes to what you access on computers/the internet.

All those examples show how you can lose your rights, because of YOUR OWN stupid actions. No one should be able to go around doing stupid shit and not being prevented from doing it again. If you disagree with this, excuse me while I go facepalm myself for about half an hour.

Now then, what about if your neighbor gets diagnosed as a psychopath on the verge of a causing a bloodbath? I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to deduce that maybe it'd be a good idea to temporarily suspend his rights to bear arms... until/if he's given the all-clear. Go ahead and correct me, if you think that you'd feel safe having your family around him.

What about if he's got a history of violent gun crime? Gee, I'm going to have to go with the same as above.

Let's stop with this "I can do whatever I want and not face any consequences" bullshit. Our constitutions, declarations, etc, aren't guarantees to act like self-righteous pricks who are a danger to others' liberties. Our rights can, and should, be taken away from us if we don't accept our duties.



JAB said:


> Main point I will make before I pass the fuck out, is that whatever (anyone) can dream up as better for A, B and C, will never be good for the whole dam alphabet. Any of you, who feel that limiting one persons liberty (i.e. any person, ignorant, intelligent, mentally ill, or whatever you can come up with), either it be freedom to bear arms, freedom of speech, ect, ect… Have a true misunderstanding of what liberty truly is. It is not just to keep government from infringing upon those liberties, but also to keep all of you (and your bright ideas) from infringing on those rights as well.


 
The only person here who has no idea of what liberty is, ironically, is you. The fact that you can't grasp that your liberty ends where the next person's liberty begins speaks volumes.

I'm tired of sugarcoating it. Your infantile reasoning says that the kid who committed this massacre should've been able to own guns just like anyone else. I'm actually angry at this stupidity.

Edit: and I'm actually going to quote myself to put this whole post into perspective:



			
				Rapid said:
			
		

> I believe that people should be able to own handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, assault rifles, sniper rifles, light machine guns... or whatever else. However, to say that these rights shouldn't come with any responsibilities (safekeeping), duties (immediately reporting missing weapons) or conditions (limiting/excluding these rights from the severely deranged or criminals) just seems crazy to me.


----------



## txpj007 (Dec 18, 2012)

<iframe src='http://widget.newsinc.com/single.ht...9016&sitesection=breitbartprivate&w=640&h=480' height='480' width='640' scrolling='no' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0'></iframe>

Heres a perfect example of the mindset what we are up against.  Notice A. Soledad's complete lack of knowledge of anything to do with fire arms B. Her emoting instead of debating and having an informed discussion.  C. complete lack of "journalism"

Another thought I had when talking to my brother in law the other day.  He asked me my opinion on gun control and do I see the need for civilans to have guns like AR's, AK's etc.  I told him the second amendment was written so our government could never enslave or over run its people by disarming them.  I got to thinking about when the 2nd amendment was written and for the most part back at that time both civilians and govt/military had the same style weapons.  Now I'm not saying civilians should have access to crew served weapons or armor piercing rounds etc.  However, I think that is another apsect that isnt looked at regarding the times, spirit and intent of our FF's.  Just thinking out loud......


----------



## alibi (Dec 18, 2012)

policemedic said:


> One thing does bear mentioning.
> 
> When you use the term _assault weapon_, you are allowing the other side to dictate the terms of the debate. There is no such thing as an _assault rifle, assault pistol _or any other type of assault anything. We know this, and we know better, but the term has become so commonplace that we use it without thinking. And when we do, we reinforce through the power of semantics and imagery the (allegedly) horribly evil and dangerous nature of these inanimate objects that the other side is trying to sell.
> 
> ...


 
This is something I have been thinking about, and it is certainly not limited to 2nd Amendment issues.  Look at any of these:

Nanny State/Big Government vs.  Helping others and taking care of each other

Marriage Equality vs. Protecting the Family

Reproductive Rights vs. Pro-life

Paying their fair share vs.  Attacking the Rich


There are more, but the above is what worries me.  How do you debate the above issues when the language just completely frames the debate in a mutually exclusive way?  

I worry about the United States becoming Balkanized (certainly politically, at least).  I think the U.S. has become this way concerning 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 18, 2012)

I wonder if this peace loving professor is packing heat? I <3 the liberal left.
I think some of that is a threat to Mr. LaPierre et al .  This guy should be locked up.  He doesnt sound very stable to me



> ted at 11:42 am on December 18, 2012 by Twitchy Staff | View Comments
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://twitchy.com/2012/12/18/unive...r-anyone-who-thinks-teachers-should-be-armed/


----------



## pardus (Dec 18, 2012)

What a scumbag POS. Be proud University of Rhode Island, be proud.


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 18, 2012)

Hmmm sounds like the perfect way to eliminate violence in schools... [/sarc]


----------



## pardus (Dec 18, 2012)

It is however a non starting idea to arm teachers. Teachers are generally of a liberal mindset, as a group they wouldn't do it. 
Armed guards would be a better idea if that was the road we went down.


----------



## AWP (Dec 18, 2012)

I'd love to have one of his classes. I'd wear an NRA shirt.


----------



## Ex3 (Dec 18, 2012)

Rapid said:


> Nothing I have written has contradicted itself; you can try rereading it when you're not inebriated.
> 
> For centuries, the laws of Western countries have guaranteed many liberties for their citizens, but they have also conferred duties upon them.
> 
> ...


 
Excellent post.  This is what I've been trying (and failing) to put into words the last several days.


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 18, 2012)

pardus said:


> It is however a non starting idea to arm teachers. Teachers are generally of a liberal mindset, as a group they wouldn't do it.
> Armed guards would be a better idea if that was the road we went down.


 
I don't think forcing it on teachers is a good idea at all.  However, allowing them to do so might be a better idea.  It's clear that making it illegal to carry on school property is doing absolutely nothing to decrease the violence.


----------



## AWP (Dec 18, 2012)

Totentanz said:


> It's clear that making it illegal to carry on school property is doing absolutely nothing to decrease the violence.


 
As you well know, if criminals followed the law they wouldn't be criminals. Problem solved!


----------



## pardus (Dec 18, 2012)

Ex3 said:


> Excellent post.


 
Agreed. 

Well said Rapid. Particularly this...  _"I can do whatever I want and not face any consequences"_ 

I am a believer in punishment for fucking up. Kids at school should be strapped/caned for infractions for example. This instils to kids that there are serious consequences for doing the wrong thing.
Western society has become so soft now that we just want to talk about shit, not act on shit. This is on every level from school ground infractions to war. 
It needs to stop if we are going to survive as a free people. Society is going to implode if we keep on this road.


----------



## Worldweaver (Dec 18, 2012)

pardus said:


> It is however a non starting idea to arm teachers. Teachers are generally of a liberal mindset, as a group they wouldn't do it.
> Armed guards would be a better idea if that was the road we went down.


 
True, I've already heard one of my former teachers say that if she was forced to carry then she would quit teaching.  Obviously "forcing" teachers would be a horrible idea, however, what about giving them the ability to carry?  I know in my area that at least a couple teachers per school would be open to this, and it wouldn't be the extra cost that a guard would be.


----------



## pardus (Dec 18, 2012)

Totentanz said:


> I don't think forcing it on teachers is a good idea at all. However, allowing them to do so might be a better idea. It's clear that making it illegal to carry on school property is doing absolutely nothing to decrease the violence.


 


Worldweaver said:


> True, I've already heard one of my former teachers say that if she was forced to carry then she would quit teaching. Obviously "forcing" teachers would be a horrible idea, however, what about giving them the ability to carry? I know in my area that at least a couple teachers per school would be open to this, and it wouldn't be the extra cost that a guard would be.


 

Yeah, that could work.

I wonder how the anti-gun teachers would react to this though.


----------



## Ex3 (Dec 18, 2012)

Worldweaver said:


> True, I've already heard one of my former teachers say that if she was forced to carry then she would quit teaching. Obviously "forcing" teachers would be a horrible idea, however, what about giving them the ability to carry? I know in my area that at least a couple teachers per school would be open to this, and it wouldn't be the extra cost that a guard would be.


Politics aside, could you imagine what the school district's liability policies would jump too?  

I think putting armed retire LEOs as school guards is a great idea.


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 18, 2012)

Ex3 said:


> Politics aside, could you imagine what the school district's liability policies would jump too?
> 
> I think putting armed retire LEOs as school guards is a great idea.


 
Just curious... why retired?


----------



## Ex3 (Dec 18, 2012)

Totentanz said:


> Just curious... why retired?


Mainly because I wouldn't want to take active duty people off the streets.  And it would probably won't be a super demanding job, so it'd be good second career for someone with the right skills.


----------



## Worldweaver (Dec 18, 2012)

Ex3 said:


> Politics aside, could you imagine what the school district's liability policies would jump too?
> 
> I think putting armed retire LEOs as school guards is a great idea.


 
Would it be more than opening up a new position at the school?  I would rather have magnetic doors that lock and a few teacher dispersed throughout the school that are armed, if a breach is made (from an entry point not maintained by a security guard) I would rather have security inside the school.  I also believe that a gunman would probably not pick soft targets like elementary schools if he/she knew the teachers might be armed, they could go back to shooting up their workplaces like "normal" psychopaths.


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 18, 2012)

Ex3 said:


> Mainly because I wouldn't want to take active duty people off the streets. And it would probably won't be a super demanding job, so it'd be good second career for someone with the right skills.


 
Fair enough... I just think that if we're going that route - you're already paying the $$$ to hire them, why not keep them as part of the regular force? (granted, I'm saying this as an outsider with little knowledge how departments man and schedule their personnel)


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 18, 2012)

Aaaaand CNN shows their true colors.  The intended end effect is NOT violence reduction, their talking points are purely an anti-Second-Amendment/NRA push.



> *It doesn't matter if gun violence is down*. 20 children are dead here and 6 adults are dead, and the mother of a person who was not mentally -- who is mentally challenged in some way is dead. so to say that gun violence is down -- we need to talk about mental health, yes. mental health is a secondary issue. *We need to get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets.* They should only be available to police officers and to hunt al Qaeda and the Taliban and not hunt children.


 
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...snt-matter-that-gun-violence-is-down-n1468682

No double standards here...:-"


----------



## pardus (Dec 18, 2012)

Dicks sporting goods, Walmart and cheaper than dirt have all restricted or cancelled firearms sales. 

I just read that Discovery channel has cancelled Sons of Guns  and American Guns.

The knee jerk reactions are picking up speed.


----------



## Scotth (Dec 18, 2012)

Ex3 said:


> Politics aside, could you imagine what the school district's liability policies would jump too?
> 
> I think putting armed retire LEOs as school guards is a great idea.


 
I agree.  Arming teachers (even if they want to) or anyone else in the school for that matter doesn't guarantee the shooting ability necessary for those situation.  Off duty cops or retired cops would be a better solution.  Someone that has the training and the experience of being in those critical situation and reacting thoughtfully.

Going to a range and taking a test doesn't make someone qualified to be in those situations.

If it cost more so be it, if it's important enough then it is worth the extra expense.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 18, 2012)

pardus said:


> Dicks sporting goods, Walmart and cheaper than dirt have all restricted or cancelled firearms sales.
> 
> I just read that Discovery channel has cancelled Sons of Guns and American Guns.
> 
> The knee jerk reactions are picking up speed.


 
The group that owns Bushmaster is selling their stake in it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-...un-companies/?utm_hp_ref=homepage&ir=homepage


----------



## policemedic (Dec 18, 2012)

Fuck the Cunting News Network.


----------



## pardus (Dec 18, 2012)

This will be interesting because gun sales are going to go through the roof, thats a lot of money companies will be throwing away.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 18, 2012)

I should call up the Wally World in Pahrump, NV to see if they've stopped selling ammo. With Front Sight in their backyard ammo is a big seller for them. I'm sure their corporate ethics don't extend so far as to affect their profits.


----------



## Brooklynben (Dec 18, 2012)

If guns are the problem; why have I never heard of even one murder happening at a gun show?


----------



## Scotth (Dec 18, 2012)

Marine0311 said:


> The group that owns Bushmaster is selling their stake in it:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-...un-companies/?utm_hp_ref=homepage&ir=homepage


 
I would bet they break off all the gun companies and put them into a new smaller holding company.  If they tried to sell those assets they would be lucky to get 3 cents on the dollar right now.

I think this move is all about limiting the reach of the eventual lawsuits that are sure to follow.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 18, 2012)

> lib·er·ty
> noun, plural lib·er·ties.
> 1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
> 2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
> ...


 
Wait....What?



> Second Amendment
> –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*


 
What is great about the founding documents, is that they are wrote in plain fucking English, so even a retard like me can understand them.



> in·fringe
> verb, in·fringed, in·fring·ing. verb (used with object)
> 1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
> verb (used without object)
> 2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.


 



Rapid said:


> Nothing I have written has contradicted itself; you can try rereading it when you're not inebriated.
> 
> 
> Actually you have…see definition to liberty above.
> ...


 

Okay man, you are a bit worked up, apparently misunderstanding just about everything I have posted, possibly my fault for not typing out full pages to explain my point of view. Regardless, my drunken post probably set most of that fire, so I will apologize for that. Outside of that I will attempt to stay civil from this point forward, as long as you will stop twisting my posts around.


----------



## Brooklynben (Dec 18, 2012)

*1 gun with the right person saves lives, cancels the guns of one homicidal maniac *

OFF DUTY SHERIFF STOPS SHOOTER AT MOVIE THEATER
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10644119
Monday, December 17, 2012
Terror at Southwest Side Movie Theater, as Gunman, Patron Shot in Lobby 
Jim Forsyth

Two people are hospitalized after a gunman chased terrified restaurant patrons into the lobby of the Santikos Mayan 14 movie theater during a showing of "The Hobbit" last night, 1200 WOAI news reprots.

Police detectives and sheriff's investigators say the incident started in the China Garden Restaurant on Southwest Military Drive about 9 PM Sunday, when an employee of the restaurant walked in looking for a woman.  When the woman, who officials say is also a restaurant employee, wasn't there, the man pulled a gun and attempted to open fire in the restaurant but his weapon jammed.

"It started at the restaurant and then went into the parking lot and then into the movie theater," Deputy Lou Antu told 1200 WOAI news.

Investigators say some of the terrified restaurant patrons poured into the movie theater, and the gunman followed.  He opened fire, shooting one man in the chest, before Antu says an off duty sheriff's deputy who was working security at the theater shot him once. "The officer involved, she took the appropriate action to try to keep everyone safe in the movie theater," Antu said.

The gunman and the patron are hospitalized.  Antu says the gunman never made it into the theater itself, thanks largely to the heroic work of the off duty deputy.  "She did what she felt she had to do," Antu said.  "I feel that she saved a lot of lives by taking the action she had to take."

Antu said the gunman, if he survives, will probably face a charge of attempted capital murder, for shooting at the San Antonio police car on Southwest Military Drive as he ran from the restaurant to the theater.

Officials didn't know what the relationship was between the gunman and the woman in the restaurant, or what his motivation was for the shooting.  Neither of the police officers involved, the officer driving the San Antonio Poilce car, or the off duty deputy in the theater, were hurt, Antu said.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 18, 2012)

Nope let’s ignore the facts that protection comes from people who provide it (i.e. the person who is armed, who is there, and who decides to act). Nope why allow those teachers to be armed, why we would want them to protect themselves, or our children…That is just CRAZY!

States already regulate the training LEO’s, Security Guards and CCW holders must complete to carry a firearm (granted most of them suck). Why is it so hard to tell teachers, you pass these (make it a high standard) training requirements, you may carry your firearm in the classroom. Everyone against the “Arm the teachers” theory is stating things like; teacher personality, teacher social views, lack of training. Well it is pretty fucking simple, set the standard, tell them that if they choose to be armed, they have to meet the standard, and then see where it goes. A few things I will bet money on that you will see, is a lot more teachers than you think will seek the training and arm themselves, that schools will learn of the importance these teacher being armed will play in active shooters/added measure of security to the school, and that a few of these schools will move to policy’s that require teachers to get the training and be armed as a condition of their employment.

Again, I am not saying we should force teachers, I am not saying they should not meet a training standard, etc. I am saying, allow them to have the freedom of choice and see where it leads.

FYI: my last rifle class had a local school principle in it, I turned that dude into a force to be reckoned with.


----------



## Rampart (Dec 18, 2012)

JAB said:


> Nope let’s ignore the facts that protection comes from people who provide it (i.e. the person who is armed, who is there, and who decides to act). Nope why allow those teachers to be armed, why we would want them to protect themselves, or our children…That is just CRAZY!
> 
> States already regulate the training LEO’s, Security Guards and CCW holders must complete to carry a firearm (granted most of them suck). Why is it so hard to tell teachers, you pass these (make it a high standard) training requirements, you may carry your firearm in the classroom. Everyone against the “Arm the teachers” theory is stating things like; teacher personality, teacher social views, lack of training. Well it is pretty fucking simple, set the standard, tell them that if they choose to be armed, they have to meet the standard, and then see where it goes. A few things I will bet money on that you will see, is a lot more teachers than you think will seek the training and arm themselves, that schools will learn of the importance these teacher being armed will play in active shooters/added measure of security to the school, and that a few of these schools will move to policy’s that require teachers to get the training and be armed as a condition of their employment.
> 
> ...


 
It is surprising just how far even a simple, selfish thing like self preservation will motivate apparently reluctant individuals..... The process outlined by JAB would also provide the big thing educationalists seem to live for - a piece of paper saying they have achieved the ability to etc etc etc. That on its own will legitimise and justify CCW for many is my guess. These people seem to me to be a bit like sheep. When one starts, surely the rest will follow, not for reason but just to conform with the flock.

As a foreigner, I wish each and every 2nd amendment supporter the best of luck in what appears to be an approaching milestone test for your Constitution. May common sense and sanity be the ruling force. Now is the time to get extremely busy as not only is the 2nd amendment on the line here, the ability to curtail any part of the Constitution is about to be put to the test. If one part falls, the rest is fair game to those who seek to control you.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 18, 2012)

Write your freakin local, state and elected officials. Speak your mind. I'm in a e-mail back and forth with my Congressman.


----------



## Scotth (Dec 18, 2012)

JAB said:


> What is great about the founding documents, is that they are wrote in plain fucking English, so even a retard like me can understand them.


 


> III
> Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, _e.g._, _Sheldon_, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, _e.g._, _State_ v. _Chandler_, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; _Nunn_ v. _State_, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.*26*


 
Scalia writing for the majority in Heller.

I bring that up because I think which ever side your on when it comes to gun rights I think the Heller decision is a good read for everyone.  Scalia covers a lot of ground on how the court came to recognize the 2nd as an individual right but not a right without limit.

The full read:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

It's kind of funny how the laws change over time.  Early on in this country it was illegal to carry a concealed weapon in public and in today's world more states only allow carrying concealed.  It makes you wonder about what the laws will look like a 100 years from now.


----------



## AWP (Dec 18, 2012)

What bothers me, this is presuming that an AWB/ high cap ban is a foregone conclusion, but not one soul is talking about how to make such a thing work. "We need to do this for our children". Great...it will take about 30-40 years to even see results. Otherwise, every shooting with one of these deadly weapons will be from what's currently on the street. So, for the safety of our children we're willing to wait a generation or two before this silly, silly law starts to work and that's assuming violent crime doesn't increase because of the ban.

But I'm not done. The other troubling issue not discussed by anyone is preventing the mentally ill from illegally obtaining guns like this clown did. To be truly effective, since short of being committed one could lie on their paperwork and the current background check won't find anything, the government would need access to our medical records.

Think about that one for a second.

Lastly, to ensure that these "crazy people" don't live in a house with legal firearms owners we'll need what? A massive registration database ti identify those who pose an increased threat because of their proximity to the existing weapons.

So, for the safety of our children we're willing to wait a few generations or more for this to work and potentially allow the gov't A) access to our medical records and B) registration of our weapons?

Seems legit.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 18, 2012)

Scotth, good post, and if you look at the date, you can see it was during the lead up to and then post civil war, which brings up the issue of when the rights of the people started to be heavily infringed upon and why we had a civil war. But that is a whole other discussion in itself. Point I will make on this is, why did it take 50-100 years for lawyers and judges to start fucking with plain English?


----------



## reed11b (Dec 18, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> But I'm not done. The other troubling issue not discussed by anyone is preventing the mentally ill from illegally obtaining guns like this clown did. To be truly effective, since short of being committed one could lie on their paperwork and the current background check won't find anything, the government would need access to our medical records.
> 
> Think about that one for a second.


 
Fix the lack of psychiatric emergency care and long term MH care and you would not need the .Gov to have acess to your medical records to reduce the threat.
Reed


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 18, 2012)

JAB said:


> Nope let’s ignore the facts that protection comes from people who provide it (i.e. the person who is armed, who is there, and who decides to act). Nope why allow those teachers to be armed, why we would want them to protect themselves, or our children…That is just CRAZY!
> 
> States already regulate the training LEO’s, Security Guards and CCW holders must complete to carry a firearm (granted most of them suck). Why is it so hard to tell teachers, you pass these (make it a high standard) training requirements, you may carry your firearm in the classroom. Everyone against the “Arm the teachers” theory is stating things like; teacher personality, teacher social views, lack of training. Well it is pretty fucking simple, set the standard, tell them that if they choose to be armed, they have to meet the standard, and then see where it goes. A few things I will bet money on that you will see, is a lot more teachers than you think will seek the training and arm themselves, that schools will learn of the importance these teacher being armed will play in active shooters/added measure of security to the school, and that a few of these schools will move to policy’s that require teachers to get the training and be armed as a condition of their employment.
> 
> ...


 
While I'm not opposed to allowing teachers to be armed under the conditions stated, I don't think it's a best first-option COA.  IMO, placing people who already possess the training (ie, as some of us are discussing, current or retired LEO) into the environment is a better option for two reasons: primarily, they can focus on that aspect of the job, and secondarily by ensuring that the trained personnel exist in the environment rather than relying on volunteers.

I think it will be a LONG while before being armed becomes a condition of employment.  When people seek employment in jobs that require use of firearms, they do so very much knowing that's what the job entails.  If you choose to sign on the line and raise your hand for these jobs, you know full that it's an expectation.  It's been known ever since you saw Officer Friendly when you were 4 years old.  Teachers on the other hand, don't have that same image in society, and the vast majority those who moved into that career field (or wish to) have never considered that as part of the job.... nor is it truly reasonable to expect them to (based on the fact that teachers have - in US society over the last several decades - never been armed).  It will take a major societal shift for people to view the job in that light.  While I welcome the change in that point of view, I don't expect it to happen overnight, maybe not for several decades.  It will start with allowing them to carry, with the presence of law enforcement and/or armed security in schools, and progress for there.  But going down the route to where it's a condition of employment is a thousand-mile-journey, and we haven't even been allowed (due to firearms being banned in schools) to take a first step along it.


----------



## AWP (Dec 18, 2012)

reed11b said:


> Fix the lack of psychiatric emergency care and long term MH care and you would not need the .Gov to have acess to your medical records to reduce the threat.
> Reed


 
I agree with you, but you're talking about a long term fix and we all know how patient our society has become. 

I'm troubled that we're going to essentially have some rights taken away from us under the pretense of "saving" us, but no one will be capable of making the changes effective. Of course, with the stellar display of civics and rules seen in the passing of the health care bill I shouldn't be surprised.

If nothing else, I'd hope even the most liberal of you reading this will seriously ask "How can simply banning weapons do anything without A) taking a lot of time to be effective (generations) or B) giving up other rights in the process (closing loopholes)?"


----------



## Worldweaver (Dec 18, 2012)

Scotth said:


> I agree. Arming teachers (even if they want to) or anyone else in the school for that matter doesn't guarantee the shooting ability necessary for those situation. Off duty cops or retired cops would be a better solution. Someone that has the training and the experience of being in those critical situation and reacting thoughtfully.
> 
> Going to a range and taking a test doesn't make someone qualified to be in those situations.
> 
> If it cost more so be it, if it's important enough then it is worth the extra expense.


 
I respectfully disagree.  How many veterans do you think teach school?  I would say there are quite a few teachers I would rather have a gun instead of some retired LEO sitting out in his car (they're retired for a reason).  It's easy for a person to discover the sleeping habits (sorry, work habits) of security out front, and their movement patterns, instead of worrying about which room possesses a teacher with a weapon.  A security guard making entry into a building vs a teacher inside with knowledge of where their kids are and where contact is coming from.  A security guard with little SA as to what the hell is going on, is just more reactionary methods, just like a police response to an active shooter.  A teacher inside a room can make a determination of whether or not the locked door is going to keep a shooter out, and when breached they're the last line.


----------



## Scotth (Dec 18, 2012)

The first thing we need to do as a nation is take a long deep breath and mourn the people lost.  Wait a few months and let the nations blood pressure go down and then have a rational discussion and actually talk to each other.  To often we talk at each other an usually insert some insults into the conversation.

I don't think the AWB is the way to go but there are thing that could be done.  To often these arguments get over simplified.  You're either a gun hater or your a gun freak.  People trying to jam through the AWB are just as insulting at this point as the people trying to jam through legislation to arm teachers.

Nobody is putting the time and thought into what are the actual problems and what are real solutions.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 18, 2012)

Worldweaver said:


> I respectfully disagree. How many veterans do you think teach school? I would say there are quite a few teachers I would rather have a gun instead of some retired LEO sitting out in his car (they're retired for a reason). It's easy for a person to discover the sleeping habits (sorry, work habits) of security out front, and their movement patterns, instead of worrying about which room possesses a teacher with a weapon. A security guard making entry into a building vs a teacher inside with knowledge of where their kids are and where contact is coming from. A security guard with little SA as to what the hell is going on, is just more reactionary methods, just like a police response to an active shooter. A teacher inside a room can make a determination of whether or not the locked door is going to keep a shooter out, and when breached they're the last line.


 
Bingo! Damn good post.


----------



## Scotth (Dec 18, 2012)

Worldweaver said:


> I respectfully disagree. How many veterans do you think teach school? I would say there are quite a few teachers I would rather have a gun instead of some retired LEO sitting out in his car (they're retired for a reason). It's easy for a person to discover the sleeping habits (sorry, work habits) of security out front, and their movement patterns, instead of worrying about which room possesses a teacher with a weapon. A security guard making entry into a building vs a teacher inside with knowledge of where their kids are and where contact is coming from. A security guard with little SA as to what the hell is going on, is just more reactionary methods, just like a police response to an active shooter. A teacher inside a room can make a determination of whether or not the locked door is going to keep a shooter out, and when breached they're the last line.


 
What percentage of all teacher have military training, 1-2% maybe?  The problem is, unless your going to limit the teachers who can carry your going to have a whole lot of people in schools that have never shot anything but a paper targets and never shot in a high stress environment with potentially 100's of kids in the back ground. 

Now I wasn't in Special Ops but I can tell you from my military experience there was a whole lot of people I served with that I wouldn't trust in that situation with a gun.

I'm all for reinforcing school doors to make them unbreachable by an invader.  That would be my first school solution and that is the kind of solutions we should be talking about.  A teacher should be engaged with there students and getting them safely locked down and accounted for. 

I think a school has to many potential hazards without a quality shooter in place.  Most police departments have entry plans into a school to deal with a shooting incident and it better to strengthen the classrooms and keep the bad guys out until the police or guard can arrive and deal with the situation.

Talking to my uncle who was a police chief after the Columbine.  Police response to shootings in school has changed.  In most case your talking about 3-5 min response time max before you have boots on the ground in most metro areas.  Barricade the kids for those few minutes and make them safe.  Adding more guns into schools can be just as dangerous.  Just Google "guns left in bathrooms" to see how many "accidents" could happen.

It's not a perfect plan but no plan will ever be perfect.


----------



## Gypsy (Dec 18, 2012)

pardus said:


> I wonder how the anti-gun teachers would react to this though.


 
How anti gun can they be after they've been attacked and watched their kids dying, and all they could do was hide in a closet and hope for the best? I find it hard to believe when confronted with evil that one of them wouldn't pull a trigger to stop a crazy person from shooting up their coworkers and kids.

No teacher needs to be forced.  Find a few who would, and would practice to keep up their skills.  We armed pilots after 9/11...remember that uproar?


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 18, 2012)

Gypsy said:


> How anti gun can they be after they've been attacked and watched their kids dying, and all they could do was hide in a closet and hope for the best? I find it hard to believe when confronted with evil that one of them wouldn't pull a trigger to stop a crazy person from shooting up their coworkers and kids.


 
There will always sheep who expect others to protect them. Blinded by ignorance, fear, lack of information and education.  I've also noticed some, not all, of these type of people don't exercise regularly at all.


----------



## Worldweaver (Dec 18, 2012)

Scotth said:


> What percentage of all teacher have military training, 1-2% maybe? The problem is, unless your going to limit the teachers who can carry your going to have a whole lot of people in schools that have never shot anything but a paper targets and never shot in a high stress environment with potentially 100's of kids in the back ground.
> 
> Now I wasn't in Special Ops but I can tell you from my military experience there was a whole lot of people I served with that I wouldn't trust in that situation with a gun.
> 
> ...


 
I'm talking about giving them the right to carry, obviously this would carry with it mandatory quals and training.  Maybe you're right about military training but I don't think LEO are much better, talk about only shooting paper targets.  As i've heard from police officers, their range time is few and far between and mainly for keeping qualifications up to date.  If we say that individuals have a right to concealed carry, shouldn't teachers have that ability also?  These should be responsible adults, a lot more responsible than the ones getting fingerprinted and a card.  

Obviously this has holes, just like waiting for the police for 3-5 min, after an active shooter presents a threat, has holes.  I think we agree that taking guns away from everyday people isn't going to do much good and, short of having funds for a squad sized security force, this seems like the most feasible alternative.  Once again we're not talking about putting guns in the hands of every teacher, only those that maintain their qualifications and have a desire and ability to put down a threat if it comes to that.   As you said, I'm all for reinforced doors that automatically lock and "safe rooms", this would be a secondary security measure, to have weapons posted in certain rooms that would only be accessed in emergency threat situations by certain individuals.


----------



## Gypsy (Dec 18, 2012)

Marine0311 said:


> There will always sheep who expect others to protect them. Blinded by ignorance, fear, lack of information and education. I've also noticed some, not all, of these type of people don't exercise regularly at all.


 
I suppose.  The alternative of wringing hands and hoping for the best is just...well, you know.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 18, 2012)

Scotth said:


> The first thing we need to do as a nation is take a long deep breath and mourn the people lost. Wait a few months and let the nations blood pressure go down and then have a rational discussion and actually talk to each other. To often we talk at each other an usually insert some insults into the conversation.
> 
> I don't think the AWB is the way to go but there are thing that could be done. To often these arguments get over simplified. You're either a gun hater or your a gun freak. People trying to jam through the AWB are just as insulting at this point as the people trying to jam through legislation to arm teachers.
> 
> Nobody is putting the time and thought into what are the actual problems and what are real solutions.


 
No disrespect Scotth but I think you are way off the mark here and I have put a lot of time and thought into the actual problem. This recent incident is nothing new; it’s been going on for a really long time. However, when gun rights are being attacked (regardless the reason) people who support gun rights MUST stand up and present their own case.

I have actually quite a bit of training in the school active shooter situation, I am actually certified to teach LEO’s in the response to active shooters within a school. I have also spent the last 8.5 years studying the issue and what has remained the deciding factor in reducing the amount of human life lost has been the time at which the shooter takes his life, or is otherwise stopped by LE. LE had a major culture shock after examining the Columbine incident and realized that their response to an active shooter could not be the 4C’s (Contain, Control, Communicate, Call SWAT). That waiting for a response from SWAT officers would increase the odds of more life being lost. So they began several programs, training patrol officers, teachers, administrators and students in how to deal with the situation. Taking it further down to action vs reaction, it is common knowledge to most experts in active shooter response that the fastest way to stop the loss of life is someone being armed and stopping that active shooter immediately as they come into contact with them. That can be an armed security guard, an on/off duty LEO, or even a CCW holder.

Are there other options? Yes sure, you could put armed guard in every class room, control all movements with armed guards, hell you could even have a SWAT team in every school. All of which will not be cost effective, all of which will make schools like prisons, and all of which still require the armed guard to be there when it happens.

The mourning of this recent incident is taking place; I am not removed from the issue or the tragedy. I have a 5 year old I drop off at school every day, I see the “security” the schools has and I am scared to death. Being a parent my two primary focuses in life are to protect my children from and educate them in wrong & right, evil & good. But, I can’t even carry my pistol on the premises of that school (as well trained as I am) and the only person who will be carrying on that school is the armed bad-guy and the RESPONDING officer. It becomes very hard to justify it to me, after I have received the training, done the research, and seen the data; that the best solution people can come up with is more gun control that has failed so miserably in the past.

Going to my other problem with some of the people who claim allowing teachers to arm themselves is crazy. Based on WHAT? Where is the supporting expertise in the issue of reducing loss of life? Where is the experience in “real” security and not just the “let’s be able to build a case after the fact” talking heads that CNN and FOX want to toss up on TV? Where are these political figures getting their information, is it even reliable, or is it just part of the agenda, and they are attempting to not let another tragedy go to waste? If the solution was more restriction on firearms, why now, why not after all the other incidents of active shooters? Did the Automatic weapons ban of 1934 stop all the gangs in L.A. from getting them and using them? Did it stop organized crime; make it easier for LEO’s to deal with it? NO IT DID NOT AS THEY ARE STILL DEALING WITH IT. It did nothing but effect the people who followed the laws (the good guys) and we know that as fact, as a matter of history. What has worked? Arming the responding LEO’s with automatic weapons, rifle, better body armor, etc.

Either way, the discussion needs to happen, it needs to be realistic and not based on fantasy land, but most of all we need to stop trying to punish the lawful gun-owners for crime they are not committing.


----------



## pardus (Dec 18, 2012)

Gypsy said:


> How anti gun can they be after they've been attacked and watched their kids dying, and all they could do was hide in a closet and hope for the best? I find it hard to believe when confronted with evil that one of them wouldn't pull a trigger to stop a crazy person from shooting up their coworkers and kids.
> 
> No teacher needs to be forced. Find a few who would, and would practice to keep up their skills. We armed pilots after 9/11...remember that uproar?


 
How many teachers faced that, 5 - 10 maybe? Hardly a significant number. We might be all surprised by how many teachers want to be armed, but Im pretty sure most won't want them. That said, if any of them want them I'm all for it.

How many pilots ended up being armed?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 18, 2012)

pardus said:


> How many teachers faced that, 5 - 10 maybe? Hardly a significant number. We might be all surprised by how many teachers want to be armed, but Im pretty sure most won't want them. That said, if any of them want them I'm all for it.
> 
> How many pilots ended up being armed?


 
Now those are some valid points. The last question says a lot though. We will allow a guy who is supposed to fly an airplane full of people to have a gun...crazy I tell you. Who is flying the plane?:-"  Regardless how many are armed now, the big point, is that we allowed them the choice.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 18, 2012)

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/n...ssociation.aspx?s&st&ps#.UND3aZfq-u8.facebook



> The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.
> Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.
> The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.
> *The NRA is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, DC area on Friday, December 21.*
> *Details will be released to the media at the appropriate time.*


----------



## Ex3 (Dec 18, 2012)

JAB said:


> Now those are some valid points. The last question says a lot though. We will allow a guy who is supposed to fly an airplane full of people to have a gun...crazy I tell you. Who is flying the plane?:-" Regardless how many are armed now, the big point, is that we allowed them the choice.


True we did and I think it was a good call.  But those pilots are behind a reinforced locked door by themselves, not in a hallway full of rambunctious junior high school kids.  That said, I wouldn't be opposed to teachers that are well-trained and willing to carry a weapon, but I still think the school's liability insurance would go through the roof.


----------



## parallel (Dec 18, 2012)

Worldweaver said:


> I respectfully disagree. How many veterans do you think teach school? I would say there are quite a few teachers I would rather have a gun instead of some retired LEO sitting out in his car (they're retired for a reason). It's easy for a person to discover the sleeping habits (sorry, work habits) of security out front, and their movement patterns, instead of worrying about which room possesses a teacher with a weapon. A security guard making entry into a building vs a teacher inside with knowledge of where their kids are and where contact is coming from. A security guard with little SA as to what the hell is going on, is just more reactionary methods, just like a police response to an active shooter. A teacher inside a room can make a determination of whether or not the locked door is going to keep a shooter out, and when breached they're the last line.


Indeed... I can guarandamntee ya that I (a technical college instructor) would out perform a security guard... not because I'm some high speed low drag tier one whatchamacallit... but because I'm THERE and I have a vested interest in dispatching the piece of shit threatening my life.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 18, 2012)

Ex3 said:


> True we did and I think it was a good call. But those pilots are behind a reinforced locked door by themselves, not in a hallway full of rambunctious junior high school kids. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to teachers that are well-trained and willing to carry a weapon, but I still think the school's liability insurance would go through the roof.


 
Good points, and I agree that it is not without reprecussions. Every action has a reaction.


----------



## pardus (Dec 18, 2012)

parallel said:


> Indeed... I can guarandamntee ya that I (a technical college instructor) would out perform a security guard... not because I'm some high speed low drag tier one whatchamacallit... but because I'm THERE and I have a vested interest in dispatching the piece of shit threatening my life.


 
How many of your colleagues feel the same way?


----------



## parallel (Dec 18, 2012)

Gypsy said:


> How anti gun can they be after they've been attacked and watched their kids dying, and all they could do was hide in a closet and hope for the best? I find it hard to believe when confronted with evil that one of them wouldn't pull a trigger to stop a crazy person from shooting up their coworkers and kids.
> 
> No teacher needs to be forced. Find a few who would, and would practice to keep up their skills. We armed pilots after 9/11...remember that uproar?


There are more (at least here in South Louisiana) teachers that are pro-firearm than one might imagine. The others... well... they would be liberals... which means that MANY of them have NO problem with guns for themselves... it's all of those OTHER people who can't be trusted. Unfortunately I'm starting to see a similar bias here... the right for a teacher (or anyone else for that matter) to defend themselves with a firearm shouldn't be dependent upon whether or not they can shoot like us. The test should be if they can safely handle a firearm and reasonably hit what they're shooting at. This whole thing about cops makes me literally LOL... I've seen cops who could barely qual on the standard Navy 48 round pistol course. My Mother-in-Law could out shoot a good 33% of the cops I served with.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 18, 2012)

Gov. Rick Perry on arming teachers....I don't know if I have said it in a while, but I love Texas!


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 18, 2012)

Oregon Lawmaker also in support of armed teachers.


----------



## Scotth (Dec 18, 2012)

JAB said:


> No disrespect Scotth but I think you are way off the mark here and I have put a lot of time and thought into the actual problem. This recent incident is nothing new; it’s been going on for a really long time. However, when gun rights are being attacked (regardless the reason) people who support gun rights MUST stand up and present their own case.
> 
> I have actually quite a bit of training in the school active shooter situation, I am actually certified to teach LEO’s in the response to active shooters within a school. I have also spent the last 8.5 years studying the issue and what has remained the deciding factor in reducing the amount of human life lost has been the time at which the shooter takes his life, or is otherwise stopped by LE. LE had a major culture shock after examining the Columbine incident and realized that their response to an active shooter could not be the 4C’s (Contain, Control, Communicate, Call SWAT). That waiting for a response from SWAT officers would increase the odds of more life being lost. So they began several programs, training patrol officers, teachers, administrators and students in how to deal with the situation. Taking it further down to action vs reaction, it is common knowledge to most experts in active shooter response that the fastest way to stop the loss of life is someone being armed and stopping that active shooter immediately as they come into contact with them. That can be an armed security guard, an on/off duty LEO, or even a CCW holder.
> <clipped for size>


 
I'm not taking anything you say as disrepectful JAB and the same goes for Worldweave and I would fully expect you to disagree with what I will say and look forward to your response.  I think we are having a great discussion even if we disagree on the issue.  At least we can all think about the issue from different perspectives.

I especially agree with your police response part.  The 4c's were the pre-Columbine response and that has changed post Columbine.

To add a little bit to my previous post and try to answer one of your questions.  Why barricading classrooms in a better solution.  With electronic doors and electronic door stops you could setup all the schools doors to be shut an locked almost instantly from the classroom or the administration area so you could take decisive action to lock down the whole school whether people realized there is a problem or not.  You would setup an emergency switch similar to a fire alarm that would cause all doors to shut and lock.

Why is that a better solution and to try an answer why it's not a good idea to arm teachers?  Look at El Al Air.  The Isreali's have never had a hijacked plane because they don't allow the bad guys to get into the cockpit.  The same type of principle applies to school.  You protect the children by not letting the bad guys get to the children.  After 9/11 the US airlines took similar action with locking the cockpit.  The Isreali's do it better but we are still good.  The Isreali's also don't arm there pilots.  In the US we arm our pilots.  Of those armed pilots they have never used a weapon to defend the cockpit but we have had a cockpit shooting incident when a pilot accidently discharged there weapon and put a hole in the cockpit wall and luckily it didn't hit anyone or a critical system and it was at a low altitude so there wasn't a decompression issue.  The lesson here is accidents can happen especially with the lightly trained people carrying.  That doesn't mean I don't believe in CCW laws.  I just think it's different carrying in the work enviroment and carrying personally.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-03-26/us/pilot.gun_1_federal-flight-deck-officer-pilot-cockpit?_s=PM:US


The problem with having an armed teacher is if they are engaging the bad guy, who is managing their 30 kids?  The other problem with an armed teacher is when the police arrive and are trying to find a bad guy they might have to engage a teacher searching for the bad guy or possibly in a gun fight with the bad guy.  Either way an armed teacher can at best slow down the polices response and potentially put the teacher and police officer at greater risk.  You can say well that armed teacher might have already ended the situation before the police got there and a just as likely outcome is the bad guy gets the teacher and now said bad guy has more guns and ammo then they brought to begin with.


----------



## Scotth (Dec 18, 2012)

parallel said:


> There are more (at least here in South Louisiana) teachers that are pro-firearm than one might imagine. The others... well... they would be liberals... which means that MANY of them have NO problem with guns for themselves... it's all of those OTHER people who can't be trusted. Unfortunately I'm starting to see a similar bias here... the right for a teacher (or anyone else for that matter) to defend themselves with a firearm shouldn't be dependent upon whether or not they can shoot like us. The test should be if they can safely handle a firearm and reasonably hit what they're shooting at. This whole thing about cops makes me literally LOL... I've seen cops who could barely qual on the standard Navy 48 round pistol course. My Mother-in-Law could out shoot a good 33% of the cops I served with.


 
The problem is an individuals action in the work environment is a liability to the company/school district etc.  If that teacher engages a bad guy and accidently hits a student.  That school district is going to face millions in lawsuits.  If the police are the one that take action and hit the student accidently they are already setup for that liability and they have more legal cover then a company or that individual.


----------



## parallel (Dec 18, 2012)

You have a good point... I've actually been told that I can NOT perform CPR on a student... I told them they would have to fire me after I came to the aid of one of my students because I wasn't going to stand by and watch them die. I fully expected them to fire me right there just for defying them.


----------



## pardus (Dec 18, 2012)

parallel said:


> You have a good point... I've actually been told that I can NOT perform CPR on a student... I told them they would have to fire me after I came to the aid of one of my students because I wasn't going to stand by and watch them die. I fully expected them to fire me right there just for defying them.


 
Are you CPR qualified?


----------



## parallel (Dec 18, 2012)

Yep, but I'm not in the Nursing department.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Dec 18, 2012)

Wouldn't the good samaritan law cover that?  
...assuming you cared about being told not to perform CPR.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 18, 2012)

Louisiana has Good Samaritan laws on the books. Im not a lawyer but I think perhaps your facility needs to talk to a risk manager specialist and tailor their employee handbook accordingly.

http://antir.chirurgeonguild.org/statute-us.php?state=LA



> *Title 9 §2793. Gratuitous service at scene of emergency; limitation on liability*
> 
> No person who in good faith gratuitously renders emergency care, first aid or rescue at the scene of an emergency, or moves a person receiving such care, first aid or rescue to a hospital or other place of medical care shall be liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission in rendering the care or services or as a result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the person involved in the said emergency; provided, however, such care or services or transportation shall not be considered gratuitous, and this Section shall not apply when rendered incidental to a business relationship, including but not limited to that of employer-employee, existing between the person rendering such care or service or transportation and the person receiving the same, or when incidental to a business relationship existing between the employer or principal of the person rendering such care, service or transportation and the employer or principal of the person receiving such care, service or transportation. This Section shall not exempt from liability those individuals who intentionally or by grossly negligent acts or omissions cause damages to another individual.


----------



## parallel (Dec 18, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> Louisiana has Good Samaritan laws on the books. Im not a lawyer but I think perhaps your facility needs to talk to a risk manager specialist and tailor their employee handbook accordingly.
> 
> http://antir.chirurgeonguild.org/statute-us.php?state=LA


I AM faculty... the directive comes from the Regional Director. The mistake y'all are making is expecting something resembling reasonable thinking from bureaucrats... LOL


----------



## pardus (Dec 18, 2012)

parallel said:


> Yep, but I'm not in the Nursing department.


 


parallel said:


> I AM faculty... the directive comes from the Regional Director. The mistake y'all are making is expecting something resembling reasonable thinking from bureaucrats... LOL


 
That is stupid.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 18, 2012)

I said your facility..meaning your school/employer.  I realize you are faculty.  
Do they have this in writing in an employee manual, not to render assistance?


----------



## parallel (Dec 18, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> I said your facility..meaning your school/employer. I realize you are faculty.
> Do they have this in writing in an employee manual, not to render assistance?


Doh! I'm going blind I swear... no... not because of THAT... I hope.

I'm not sure... I'm only there to fix the program. They have discovered that the threats they use to keep others in check do NOT work on me. I gave myself five years to fix the program, it's been two and a half and I'm 85% there. I'm not a career educator and I don't intend to be... so all of these numbers they get their panties in a wad over and all of the other crap that doesn't matter to student development goes in one ear and out the other.


----------



## AWP (Dec 18, 2012)

Something else that disturbs me about all of this, bad enough that we're ignoring our own history, that we're playing into fear and making emotional decisions, and that no one knows how to make a ban work without infringing upon other rights, but even worse than all that (which is pretty damn scary)?

The outcome s more or less ordained. This is a complex issue and all of the talk is "ban guns/ ban assault weapons". It isn't "Okay, guns are a problem but we also need to address security in general, this country's mental health problems, what's wrong in society that is making people do this..." Nah, the answer is so very simple!

Ban guns. There. Problem solved. That's the only end state.

How could a remotely logical person of any political flavor be comfortable with this?


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 18, 2012)

Oh you want logic?


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Dec 18, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> ~rant
> 
> How could a remotely logical person of any political flavor be comfortable with this?


It's the easy way out?
Not that I'm condoning it in any way shape or form...


----------



## txpj007 (Dec 18, 2012)

Scotth said:


> I'm not taking anything you say as disrepectful JAB and the same goes for Worldweave and I would fully expect you to disagree with what I will say and look forward to your response. I think we are having a great discussion even if we disagree on the issue. At least we can all think about the issue from different perspectives.
> 
> I especially agree with your police response part. The 4c's were the pre-Columbine response and that has changed post Columbine.
> 
> ...


 
I dont disagree with turning a school building and all classrooms into essentially a large "panic room" like your talking about Scotth.  As long as it was done covertly.  I refuse to have my children or childrens children go to school in a prison. You know I'd even sign a petition to support a tax to pay for something like that.  My only real issue with it is then what happens to school athletics, athletic events, recess, physical education, FIELD TRIPS...you get my point. Do we surround our school yards with 20ft barb wire fences or brick walls? I could never back that idea. It only leads me back to the same two solutions most SS memebers and EVERY single person I've spoken with keep saying, take away gun free zones and allow anyone to include teachers to carry.  Yes, I'm from Texas FWTW....


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 18, 2012)

If a school shooter is caught he/she should be killed in the parking lot by a firing squad.


----------



## pardus (Dec 18, 2012)

Marine0311 said:


> If a school shooter is caught he/she should be killed in the parking lot by a firing squad.


 
I think their bodies should be feed to pigs and no memorial for them. Erase them from history.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 18, 2012)

Scotth said:


> The problem with having an armed teacher is if they are engaging the bad guy, who is managing their 30 kids? The other problem with an armed teacher is when the police arrive and are trying to find a bad guy they might have to engage a teacher searching for the bad guy or possibly in a gun fight with the bad guy. Either way an armed teacher can at best slow down the polices response and potentially put the teacher and police officer at greater risk. You can say well that armed teacher might have already ended the situation before the police got there and a just as likely outcome is the bad guy gets the teacher and now said bad guy has more guns and ammo then they brought to begin with.


 
There is always a risk of blue-on-blue when off-duty or plainclothes cops or armed civilians engage a goblin (hat tip to COL Cooper).  However, by the logic expressed above no one should intervene in such a situation.  The evidence directly contradicts that.  There are documented instances of a single responder effectively stopping the violence.  We know that many of these active killer types will kill themselves as soon as some pressure is applied, and we also know that introducing even one responder changes their focus.  Both of these are good things.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 19, 2012)

Worldweaver said:


> I'm talking about giving them the right to carry, obviously this would carry with it mandatory quals and training. Maybe you're right about military training but I don't think LEO are much better, talk about only shooting paper targets. As i've heard from police officers, their range time is few and far between and mainly for keeping qualifications up to date. If we say that individuals have a right to concealed carry, shouldn't teachers have that ability also? These should be responsible adults, a lot more responsible than the ones getting fingerprinted and a card.
> 
> Obviously this has holes, just like waiting for the police for 3-5 min, after an active shooter presents a threat, has holes. I think we agree that taking guns away from everyday people isn't going to do much good and, short of having funds for a squad sized security force, this seems like the most feasible alternative. Once again we're not talking about putting guns in the hands of every teacher, only those that maintain their qualifications and have a desire and ability to put down a threat if it comes to that. As you said, I'm all for reinforced doors that automatically lock and "safe rooms", this would be a secondary security measure, to have weapons posted in certain rooms that would only be accessed in emergency threat situations by certain individuals.


 
I've found that often when discussing things like this, there is a detectable bias in our opinions. That is to say, for example, that because I am a veteran I can extrapolate my experience and training to other veterans. The converse bias is rarely seen, because it is often less flattering.

When we look at this subject and try to determine who best to protect our children in school I think we have to be careful to avoid this bias. I would trust most vets on this site with a gun around my child, but the population of this site allows me to accurately correlate military experience with skill at arms. Clearly, a Special Forces Soldier, or a Ranger, ad nauseum, is qualified to protect school kids whilst armed. However, that confidence does not extend to everyone who has worn the uniform because someone like a 68-series biomedical equipment tech is not a gunfighter.

So, I support the use of certain former military personnel within specific CMFs to provide armed security in schools.

You're also dead on about the lack of emphasis placed on firearms training in many police departments. To illustrate the problem, I'll use standards I'm very familiar with for no particular reason whatsoever :-"

Agency A has two separate firearms standards. The first is the state standard, which requires one annual qualification with a pistol. That's a whopping 8 hours--minues lunch and breaks--of firearms training per annum. This standard is applied to all personnel other than SWAT.

SWAT shoots a pistol qualification twice monthly with a mandatory score over 90% to stay on the team, and rifle/shotgun quals at least quarterly with similarly high standards (everyone exceeds the standard).

I do not think _mythical_ Agency A's standards are outside the norm for police departments throughout the nation. I know for a fact some have higher standards and shoot more frequently, but I would wager the majority do not. So, you're right...police pistol training (at least in-service requalifications) is not terribly high-speed.

With that said, armed security are much worse. I could tell you the state standard here, but it amounts to have pulse + hit broad side of brightly painted barn = good for 5 years with no additional training needed.

For a few reasons, if we are to invest in placing armed men and women in our schools, these people should be commissioned law enforcement officers. Speaking generally (and yes, I know there are exceptions), the vetting of law enforcement personnel is much more stringent than private security. Likewise, the initial and ongoing training. The police in this country are generally equipped well, and have a direct line to more police who will respond at Warp Gazillion to help kids and a brother who is under fire.

More importantly, they have statutory authority to act, and have immunities that teachers and private security do not.

None of this, by the way, negates the potential value of allowing willing, self-identified, trained teachers to carry concealed pistols if they choose to do so.


----------



## walra107 (Dec 19, 2012)

parallel said:


> You have a good point... I've actually been told that I can NOT perform CPR on a student... I told them they would have to fire me after I came to the aid of one of my students because I wasn't going to stand by and watch them die. I fully expected them to fire me right there just for defying them.


 

That makes no sense for them to tell you that, I would think they would be more liable for not doing anything if one of your students needed CPR, especially since you are CPR qualified...Not to divert the thread, but are there Defibrillators or first aid kids around? Sounds like they're setting themselves up for failure here.


----------



## Rampart (Dec 19, 2012)

pardus said:


> I think their bodies should be feed to pigs and no memorial for them. Erase them from history.


Along with any journo who glorifies the act or highlights/ celebrates the act to chase ratings.


----------



## 0699 (Dec 19, 2012)

pardus said:


> How many teachers faced that, 5 - 10 maybe? Hardly a significant number. We might be all surprised by how many teachers want to be armed, but Im pretty sure most won't want them. That said, if any of them want them I'm all for it.
> 
> How many pilots ended up being armed?


 
If the principal and psychologist had the balls to take this turd on unarmed, imagine how many they could've saved had they been armed.



Scotth said:


> I'm not taking anything you say as disrepectful JAB and the same goes for Worldweave and I would fully expect you to disagree with what I will say and look forward to your response. I think we are having a great discussion even if we disagree on the issue. At least we can all think about the issue from different perspectives.
> 
> I especially agree with your police response part. The 4c's were the pre-Columbine response and that has changed post Columbine.
> 
> ...


 
As I understand it, Israel allows their teachers to be armed.  At least the photos I see on the web seem to show that.


----------



## Scotth (Dec 19, 2012)

policemedic said:


> I've found that often when discussing things like this, there is a detectable bias in our opinions. That is to say, for example, that because I am a veteran I can extrapolate my experience and training to other veterans. The converse bias is rarely seen, because it is often less flattering.  <clipped for size>


 
Nice set of post and you bring a valuable perspective to the discussion.


----------



## JBS (Dec 19, 2012)

0699 said:


> If the principal and psychologist had the balls to take this turd on unarmed, imagine how many they could've saved had they been armed.



Really great point.   An unarmed hero, no matter how noble or courageous, can get only so far trying to rush an armed attacker.





> As I understand it, Israel allows their teachers to be armed.  At least the photos I see on the web seem to show that.



Even their truck drivers (Zim trucking, container, and logistics) range anywhere from armed to heavily armed.   This is a publicized point in many parts of the world where you'd want it publicized.  They simply refuse to be victims, or to be percieved as "soft" targets.


----------



## compforce (Dec 19, 2012)

Get Ready, here it comes...



> "It's a complex problem that requires more than one solution," Carney said Tuesday. "It calls for not only re-examining our gun laws and how well we enforce them, but also for engaging mental health professionals, law-enforcement officials, educators, parents and communities to find those solutions."
> Still, much of the immediate focus after the shooting is on gun control, an issue that has been dormant in Washington for years. Obama expended little political capital on gun issues during his first term, despite several mass shootings, including a movie theater attack in Aurora, Colorado, in the midst of this year's presidential campaign.
> The White House has begun to signal that Obama may be more proactive on gun issues following the murders of the elementary school youngsters, ages 6 and 7.


 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-biden-to-create-new-policies-in-wake-school/

Biden in charge of the gun control effort.  My expectation is that this will be an effort with nominal nods at other issues and a huge emphasis on gun control.  At the end of the day, expect broad language that can be interpreted loosely in order to erode the second amendment a bit at a time.

I'm clinging to my guns...


----------



## JBS (Dec 19, 2012)

I and everyone I know is set for this.  It's about to get real... vocal.


----------



## AWP (Dec 19, 2012)

Obama couldn't do anything in Term 1 because of the health care bill; he shot his wad there. Term 2 with nothing to lose? Fiscal cliff...whether you believe that or not the fact remains our economy and country's finances are in the toilet. Afghanistan? Pull out in 2014, "everyone's" coming home, right? Unrest in the Middle East/ Iran/ Israel? Back burner until we can revamp our cabinet.

I think it is perfectly normal to focus on gun control rather than facing the real issues which impact every single American. 

While the president is in a bit of a no-win situation(He doesn't care about our kids!/ He doesn't care about our country!), putting Biden on this is a smart move. It allows Obama to do something without being the point man. A) If it backfires it flushes Joe's chances in 2016 down the drain, B) If it works BO can take the credit for "his" policy, and C) I'd like to believe that BO will let Biden run amok so BO can actually try to run this country (into the ground, but that's another thread).

Maybe, just maybe, Biden will dick this one up.


----------



## JBS (Dec 19, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Obama couldn't do anything in Term 1 because of the health care bill; he shot his wad there. Term 2 with nothing to lose? Fiscal cliff...whether you believe that or not the fact remains our economy and country's finances are in the toilet.


 
Obama has no desire to avert a fiscal cliff. The Conservatives will either cave, and he will tax the rich more heavily, or they will hold fast, and the fiscal cliff will arrive- taxing the rich more heavily- and plunge us into a very deep recession, and probably worse.

His fundamental ideology _*all his adult life*_ has been that Capitalism is inherently bad. He and those he associates with have always wanted to implode the capitalistic American economy, regardless of the depth and breadth of the disaster it would cause globally, just so they can recreate a totally new type of economy that is more "socially just", i.e., lacking a wealthy tier. It's another flavor of Marxism, but with new lessons picked up from recent (past 2 decades) Chinese adjustments. I've been saying it since his first campaign began, including a few threads on the board that were met with eyes rolling and silly "secret society" babble. Gun control is just another stop along the way to "transforming America".



> Maybe, just maybe, Biden will dick this one up.


Biden is going to be flanked by 20 or more advisers that we'll never see. This has been prepped well in advance, just as the Health Care Bill - more than 1,000 pages- came flying in from out of nowhere, already double spaced and neatly prepared in flawless legal language. We've been outmaneuvered.


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 19, 2012)

JBS said:


> just as the Health Care Bill - more than 1,000 pages- came flying in from out of nowhere, already double spaced and neatly prepared in flawless legal language. We've been outmaneuvered.


 
You forgot that we'll have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.


----------



## AWP (Dec 19, 2012)

Take note everyone: I tried to optimistic for once and JBS was there to bring me back to reality.


----------



## LarryGrut0311 (Dec 19, 2012)

1) carry permits for veterans & retired first responders
2) rethink how we deal with mentally challenged people
3) rethink how we deal with criminals
4) rethink how media reports
For starters


----------



## JBS (Dec 19, 2012)

LarryGrut0311 said:


> 1) carry permits for veterans & retired first responders
> 2) rethink how we deal with mentally challenged people
> 3) rethink how we deal with criminals
> 4) rethink how media reports
> For starters


The media is a HUGE part of what is happening right now.

In all honesty (and once again, this is going to sound insensitive to some, so pardon the fuck out of me, but...) I think the shooting itself has now been officially blown out of proportion.   We're literally talking a week of 24/7 coverage, and mostly because of the severity and heinousness of the crime; everyone who is a parent can feel the fleeting pang of fear/anger/rage that wells up every time the topic comes up.   These are powerful emotions and they are being milked for all they are worth.    It's not being kept in proportion at all.


----------



## pardus (Dec 19, 2012)

JBS said:


> The media is a HUGE part of what is happening right now.
> 
> In all honesty (and once again, this is going to sound insensitive to some, so pardon the fuck out of me, but...) I think the shooting itself has now been officially blown out of proportion. We're literally talking a week of 24/7 coverage, and mostly because of the severity and heinousness of the crime; everyone who is a parent can feel the fleeting pang of fear/anger/rage that wells up every time the topic comes up. These are powerful emotions and they are being milked for all they are worth. It's not being kept in proportion at all.


 
Agreed. 
Think about it, we (as a country) are seriously considering/advocating the removal/neutering of one of our fundamental rights.
All because one person was crazy and as a result killed some people.


----------



## Gypsy (Dec 19, 2012)

policemedic said:


> There is always a risk of blue-on-blue when off-duty or plainclothes cops or armed civilians engage a goblin (hat tip to COL Cooper). However, by the logic expressed above no one should intervene in such a situation. The evidence directly contradicts that. There are documented instances of a single responder effectively stopping the violence. We know that many of these active killer types will kill themselves as soon as some pressure is applied, and we also know that introducing even one responder changes their focus. Both of these are good things.


 
The Oregon mall shooting. There was a guy who concealed carried he had his wife and kid with him, got them out or away from the scene. Evidently the shooter's weapon jammed and the civilian pulled his weapon. He (civvie) didn't shoot because there was another person close (behind?) but the shooter saw him and saw his weapon. The shooter then escaped to the stairwell and killed himself.

A single responder...he made a difference and saved countless lives.


----------



## CDG (Dec 19, 2012)

Great article from policeone.com about active shooters in schools. Very aptly titled "The Enemy Is Denial".

_"Pointing around the room as he spoke, Grossman continued, “But you’ve still got those fire sprinklers, those fire exit signs, fire hydrants outside, and fire trucks nearby! Are these fire guys crazy? Are these fire guys paranoid? No! This fire guy is our A+ student! Because this fire guy has redundant, overlapping layers of protection, not a single kid has been killed by school fire in the last 50 years!_
_“But you try to prepare for violence — the thing much more likely to kill our kids in schools, the thing hundreds of times more likely to kill our kids in schools — and people think you’re paranoid. They think you’re crazy. ...They’re in denial.”_

http://www.policeone.com/active-sho...tive-shooters-in-schools-The-enemy-is-denial/


----------



## Worldweaver (Dec 19, 2012)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/obama-backs-assault-weapons-ban-as-he-calls-for-action.html

...and away we go.

Obama said the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to own firearms and that most gun owners abide by the law.
“I’m also betting that the majority, the vast majority of responsible law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law- breaking few from buying a weapon of war,” he said.


----------



## Scotth (Dec 19, 2012)

JBS said:


> Obama has no desire to avert a fiscal cliff. The Conservatives will either cave, and he will tax the rich more heavily, or they will hold fast, and the fiscal cliff will arrive- taxing the rich more heavily- and plunge us into a very deep recession, and probably worse.


 
Just because the Bush Tax cuts are allowed to expire doesn't mean the issue ends there.  Mark my words if the Bush Tax Cut are allowed to expire, no later then the State of the Union speech Obama will announce his plan for a new round of middle class tax cuts.  He is not going to agree to anymore 1/2 measures or deals that kick the can down the road.  He done repeatedly fighting the same fight.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 19, 2012)

We have nothing to fear because our government is so very trustworthy and has everything under control.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...can-cartel-shootout-that-killed-beauty-queen/



> How did a gun belonging to a former assistant special agent in charge at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives end up at a crime scene in Mexico where five died, including a Mexican beauty queen?
> That's the question being asked by congressional investigators and ATF officials in Phoenix.
> A FN Five-Seven semi-automatic pistol, a high powered handgun originally
> restricted to military and law enforcement customers, was recovered by Mexican police at the scene of a Nov. 23 shootout between the Sinaloa Cartel and the Mexican military.
> ...


----------



## CDG (Dec 19, 2012)

Worldweaver said:


> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/obama-backs-assault-weapons-ban-as-he-calls-for-action.html
> 
> ...and away we go.
> 
> ...


 
I could have sworn this was already in place, Mr. President.  The Newtown shooter didn't buy his guns.  He stole them from his own mother.  He also killed her.  So more restrictive gun laws would help because.......?  Oh that's right, they won't.  You just don't know anything about guns because the closest you've ever been to one is walking next to a Secret Service agent charged with saving your life in the event of an attempt on it.  God knows you lack any ability or experience in that regard.


----------



## Worldweaver (Dec 19, 2012)

Entertaining video, especially when Piers call the guest "stupid" and "idiot"


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 19, 2012)

I love debates with ad hommin personal attacks.

Please S/S community contact your elected officials. Please vote. Please get involved in our governing systems.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 19, 2012)

Worldweaver said:


> Entertaining video, especially when Piers call the guest "stupid" and "idiot"


 

Good lord, and this guy is a reporter?

Reasons for the AR15 and similar type magazine fed semi auto rifles:
1. Defense of life and property from a group of attackers.
2. Increased distance in keeping attackers a bay.
3. More stable and accurate then a pistol or shotgun.
4. Competition (High Power, 3 Gun, etc).
5. But one of the most important is that this country has the second amendment that guarantees this type of weapon for the very specific reason that every able bodied; of age person is the militia and are responsible for the safety and security of their state.

The arguments that it’s too lethal or that the need to fight off large groups, be part of the militia, are all ignorance from a lack of historical understanding. These types of rifles were recently used by lawful owners to protect life and property during the LA riots, the Hurricane Andrew looters, Hurricane Katrina looters, etc. They were borrowed from civilian gun store owners during the LA shootings from LEO’s who were not armed with rifles. These are just a very few incidents that are very well known, and there are many times more, that are not as well known but just as relevant.

Again, stop trying to punish lawful gun-owners for crimes they are not committing.


----------



## Lefty375 (Dec 19, 2012)

Piers Morgan is one of the worst people to ever have a show. I really don't understand how people watch him.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 19, 2012)

Is Piers Morgan a citizen of the US?


----------



## DasBoot (Dec 19, 2012)

What an unprofessional, illogical ass. No wonder Joan Rivers beat his ass on the "Apprentice"


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 19, 2012)

lucky l3fty said:


> Piers Morgan is one of the worst people to ever have a show. I really don't understand how people watch him.


 
Agree entirely.  Hands-down the most vapid garbage I've had the misfortune of witnessing (the few times I found my TV tuned to CNN while he was on) on a "news" network.  That EMI should be shelved right next to History Channel's latest show on dumpster diving.


----------



## TH15 (Dec 19, 2012)

Piers Morgan is a fucking useless piece of shit- and that's being generous. The guy handled this limey prick quite well given the circumstances.


----------



## JBS (Dec 19, 2012)

Wow.  Just lost the last shred of respect I had for Morgan.

The guest handled himself very nicely.

This is the lunacy we are up against, gents (and ladies).  The facts really are irrelevant to the extreme Leftists pushing this agenda.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 19, 2012)

The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
_Zachariah Johnson_
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
_Thomas Jefferson_
Third President of the United States

and an extreme view for gun control:

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" 
_Adolph Hitler_
Chancellor, Germany, 1933


----------



## Jettie (Dec 20, 2012)

Here is one of Piers Pantya**'s tweets today:
@*coelkhntr* I think you are somewhat gleeful that a tragedy happened to help you push your cause
@*piersmorgan*  Of course I am, you moron > RT @*coelkhntr* I think you are somewhat gleeful that a tragedy happened to help you push your cause

You can e-mail your disgust and help to get this puerile nanny-trained tantrum boy fired.
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/


----------



## JBS (Dec 20, 2012)

policemedic said:


> Is Piers Morgan a citizen of the US?


Who better to lecture America on gun culture than a Brit?


----------



## Rapid (Dec 20, 2012)

JAB said:


> Actually you have…see definition to liberty above.


 
This is a complex debate, and "liberty", in this context, is an abstract issue... not something which can be simplified down to a dictionary entry. Yes, the literal meaning of liberty is to not have anyone controlling you. It can be used in that context to define things such as having the liberty to criticize the government. No one ever uses it in a context of total liberty though. You cannot have total liberty as that would mean that you would be living in an anarchy... and as anyone who's lived in a quasi-anarchy (e.g., Somalia) can tell you, when everyone acts like they're free to do whatever they want, there's actually very little liberty to go around. So, sometimes we end up agreeing on restrictions to our liberties, but these restrictions are acceptable when (and only if) they are there to maximize the liberties of law-abiding people.



JAB said:


> No disagreement there, but do you know what those duties are?


 
I do, but you also have to understand that we have a duty to curtail our own liberty (or those of our fellow citizens) when it starts to infringe on that of other people's. If that means temporarily losing the right to bear arms because you've committed a serious enough crime or you're deemed to be a potential danger to others, then that's what it takes.

In both cases, it's either because you've made terrible choices or because you might not be able to help yourself from doing terrible things. When a person loses their right to bear arms... for a good reason like the above... then the liberty of ten folds of others to live freely, without fear, is guaranteed. It's the utilitarian choice.



JAB said:


> Okay so you are saying we should send these types of people to prison for a period, allow them back into the population, and then say “oh by the way you can’t do any of this now”? Who is going to enforce it? Why let them out in the first place if they are not able to be trusted with their liberty? I am on the extreme other end to be honest, people who cannot be trusted with their liberties because their crime was so extreme, they should in fact, be put to death. Why keep someone alive, who we know will commit the same crimes? Why pay to keep them imprisoned if we know they can never be released?


 
So, your solution is to lock up all the mentally ill, and keep everyone who's ever committed a serious crime in prison forever? Some kind of liberty that is. First of all, there are many mentally ill patients who don't need to be in institutions. That being said, they can't handle certain responsibilities, which is why they can't be trusted with certain things, such as the right to drive vehicles... or own a highly deadly weapon.

It's better to take a few liberties away from them than to take ALL of their liberties away from them by locking them up. America and Europe already tried the whole institutionalize/lobotomize-all-the-mentally-ill thing before. Might want to check the history on how that turned out.



JAB said:


> Okay so you are saying we should send these types of people to prison for a period, allow them back into the population, and then say “oh by the way you can’t do any of this now”? Who is going to enforce it? Why let them out in the first place if they are not able to be trusted with their liberty? I am on the extreme other end to be honest, people who cannot be trusted with their liberties because their crime was so extreme, they should in fact, be put to death. Why keep someone alive, who we know will commit the same crimes? Why pay to keep them imprisoned if we know they can never be released?


 
We've made enough advances in criminology to know that rehabilitation is the only solution to many of our problems. I'm not talking about some of the stupid decisions which are regularly taken to release dangerous people back into the public (the people responsible for releasing these reoffenders should be put into prison instead). I mean the kind of normal people who go to prison for something committed in the heat of passion, or the people who actually have a chance of getting back to a normal life.

I don't see the problem with a system where when someone applies for a gun but has a criminal record, said details would have to be considered to determine whether it would be wise to sell that person a gun. This type of system doesn't affect normal, law-abiding citizens at all. Only criminals have to pay for the consequences of their previous actions, and they should already consider themselves lucky enough to have been given another chance in society.

Society isn't black and white... there are many shades of grey between the people who are responsible enough to live in society with their full rights, and those who are a danger to the public and should never be let out.



JAB said:


> If my neighbor is diagnosed as psychopath, I expect him to be committed to a mental health treatment facility, by the courts, and treated for his/her illness. I do not expect to see that neighbor again until they have been successfully treated for said illness.


 
I gave an extreme example to make a point, but like I said, there are plenty of other mentally ill patients who shouldn't really be institutionalized but who aren't exactly responsible enough to have certain rights. There are tons of people who fall into this category, and locking them up would do zero good because they're already properly integrated into society.



JAB said:


> However, I really don’t see how suspending his/her liberty, while not institutionalizing him/her is supposed to make me safe.


 
Because these people are of little or no danger to you in 99.999% of cases and situations. Give them a gun, however, and that could quickly change. I mean, you might as well be arguing for babies to have the right to bear arms. They're obviously not responsible enough, so does that mean that we should lock them up too? Or are they only 'dangerous' if you give them the right to do something which comes with responsibilities they obviously can't handle?



JAB said:


> Maybe I am a bit ignorant, but I believe as part of my duties in sustaining my liberties, is providing protection for myself and family. Thus I keep a gun on me at all times, in case one of my neighbor (or anyone for that matter) turns out to be a homicidal psychopath. Furthermore, It becomes a non-issue if everyone would take personal responsibility for their own and families safety and arm themselves.


 
This is great and all, but unless you've developed a way to clone yourself, then you can't possibly be there with your family (every member of it) at all times. And even when you are, you can be flanked. Not to mention that many other people just aren't proficient enough to protect their families properly, without even going into the topic of what other collateral they could cause (e.g., see cases of people protecting their homes but accidentally killing family members). Those aren't excuses though; people should always be ready to take their protection into their own hands. However, because of all that, it'd be nice to just limit deadly situations in the first place.

And to reiterate one last time, I only believe in enforcing proper safe-keeping, the reporting of missing weapons, and restrictions against those who aren't responsible enough to hold the right to bear arms. Everything else goes. I actually wish that more people would/could own firearms (whether pistols or full blown assault rifles), carry concealed, etc.

Anyway, I guess I can sum up my point by just saying that this whole 'give me total, unrestricted gun rights or nothing' is total fantasy (spoiler: you'll never get your way) which will do more harm to gun rights than anything else. We live in a society, and in a society we need to make compromises. Gun owners should be the first to show themselves responsible and willing to impose certain restrictions if it protects the liberties of others (at no cost to themselves, apart from the criminals who already made their choices and those who can't hold those responsibilities).

Anyone who truly cares about gun rights, and who can see this looming danger over the horizon, needs to know that the only way to protect gun rights is by being realistic. Otherwise, the anti-gun people will grow much, much larger in strength. More and more people on the fence will go over to them (you're already getting influential _pro-gun_ people going over the fence), and then you'll be left with close to nothing, unless gun owners really start supporting _intelligent efforts_ which could limit senseless killings without fundamentally infringing on the crucial right to bear arms.


----------



## Gypsy (Dec 20, 2012)

Morgan is a tool. 

How many times can it be said...an armed society is a polite society. If a shooter knows there is a gun restricted area, he/she has not much to worry about at least for the first several minutes of the shooting spree. If he/she knows one or several people could be carrying it may deter their actions. I'd take those odds.


----------



## JBS (Dec 20, 2012)

The bottom line is assault rifles amongst the population equals a form of empowerment that guarantees the ability for citizens to revolt, foment revolution and reclaim a runaway government, were such a thing to ever occur. The very fact that the population is heavily armed acts as a deterrent to any coup or conspiracy.

But let's redefine the debate here for a moment.  What is the justification for seizing assault rifles? Lay out the rationale.   Saying they aren't needed isn't good enough.  You do not seize from the population whatever is arbitrarily deemed necessary.  If that were the case, in it's purest form, such an argument would render the population as authorized to possess only food, water, and shelter since only those three are "necessary" for survival.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 20, 2012)

I came across this tidbit when I was on Google looking for something else. Does anyone know the outcome if any? Was this a straw purchase? How is it that Sarah Brady,  THE gun control advocate would buy a gun and then give it to someone else, I wonder?
http://gunowners.org/pr0203.htm



> SPRINGFIELD, VA - Gun Owners of America today awarded Sarah Brady's son, Scott, an honorary one-year GOA membership.
> 
> "Now that Scott Brady is the proud owner of a high-powered 'sniper' rifle, he will most certainly need a fuller understanding of the Second Amendment than he ever received at home," said Erich Pratt, Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America.
> 
> ...


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 20, 2012)

My Congressman has yet to reply back. I replied the first time back to him in the style of JBS, JAB and Rapid. 

I disagree, and I can see it coming over, with mass punishment type of laws. The focus should be on mental health, rather than firearms themselves. I do agree that no right should be absolute however one restriction leads to another, and another, and another which would infringe on the rights of those who obey the law and, I am sure, value the Constitution.


----------



## AWP (Dec 20, 2012)

Marine0311 said:


> I can see it coming over, with mass punishment type of laws.


 
Marines should be used to that.

"Some asshole in Okinawa did something on libo and we're locked down for it?"
"Yeah."
"We're in North Carolina."


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 20, 2012)

Rapid said:


> This is a complex debate, and "liberty", in this context, is an abstract issue... not something which can be simplified down to a dictionary entry. Yes, the literal meaning of liberty is to not have anyone controlling you. It can be used in that context to define things such as having the liberty to criticize the government. No one ever uses it in a context of total liberty though. You cannot have total liberty as that would mean that you would be living in an anarchy... and as anyone who's lived in a quasi-anarchy (e.g., Somalia) can tell you, when everyone acts like they're free to do whatever they want, there's actually very little liberty to go around. So, sometimes we end up agreeing on restrictions to our liberties, but these restrictions are acceptable when (and only if) they are there to maximize the liberties of law-abiding people.
> 
> I think this really where the disconnect is, if the words written down are not of the proper definition (as you imply) than how is anyone supposed to really know what they mean? I disagree with you on the premises that the constitution is written in such a way that it must be decoded to understand its true meaning. It actually is spelled out in plain English, so that the common man can understand it. You were spot on with your other post “your liberty stops where another person’s liberty begins” but what you are failing to realize is that Justice is no determined by the masses, it is decided by the court and a small group of the individuals peers.
> 
> ...


 
Man we just need to agree to disagree at this point.


----------



## SgtUSMC8541 (Dec 20, 2012)

NY is screwed... I have a "friend" in the AG office they said it looks like the NY Law will get passed.  All pre-ban mags are gone.  All 10 round mags for pistol and rifle are gone... all mags down to 7 rounds max.  AR rifles may get outlawed by name.  No selling of AR type rifles or transferring of them.  You die, the state takes them.


----------



## parallel (Dec 21, 2012)

> You die, the state takes them.


I'd move in a heartbeat.


----------



## parallel (Dec 21, 2012)

Man, I just shake my head these days with so many people passionately debating on how to achieve the unachievable. This is a flawed world, one would say by design if your faith is the same as mine, and that will NEVER change by the doings of man. Even if you believe that we are just a mistake of biochemistry, the fact remains that there will ALWAYS be evil in this world and evil can only be defeated by force. Infringing on the rights bestowed to us by birth in the futile attempt to stop evil people from doing evil things is a recipe for even MORE of the same.


----------



## Casimir (Dec 21, 2012)

Man there have been a lot of posts about this, and I know I'm chiming in late.

A couple of things that I wouldn't be opposed to discussing as a requisite to gun ownership/concealed carry

1: better instruction than is currently available in most CCW classes. I don't know about other states, but the classes that I've seen at civilian ranges or been part of in this part of Texas were terrible at minimum. Sure, on paper they look like they would be 'acceptable' in the eyes of a regulatory agency, but I've witnessed people show up with a 38 revolver and a box of 9mm shells. When their shooting is put to the test they're sort of 'coached' into shooting bare minimum to get their CCW and leave the range feeling empowered. I think that's dangerous.

2: I don't think it would be unreasonable to require some type of hard storage such as a combination or biometric safe. It's a good idea to begin with and one that any responsible person ought to exercise, but I would bet money that there are a shocking number of folks who don't. *this is not to say that the gun MUST, by law, be locked up at all times as it might appear. I have a safe and I keep my personal weapon within arms reach when I'm at home and lock them up when I leave the house sans the one on my person. I don't have kids either, so it's easier for me.

3: I also don't think it would be unreasonable to require some basic type of insurance.

4: Based on some of the skill (or rather, lack thereof) of most of the people I've worked with or shot with for recreation, I am not opposed to annual, or preferably, semi annual or even quarterly qualifications of some sort to assess the skill level of a CCW holder.

5: In addition to #4, I think if someone wants to carry on their person in public they ought to go through some type of stress shoot program. Standing on line, 20 yards from a target max, not moving and having to hit a man sized target and being allowed to miss excessively would never compare to an actual incident. What is it something like 50% of accuracy and fine motor skills is degraded under duress?

I'm purposely not referring to issues having to do with the second amendment and mental health. They've been beat to death so far and anything I might have added has already been covered. The above are just some things I wouldn't be _opposed_ to discussing with some type of lawmaker.

As far as 'assault rifles' are concerned, I am in total agreement with everyone on here that is pro rifle: They weren't designed solely for 'sporting' or hunting purposes and they absolutely serve a purpose in civilian hands.

I'm most fed up with the way media and ignorant lawmakers are approaching this issue. I'm sure many of you have noticed that the majority of anti-gun people don't know shit about the weapons they are trying to ban and are reacting out of emotion and 'boogey man' tactics. Our media is mostly to blame.


----------



## parallel (Dec 21, 2012)

The problem with Congress is that we have Congressmen (and Women) who think things like; putting more troops and equipment on the island of Guam might... CAPSIZE the island. As you probably already know that was said at a House Armed Services Committee by Congressman Hank Johnson. THIS is who we're supposed to believe know what's best for us.


----------



## moobob (Dec 21, 2012)

I read a report a while back that said easy gun availability increases murder rates, but not the overall violent crime rate.

I can believe that. I also don't give a shit. If we have to put up with a higher violent crime rate in exchange for having more freedoms than just about anywhere else in the world, I'll take it. Plus, being a crime victim is largely voluntary. People have the option to arm themselves, don't, and wonder how a mass murderer can off almost 30 people.


----------



## Casimir (Dec 21, 2012)

parallel said:


> The problem with Congress is that we have Congressmen (and Women) who think things like; putting more troops and equipment on the island of Guam might... CAPSIZE the island. As you probably already know that was said at a House Armed Services Committee by Congressman Hank Johnson. THIS is who we're supposed to believe know what's best for us.


 
you're kidding? I suppose this illustrates another major problem in the US...there is an enormous disconnect between the people and the politicians. They (the politicians) basically believe and do whatever they want under the guise that it's 'for the people', however the people have very little to say about it. On another note, too many people in the US are of the mind 'Well, nothing I can do about it' and just shrug off major issues.

Watching the movie 'The Campaign' earlier kind of had me shaking my head. Ya, it's a funny movie, but it's not far off the mark in terms of some of the crap these guys did to one another and what they truly represented (mostly Farrell's character)


----------



## policemedic (Dec 21, 2012)

SgtUSMC8541 said:


> NY is screwed... I have a "friend" in the AG office they said it looks like the NY Law will get passed. All pre-ban mags are gone. All 10 round mags for pistol and rifle are gone... all mags down to 7 rounds max. AR rifles may get outlawed by name. No selling of AR type rifles or transferring of them. You die, the state takes them.


 
And if something this stupid actually becomes law, the gun companies need to sack up and follow Barrett's example.  When CA banned 50 BMG, Barrett said fine...we're not selling you any, and we're not servicing any rifles you already have (this included municipal PDs like LAPD).  

They could also simply change their business model and level the playing field.  For example, if Glock is forced to sell pistols with 7-round magazines, then it would probably be cheaper to only make one type of magazine instead of both a low-capacity and normal capacity magazine.  So, here you go NYPD...enjoy those 7-round mags.  What's good for the goose...


----------



## 0699 (Dec 21, 2012)

I'm going to throw out an extreme thought to try and make a point.  Bear with me...



Casimir said:


> Man there have been a lot of posts about this, and I know I'm chiming in late.
> 
> A couple of things that I wouldn't be opposed to discussing as a requisite to gun ownership/concealed carry
> 
> ...


 
All your numbered items above, now make them apply to the 1st Ammendment.  Still sound good?

And for those of you that argue free speech never killed anyone, I would argue that the _Communist Manifesto_, the _Declaration of Independence_, the _Unilateral Declaration of Independence_, and _Mein Kampf_ killed more people than all the guns in the US put together...


----------



## JBS (Dec 21, 2012)

Casimir:

Before I reply, just know there's nothing personal here, no disrespect, but definitely disagree with most of your post.



Casimir said:


> 1: better instruction than is currently available in most CCW classes. I don't know about other states, but the classes that I've seen at civilian ranges or been part of in this part of Texas were terrible at minimum. Sure, on paper they look like they would be 'acceptable' in the eyes of a regulatory agency, but I've witnessed people show up with a 38 revolver and a box of 9mm shells. When their shooting is put to the test they're sort of 'coached' into shooting bare minimum to get their CCW and leave the range feeling empowered. I think that's dangerous.


If it is "dangerous" then statistics should back up your opinion. They do not. I would rethink my opinion.

If there are "shit" instructors, they are probably outnumbered 1000-to-1 by *decently* qualified, enthusiastic instructors, themselves dedicated to firearms. And the statistics support that statement. A sea of "shit" instructors would yield weekly or monthly news reports of CCW classes with accidental/negligent shootings in them. These classes run 7 days a week all over the country. Where are the news reports?



> 2: I don't think it would be unreasonable to require some type of hard storage such as a combination or biometric safe. It's a good idea to begin with and one that any responsible person ought to exercise, but I would bet money that there are a shocking number of folks who don't. *this is not to say that the gun MUST, by law, be locked up at all times as it might appear. I have a safe and I keep my personal weapon within arms reach when I'm at home and lock them up when I leave the house sans the one on my person. I don't have kids either, so it's easier for me.


 
How do you enforce that? Home inspection? DANGEROUS idea with 5,000 pages of new legislation required to establish dimensions, accessibility, material density, and all the other horseshit minutia that bureacracy loves to cultivate.



> 3: I also don't think it would be unreasonable to require some basic type of insurance.


You must be in possession of statistics that state this is a national problem? Shootings where medical care can't be obtained? Or are you talking about liability? Again, then you must have data that is compelling you to hold this position. Opinions that are not supported by data are merely emotional knee-jerk reactions of the type that has sustained this gun debate for days now on our 24/7 media. We, as professional military, LEO's, and security professionals, should be more responsible.



> 4: Based on some of the skill (or rather, lack thereof) of most of the people I've worked with or shot with for recreation, I am not opposed to annual, or preferably, semi annual or even quarterly qualifications of some sort to assess the skill level of a CCW holder.


This is insanity. There are concealed carry holders who carry featherweight hammerless 6 shot "ABSOLUTE LAST STAND" pistols in their purses, designed to be used at a range of 24 inches, as they are being pushed to the ground by a rapist. NOBODY needs to go to the range 4 times a year to practice how to point a pistol like this and squeeze the trigger. It's idiot proof. You point, and shoot.

We have 55,000 people a year that die in alcohol related accidents every year, and 27 people shot in a random nutcase shooting. If you really want to save lives, why don't you call for drunk driving classes for all registered drivers every 3 months?



> 5: In addition to #4, I think if someone wants to carry on their person in public they ought to go through some type of stress shoot program. Standing on line, 20 yards from a target max, not moving and having to hit a man sized target and being allowed to miss excessively would never compare to an actual incident. What is it something like 50% of accuracy and fine motor skills is degraded under duress?


Again, think about the 110 lbs. woman with a 2-shot Derringer in her purse. She's got that weapon as an absolute LAST resort, without the psychological makeup to engage an active shooter in a shopping mall/theater. She's legally carrying with the sole, express purpose of whipping it out as she is being tackled in a deserted parking lot by a rapist, and all the training she needs is how to make it go "boom".

Many of the standards you are referring to belong in the security industry, not in the public sector. It's just not needed, would be an enormous burden, and as evidence of that, I submit to you the total and complete absence of any statistics suggesting that Concealed Carry permit holders are just lighting up Circle-K's and Applebees with poorly placed shots.

Reality is it's just not happening.


----------



## SgtUSMC8541 (Dec 21, 2012)

policemedic said:


> And if something this stupid actually becomes law, the gun companies need to sack up and follow Barrett's example. When CA banned 50 BMG, Barrett said fine...we're not selling you any, and we're not servicing any rifles you already have (this included municipal PDs like LAPD).
> 
> They could also simply change their business model and level the playing field. For example, if Glock is forced to sell pistols with 7-round magazines, then it would probably be cheaper to only make one type of magazine instead of both a low-capacity and normal capacity magazine. So, here you go NYPD...enjoy those 7-round mags. What's good for the goose...


 
They might also try to push micro-stamping as well.  Kimber and Remington have both said they they will move from NY if it goes through.


----------



## rockclimber (Dec 21, 2012)

moobob said:


> I read a report a while back that said easy gun availability increases murder rates, but not the overall violent crime rate.
> 
> I can believe that. I also don't give a shit. *If we have to put up with a higher violent crime rate in exchange for having more freedoms than just about anywhere else in the world, I'll take it*. Plus, being a crime victim is largely voluntary. People have the option to arm themselves, don't, and wonder how a mass murderer can off almost 30 people.


 
Can you elaborate on how one might extrapolate "having more freedom than anywhere else in the world" from being able to purchase and own guns legally and with relative ease?


----------



## TH15 (Dec 21, 2012)

The NRA is having their big news conference right now. I think the guy is doing a good job, and he's gotten a few shots in at the media right to their face.
A woman did jump up with a sign and started screaming that the "NRA has blood on their hands" and to ban assault rifles. She was swiftly escorted out.

He's calling for Congress to put armed police officers in every school in the nation.


----------



## SgtUSMC8541 (Dec 21, 2012)

TH15 said:


> The NRA is having their big news conference right now. I think the guy is doing a good job, and he's gotten a few shots in at the media right to their face.
> A woman did jump up with a sign and started screaming that the "NRA has blood on their hands" and to ban assault rifles. She was swiftly escorted out.
> 
> He's calling for Congress to put armed police officers in every school in the nation.


 
A guy got escorted out before her... same thing.


----------



## Rapid (Dec 21, 2012)

I don't really feel like spending a lot more of my Christmas time on this topic, so I'll try to cover this as best I can. I think that whatever your position is, everyone can agree that the anti-gun movement is picking up rapid momentum since this latest tragedy. The fact is, clinging to extreme views is going to end up doing more harm than good, like always. If gun ownership is to survive in any kind of dignified way, then more people need to adapt their reasoning to actually challenge the anti-gun movement. Pro-gun people should be the first to propose sensible restrictions which don't infringe on the basic right to bear arms, but which do help against irresponsible people (whether that's down to criminal choices, or unstable mental issues). It doesn't matter if these 'smart' restrictions don't solve the problem all by themselves, as no laws ever do. Limiting any future tragedies would already be a plus, and it would defend ownership by showing that there already are responsible measures in place.

The best thing is that smart restrictions don't actually have to hurt gun ownership for responsible, law-abiding individuals. Neither do they have to come with idiotic limits, such as how many rounds you can have in your magazine, or what calibers you can own, or even what type of weapon you can own (all of those things, and more, should be protected by your rights). Basically, I just really hope you implement some intelligent ideas before the anti-gun people get their way and impose some very bloody retarded ones. With the way most of our countries are going, it would only be a matter of time before the latter could happen. I've always thought that it's better to regulate yourself and choose smart, responsible decisions... rather than be regulated by utter buffoons (who, unfortunately, have more and more support from the population).



JAB said:


> I think this really where the disconnect is, if the words written down are not of the proper definition (as you imply) than how is anyone supposed to really know what they mean?


 
I don't mean to imply that it isn't the proper definition, because it is. These things are written in such a way that they can be understood by all people, however, the deeper issues behind these topics are incredibly complex and abstract (and they aren't necessarily accessible to all people). These are issues which the most intelligent philosophers of all time had dedicated their whole lives to and still couldn't concretely define.

We can accept the face value of a law which says that we should be free to do X or Y, but we need to think about the possible ramifications it could have on our other liberties, and attach certain conditions if needed. Hell, even one of the most important freedoms of all, the freedom of speech, still has certain restrictions which most people agree with. For example, anything that can incite violence or public chaos would be categorized as a misuse of that liberty, because you're overstepping your boundaries by encroaching on other people's safety and liberty. Simply saying something offensive or controversial doesn't count though, because no one has the right to go through life unoffended (despite some countries stupidly making this illegal anyway, but that's another topic).



JAB said:


> Okay but if they are not in a prison, what is going to stop them from obtaining that weapon through illegal means. If the person is a criminal and can’t be trusted in society than no amount of laws restricting gun ownership will stop them from getting a gun.


 
The point isn't that they can't be trusted in society. If they've been reintegrated, then it was obviously judged (or misjudged, as in many unfortunate cases) that they could return to live in society. Like I said though, that doesn't necessarily mean that some of those people should be trusted with guns. The fact is, anyone who's committed a crime has a chance of reoffending at some point, even when we do our best to pick who to let out or not. The solution is not to keep everyone in prison for the rest of their lives just because something _might_ happen. We just have to try to limit the damage certain individuals could cause if they choose to misuse their second chance in society.

A determined criminal will always try to find a way to get a gun if he wants to, but that doesn't mean that he'll always be successful. By at least limiting his legal avenues, and cracking down on the illegal ones, you can already vastly decrease his chances. Secondly, not all criminals fall into that 'hardened criminal' category... by far. There are many of them who simply won't go through the trouble of trying to acquire a gun illegally, simply because that could entail a lot of things which might not be worth it to them.

Limit the opportunities for dumbasses to acquire weapons, and you'll limit the damage the dumbasses might eventually do. So, while there'll still be the smart, determined criminals who'll get their hands on a gun no matter what... looking back, you'll see that you've at least stopped a major group of criminals, as they don't fall into that category.



JAB said:


> No that is false security, they are not any safer, they are not anymore protected.


 
Really? Take this scenario: there's a dense, urban area with a lot of crime and other social problems. Only the law-abiding people in that area are able to own guns, and there are very few avenues for most of the criminals to acquire weapons illegally. Are you saying that if you suddenly changed the parameters, and let the criminals buy weapons just like the good, honest people... that those good, honest people wouldn't be in more danger?

Like I've been saying, we got to be realistic. There are criminals out there who are reoffending and are yet to be caught again, and you can't just catch all of them overnight and keep them in jail forever. You can, however, drastically cut down on their access to weapons and thus limit the damage they do in the meanwhile (before being locked up again). I don't even understand under how it makes sense to _enable_ gun access for criminals... but then again you believe that it's possible for only the good, honest people to live in society and for everyone else (no shades of grey) to be locked up forever. All morality and ethics completely aside, that's not even realistically possible to achieve. Although it would be a good scenario for you to test the whole civil revolution thing and people rising up against the government (because that's what would start to happen).



JAB said:


> If they cannot be TRUSTED in society, then yes, or put to death.


 
Again, I have no idea of what kind of dystopian ideas you have planned for society... but they sound pretty fucked up. I find it ironic that while arguing about liberty, you haven't noticed how incredibly anti-liberty and despotic your 'solution' actually is. Society isn't binary; it's not black and white. You can't simply label people as "TRUSTED" or "NOT TRUSTED" and accordingly let them roam free or lock them up/execute them. In a truly free society (not to be confused with the literal meaning, i.e., anarchy), you are trusted on many different levels and your rights and responsibilities are adjusted accordingly.

Limiting certain people's rights is much better than taking them all away. You can't seriously be advocating for every mentally disabled person who isn't responsible enough to drive a car to be institutionalized, right? I don't think you're protecting liberty if you're taking all of it away from those people, as opposed to just some parts. I'd rather they be free in society, for those who are otherwise harmless, but if they don't have the mental faculties to properly drive a car, I don't want them plowing into people.

It's like you're defending this view that you should have all your rights in society or none at all, based on an ideal (liberty), but you've totally misunderstood this ideal by taking it 100% literally. By doing this, you're completely ignoring the metaphysics of the issue, as well as centuries of meaningful reasoning and logic which goes with it. Come on... most of us are not autistic, robots or fanatics. We don't just read commands and follow them blindly. We not only understand the face value of a statement, but we can also think a bit deeper, without changing the actual issue.



JAB said:


> That is silly, it's kind of like having a drivers license with restrictions. Who is going to enforce them?


 
You are aware that this is already done, right? There are restrictions against -- off the top of my head -- new learners, people with poor eyesight, people on medication, etc. Restrictions on stuff like that are carried out by the people who issue the licenses (who have a duty to test if you are fully or partially fit for a license, or unfit) and are enforced during random police stops. This kind of stuff doesn't prevent a few people from breaking their restrictions, but it sure helps control the large majority of people, and that's all that a law is intended to do.



JAB said:


> Again it comes down to the individual having the trust of the people to remain in society. We have judges, lawyers and jury’s who decides if someone can be trusted. If they cannot be trusted, then adding restriction but unsupervised to a person who cannot be trusted is simply stupid.


 
No, what is stupid is the attempt to divide people into only two categories (refer to what I said earlier).



JAB said:


> I do, because that persons rights are either restored or they are not. Some ATF or FBI agent should not be able to decide that, again that is for the judge and jury to decide. If someone is in prison, on probation/parol than they rights have not been restored. However, if they are now free from all restrictions (i.e. they paid for their crime and are now trusted again), why would we not allow them to own a gun?


 
Just because you've done your time doesn't mean you're simply 'trusted' again. I don't know about you, but 'trusting' criminals with certain, specific backgrounds doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. They may very well have paid their time, but that doesn't mean society is ready to give them everything back as soon as they return. The road to rehabilitation and regaining trust should be a long and tested path. And yet that's still better (and actually realistic) compared to keeping them in prison forever.



JAB said:


> Again trusted is trusted...Either we do or we dont, if we don't they have no reason to be out in society. Making added gun laws wont stop them from getting a gun, or a knife, or picking up a rock, etc.


 
All questionable points, and covered under previous responses.



JAB said:


> I did, hints my children and the reason I choose to teach them young about guns vs hiding them and living in fantasy land.


 
A good decision, but that will only help your children if they're at home and know how to access your weapons (and if you trust them to do so). Anywhere outside of home, and when they're not with you, they're at the mercy of society. So hey, why not try to make it a safer place to begin with?



JAB said:


> Yes they are excuses.


 
Really? Your response to me saying that those _aren't_ excuses, is to say that they are excuses? I think you misread me. My whole point is that despite personal shortcomings, people should still feel they have the duty and responsibility to defend themselves.



JAB said:


> WTF? Dude did you really write that?


 
Yes. I think any sane person can agree that it would be nice to reduce the likelihood of having to defend yourself in the first place. Lowering crime is generally seen as a good thing. While everyone should be prepared to defend themselves at home if needed, I don't wish it upon anyone to have to be in that situation.



JAB said:


> 1) you can't enforce "safe keeping" you can only punish those who did not follow the law.
> 2) people already report stolen property, if they know about it. A lot of if's...
> 3) like probation, parol or being in prison (they already are not allowed to buy guns) but again it has not worked.


 
1) Works pretty well, actually. Before being able to obtain a weapon, you should be able to prove that you can secure it safely when you're not present. The fact that some people will occasionally be careless doesn't matter. What matters is that the majority of people will become more responsible in general. You don't just discount a law because it doesn't fix everything on its own and some people will break it (otherwise we wouldn't have any laws).

2) Yeah, well it's one thing for some lazy ass to report a missing weapon whenever (or if) he feels like dragging his own ass down to the police station... but it's a whole other thing to compel people to report it swiftly. It could be the difference between someone having the time to commit a crime or not.

3) Whatever you think 'doesn't work' when it comes to stopping criminals from legally buying weapons, you can bet the situation would be ten times worse in some places if they _were_ allowed to legally buy them (on top of the hardened criminals who'll always manage to arm themselves if they want to, you're now welcoming a large number of criminals who for whatever reason wouldn't or couldn't obtain one through the black market). Obviously a criminal record on its own should not be grounds for an exclusion, but just like a background check, many things need to be considered, such as the severity and nature of the crime, when it was committed, what efforts the person has taken for his rehabilitation since then, etc.


----------



## Rapid (Dec 21, 2012)

Just to quickly go back to another topic... I know Iraq was mentioned a few times, as an example of people standing up to a military power, but I'm not sure it fits. Mostly because, well, the insurgents didn't win... despite the added advantaged of much greater firepower (e.g., machine guns), vast access to explosives (with IEDs and such doing the bulk of their damage), and the fact that many of them were ready to die for their religion (how many people, _these days_, would be patriotic enough to match that kind of fanatical will? I'm sure there are many, but are there _enough_?). Not to mention that the U.S. Military was mostly taking great care with its operations in Iraq, while some people believe they should've taken the gloves off (which would've put an even greater dent into the insurgency).

There's a great difference between causing a lot of deaths against a large military force, and actually successfully overthrowing it. What I think gun ownership in the U.S. does have the ability to do though, at the very least, is to make a potentially treacherous government pause for a moment to think whether they would want to get involved in such a quagmire in the first place (even if they could eventually win it). And you could say that preventing them from going down that road is just as good as defeating them. Plus, the government's protectors are comprised of its own citizens, so they would probably be the first people to turn against them if the government ever went batshit anyway. As I've said many times though, you still really only need one reason for gun ownership, and that's self-preservation.The topic of the abilities of the people to defend themselves against their own government is a separate, interesting one, however.


----------



## pardus (Dec 21, 2012)

rockclimber said:


> Can you elaborate on how one might extrapolate "having more freedom than anywhere else in the world" from being able to purchase and own guns legally and with relative ease?


 
You misquoted him. He said "more freedoms than just about anywhere else in the world".


----------



## JBS (Dec 21, 2012)

Rapid said:


> Just to quickly go back to another topic... I know Iraq was mentioned a few times, as an example of people standing up to a military power, but I'm not sure it fits. Mostly because, well, the insurgents didn't win... despite the added advantaged of much greater firepower (e.g., machine guns), vast access to explosives (with IEDs and such doing the bulk of their damage), and the fact that many of them were ready to die for their religion (how many people, _these days_, would be patriotic enough to match that kind of fanatical will? I'm sure there are many, but are there _enough_?). Not to mention that the U.S. Military was mostly taking great care with its operations in Iraq, while some people believe they should've taken the gloves off (which would've put an even greater dent into the insurgency).
> 
> There's a great difference between causing a lot of deaths against a large military force, and actually successfully overthrowing it. What I think gun ownership in the U.S. does have the ability to do though, at the very least, is to make a potentially treacherous government pause for a moment to think whether they would want to get involved in such a quagmire in the first place (even if they could eventually win it). And you could say that preventing them from going down that road is just as good as defeating them. Plus, the government's protectors are comprised of its own citizens, so they would probably be the first people to turn against them if the government ever went batshit anyway. As I've said many times though, you still really only need one reason for gun ownership, and that's self-preservation.The topic of the abilities of the people to defend themselves against their own government is a separate, interesting one, however.


Huge miscalculation:

A. There could be anywhere from 10 to 30 million Americans willing to take up arms in such a scenario. And although it's difficult to be precise, it is fair to say that the number of Iraqi insurgents in total would have ranged anywhere from several tens of thousands to less than 100,000. There is no comparison with the sheer volume of armed American citizens who would go to war under the right circumstances.

B. Fractionalization and division within the military. I'll put it to you like this: in case of some kind of revolution, how many M-1 Abrams do you think will get driven off to aid the "rebels". We had zero (or statistically close to zero) deserting American military in Iraq. If history is any guide, we would have a substantial rate of desertion in case of revolution. Some of those joining the "rebels" would include high ranking enlisted-men and very senior officers with extraordinary levels of expertise.

C. Quality of weaponry, equipment and infrastructure. Pulling from a pool of fighters as large as the United States citizenry, the potential for a large, fit, trained, extremely effective militia to be fielded is very high. Simply put, with enough time, there would be hundreds of thousands of combat-ready, professionally trained American militia-men at the very peak of fitness (former military doing the CrossFit thing, training on their own, keeping up their skills even though they are out), recent veterans, as well as a much larger group of irregular, unprofessional militia-persons. There would also not be the equipment and technology gap we saw in Iraq. American citizens have awesome firepower, as well as a decent compliment of other gear, such as commo, laptops, and other very modern equipment.

I have no comment on the explosives.

The larger point, though, is that this state of American readiness, dormant though it may be, must be maintained in perpetuity in order to always serve as the final guarantor of liberty. When France was occupied by foreign powers, there was an America that could send Airborne to parachute in and Marines to land on it's shores to liberate the country. If, in the future, America were to fall, there's no other United States to come to our aid. We're the last place on earth like this. We must preserve the balance between our government and our well-armed citizenry.

All of this is pure fantasy anyway, at this stage. The laws haven't even been put forward, and we have no idea what is in them. It may be that in the next few weeks, the short-term-memory of America prevails and this whole thing will blow away.


----------



## rockclimber (Dec 21, 2012)

pardus said:


> You misquoted him. He said "more freedoms than just about anywhere else in the world".


 
You are correct, Sir. Nevertheless, my question still stands. I would like some help in understanding the implied causality between owning weapons and having more freedom.


----------



## Rapid (Dec 21, 2012)

JBS said:


> Huge miscalculation:
> 
> A. There could be anywhere from 10 to 30 million Americans willing to take up arms in such a scenario. And although it's difficult to be precise, it is fair to say that the number of Iraqi insurgents in total would have ranged anywhere from several tens of thousands to less than 100,000. There is no comparison with the sheer volume of armed American citizens who would go to war under the right circumstances.
> 
> ...


 
A. True. Although there would also be the entire U.S. Military which they would need to face (minus desertions, as you said), as opposed to the fraction which is in Iraq.

B. Yes, as I mentioned, I think the first people who would lead the rebellion would be from the government's protectors themselves. In fact I think that only a tiny minority of the military would be willing to start a civil war... which begs the question, would there be a war at all?

C. True again.

It definitely is a complex subject, and thankfully one which we'll probably never see tested.


----------



## DasBoot (Dec 21, 2012)

JBS said:


> Huge miscalculation:
> 
> A. There could be anywhere from 10 to 30 million Americans willing to take up arms in such a scenario. And although it's difficult to be precise, it is fair to say that the number of Iraqi insurgents in total would have ranged anywhere from several tens of thousands to less than 100,000. There is no comparison with the sheer volume of armed American citizens who would go to war under the right circumstances.
> 
> ...


 
I agree with the rest of your post- people forget how big America is in terms of both land area and population (Other than India and China, we outnumber everyone else by a large margin- Indonesia by almost 80 million people).

 The bold is what really stands out to me though- anyone remember Kony 2012? Neither do I.


----------



## JBS (Dec 21, 2012)

rockclimber said:


> You are correct, Sir. Nevertheless, my question still stands. I would like some help in understanding the implied causality between owning weapons and having more freedom.


I know that question wasn't aimed at me, but in it's simplest form, banning the ownership of a firearm is itself a reduction in freedom, not the least of which is the freedom to defend oneself.

Ask yourself if you believe you have the inherent right to defend yourself against an attacker, or if you should be relegated to passively awaiting assistance from authority figures. As you are being assaulted, perhaps by numerically superior forces (in other words as you are getting your ass kicked by 3 thugs who want your wallet and your wife's purse), do you feel that you have a right to responsibly use a tool which could drastically change the outcome?

It's not just about freedom, it's also about a right to defend oneself. A firearm ban would infringe on the individual's natural and inherent right to self-defense.


EDITED TO ADD: This silly notion that we'd all be just o.k. in defending ourselves without firearms is ridiculous on its face.    I internalize this debate.  I'm 6-foot, 240 lbs. right now, have a great bench and practice (and teach) mixed martial arts.    Yet I know that if I am cornered somewhere by 5 or 6 guys, some of them with knives, I'm going to get taken down eventually.  If I am with my wife when it happens, as soon as I am unconscious or bleeding out,  she'd get the treatment one might expect.    But a Concealed Carry firearm changes the calculus drastically, as well as the outcome.


----------



## AWP (Dec 21, 2012)

Rapid said:


> Just to quickly go back to another topic... I know Iraq was mentioned a few times, as an example of people standing up to a military power, but I'm not sure it fits. Mostly because, well, the insurgents didn't win...


 
They didn't? I think a lot of us would beg to differ but that is probably best for a seperate thread.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 21, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> They didn't? I think a lot of us would beg to differ but that is probably best for a seperate thread.


 
We left, they're still there.  I think that means they won.


----------



## parallel (Dec 21, 2012)

Casimir said:


> you're kidding? ***snip***


I wish I was...


----------



## 0699 (Dec 21, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> They didn't? I think a lot of us would beg to differ but that is probably best for a seperate thread.


 


Marauder06 said:


> We left, they're still there. I think that means they won.


 
Exactly what I thought.  We shouldn't fall for equating "ending the war in Iraq" with "winning the war in Iraq".  If I quit halfway through a marathon, I guess I could say I ended it...


----------



## Casimir (Dec 21, 2012)

JBS: No disrespect taken. As far as statistics, you are right that I did not provide any. What I was getting at was that I _think_, and I italicize that because nothing has happened yet, that some kind of regulation or revamp of the laws are inevitable at this point. We have  a president that has openly stated that he wants certain weapons off the street, you have morons like Baxter and Feinstein leading the charge, and now the famously stupid Biden heading up a task force, and to top it off, a media leaning so far left they are in danger of falling on their heads.

All I was getting at was that if something must happen, the above things were a couple of things I wouldn't be opposed to considering versus their proposed AWB. After your post though, you have a point I didn't consider in terms of the final 'oh shit' last stand, and I would have to agree that in general, those ideas above would apply more to the security industry in practice.However, I  stick by the idea of requiring a bit more in depth practice than is currently taught in classes.

As far as the storage thing, no, I would most definitely not be in support of home inspections. It would have to be one of those things that is made in good faith. Good point in the legislation though, it would certainly be written in such legalese that it would render it inoperable.


----------



## Casimir (Dec 21, 2012)

parallel said:


> I wish I was...


:-/:youllpay: I GIVE UP! There's no way to cure that kind of stupidity lol. On a serious note though...I'm at a loss for words.


----------



## parallel (Dec 21, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> We left, they're still there. I think that means they won.


Yep... it's easy to win if all one has to do is wait until the announced withdrawal of one's enemy. I still can't believe we allowed these IDIOTS to do that. I have no qualms with withdrawal... but setting a date is just stupidity².


----------



## AWP (Dec 21, 2012)

parallel said:


> setting a date is just stupidity².


 
Whatever are you talking about?

Sent from Afghanistan


----------



## parallel (Dec 21, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Whatever are you talking about?
> 
> Sent from Afghanistan


http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ma-to-speak-on-iraq-at-1245-pm/1#.UNS-rne2Uw8


----------



## AWP (Dec 21, 2012)

TH15 said:


> He's calling for Congress to put armed police officers in every school in the nation.


 
Did they call for anything else? Even Fox is only reporting this "solution" by the NRA, so if the NRA's sole stance is "armed guards in schools"  and no weapons ban then I'm deeply disappointed. On  the world's stage and all they could do was offer that along with criticism of video games and the press? That's IT? Christ, this thread has more ideas than the NRA with one week to prepare? One week of watching news coverage and it cannot even propose solutions that our unwashed masses thought of? And this is the leading voice of the 2nd Amendment?

Wayne LaPierre, your fail boat has arrived.


----------



## AWP (Dec 21, 2012)

parallel said:


> http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ma-to-speak-on-iraq-at-1245-pm/1#.UNS-rne2Uw8


 
I think you missed my sarcasm which I tried to convey with the Afghanistan comment. No worries, it happens.


----------



## Casimir (Dec 21, 2012)

I'm watching it now, so far I'm pretty disappointed. Like you said, same old stuff.

my god, this dude needs a public speaking class.

*Edited* Well, I agree that he fell short on a lot. The content of his message wasn't necessarily bad in and of itself, but the delivery was hollow and felt strained and more of the same. I'm disappointed.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 21, 2012)

There are some ignorant fucks in Congress who hold power over our lives. :wall:


----------



## Casimir (Dec 21, 2012)

Marine0311 said:


> There are some ignorant fucks in Congress who hold power over our lives. :wall:


Sadly true. What method do we have to reign them in? I've only started following politics in the last few years, but it looks as if our usual methods (letters to representatives, petitions, etc) more often than not fall on deaf ears.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 21, 2012)

Casimir said:


> Sadly true. What method do we have to reign them in? I've only started following politics in the last few years, but it looks as if our usual methods (letters to representatives, petitions, etc) more often than not fall on deaf ears.


 
Strength in numbers. Get all your friends to get their friends and get their friends and write and e mail and fax and call and then VOTE.


----------



## Casimir (Dec 21, 2012)

Sounds great, unfortunately, and I hate to be a pessimist, how many people would really take action? There are no shortages of shouts and fists in the air, but when it comes down to it we're either ignored by our representatives or not enough people follow through.

There ought to be some way to force open polls for voting on policies and what not when enough people take action and demand change rather than having to rely on politicians that may or may not have our best interests at heart who could be free to proceed as they would until the next election season


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 21, 2012)

Casimir said:


> Sounds great, unfortunately, and I hate to be a pessimist, how many people would really take action? There are no shortages of shouts and fists in the air, but when it comes down to it we're either ignored by our representatives or not enough people follow through.
> 
> There ought to be some way to force open polls for voting on policies and what not when enough people take action and demand change rather than having to rely on politicians that may or may not have our best interests at heart who could be free to proceed as they would until the next election season


 
We're getting off topic here  however in short it needs to start with 1 person, then 5, then 10, etc.


----------



## TH15 (Dec 21, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Did they call for anything else?


I'll admit I caught about the final 25 minutes of it, so I'm not sure if he or anyone else offered any other solutions. But as far as I saw/remember, there was no mention of any bans, just the recommendation that we fund armed security, be it a police officer, former police officer, etc. to be in every school in the nation.

I was disappointed, as most people appear to be, with the news conference. You guys have a week to put something together and the only thing you can conjure up is a few excuses regarding video games and violence in movies? It's a shame. They would have been better off citing statistics such as the number of people killed when someone CCW stops a gunman versus the number of people killed when there's no one CCW and the police have to take care of it.

In reality I'm not sure it matters. The media is going to crucify them regardless of anything they say or do. Welcome to America.


----------



## AWP (Dec 21, 2012)

TH15 said:


> In reality I'm not sure it matters. The media is going to crucify them regardless of anything they say or do. Welcome to America.


 
While I agree, they now appear to be inept and out of touch. The largest RKBA organization, a lobbying force to be reckoned with, and that's the best they could do? The largest, most visible hope for the 2A and that's it? Are they incompetent or apathetic?

The 2A is really going to be steamrolled now unless a small miracle occurs. The NRA waits a week for a press conference, doesn't attempt to get ahead of the situation, and when things die down a little and you expect them to deliver something of substance they just flew over the Titanic and dropped a couple of pairs of water wings?

Wow.


----------



## Tana (Dec 22, 2012)

IMHO I thought Wayne LaPierre did a very good job at setting the NRA's position of no concessions as a starting point,  identifying causes and solutions to these types of mass murders, and going so far as volunteering to mobilize the NRA membership.  I'm sure when everyone sees this play out, you may not show the disappointment you do currently to the NRA leadership.  I believe that we must view this as murder/suicide.  
     When I started school in the mid 50's, all the teachers were either veterans that served in, or civilians that served on the home front of WWII.  Korea had just ended, and the United States was very Patriotic.  It _is_ a different society now, but I believe the patriotic atmosphere that I grew up in will return somewhat by exercising our Constitutional rights.  Teachers should be able to choose whether to carry or not, and local communities should have the final word of how to protect it's children, not the fed, or that jackass Bloomberg.


----------



## moobob (Dec 22, 2012)

rockclimber said:


> You are correct, Sir. Nevertheless, my question still stands. I would like some help in understanding the implied causality between owning weapons and having more freedom.


 
It's self-evident if you believe that gun ownership is a check and balance on the government, which many of the founding fathers repeatedly did.

The anti-gun people will choose what they want to believe because, to them, the founding fathers are just a bunch of dead guys that couldn't foresee changing realities of our "civilized" society we have today. They could care less what the greatest political thinkers we've ever seen said or did.


----------



## pardus (Dec 22, 2012)

rockclimber said:


> You are correct, Sir. Nevertheless, my question still stands. I would like some help in understanding the implied causality between owning weapons and having more freedom.


 
It is quite simple once you understand the intent of the 2nd amendment.
It was put in place to ensure the peoples right to be armed in such a manner that they had the potential power to overthrow a tyrannical government should one ever take power.

The 2nd amendment was the guarantor of all the other rights in the Constitution.


----------



## Rapid (Dec 22, 2012)

I, too, was a bit disappointed with what the NRA came up with. It seems that they need some fresh thinkers who can adapt their rhetoric to counter arguments used by the anti-gun movement, instead of being stuck in the past and blaming violence on TV and video games.

There are over 100,000 schools in the US. Assuming only one armed guard per school, 100,000 x $40,000 = $4 billion / year (which still wouldn't be enough to provide adequate protection). Also, they'd spend 99.9% of their time doing nothing useful. Well, I suppose they could give firearms training to the kids.

Instead - invest $4 billion in better mental health care to be available to those who need it, or different ways of locking down schools so that there's only a limited number of entries/exits (which should be guarded).

To use the other side of the argument - a determined attacker will always find a way - just shoot the armed guard first. Or go shoot up some other place that isn't guarded. The answer to that is clearly to fortify any place people are - instead of treating the cause. If you live with someone mentally unstable, it's your duty to keep your weapons secured. Considering Adam Lanza's psychological profile, I doubt he would've felt compelled, or even capable, to go out and find guns on the black market... especially in the affluent area they lived in. Like in many cases with mentally disturbed people, someone was careless and he acted on a moment of opportunity.



Marauder06 said:


> We left, they're still there. I think that means they won.


 
It seems to me that you achieved your primary goal of ousting the old powers. Naturally, you had to stay around to stabilize the country and train/prepare the new security forces and the new government during the subsequent insurgency... but I don't think anyone expected you to stay there until you completely defeated the insurgency. That's a problem for the new government to handle, but you gave them all the tools and training to do so (no matter how much of that was squandered due to corruption and infiltrations).

However, if the current government was to fall now or in the near future, then it would definitely be quite a loss. As long as they don't manage to do that, then I think you accomplished the minimum required. I'm sure everyone can agree that more could have been done, or that some things could've been done better, but overall, I wouldn't call it a loss. I think the greater danger is the influence of other countries such as Iran... and how, despite all the help given to rebuild their country, certain elements in the new Iraq might not be so cooperative (e.g., see release of Ali Mussa Daqduq).


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 22, 2012)

Everything old is new again.
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323



> Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for "COPS in School," a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.
> "Already, it has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need," Clinton said.


----------



## pardus (Dec 22, 2012)

Got this in my email today...




> A Message from President Obama about Your Petition on Reducing Gun Violence
> _
> By Bruce Reed, Chief of Staff to Vice President Biden_
> 
> ...


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 22, 2012)

I got the same thing in my email, pardus.  The petition I signed was asking to uphold 2nd Amendment rights.


----------



## Rapid (Dec 22, 2012)

I think one of the most ridiculous arguments I've recently heard for gun control is that current laws are negatively affecting the situation in Mexico. Quite frankly, the last thing any country should do is restrict their citizens' liberties for the benefit of other countries. You don't play charity with your liberties... and yet that's exactly what people like senator Dianne Feinstein would like to do. It's one thing to enact restrictions that can help your own country, but to do so for others is just ridiculous.


----------



## 8654Maine (Dec 22, 2012)

They use UN and foreign laws as our legal barometer.  Idiocy.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 22, 2012)

This was an excellent post:



Rapid said:


> It seems to me that you achieved your primary goal of ousting the old powers. Naturally, you had to stay around to stabilize the country and train/prepare the new security forces and the new government during the subsequent insurgency... but I don't think anyone expected you to stay there until you completely defeated the insurgency. That's a problem for the new government to handle, but you gave them all the tools and training to do so (no matter how much of that was squandered due to corruption and infiltrations).
> 
> However, if the current government was to fall now or in the near future, then it would definitely be quite a loss. As long as they don't manage to do that, then I think you accomplished the minimum required. I'm sure everyone can agree that more could have been done, or that some things could've been done better, but overall, I wouldn't call it a loss. I think the greater danger is the influence of other countries such as Iran... and how, despite all the help given to rebuild their country, certain elements in the new Iraq might not be so cooperative (e.g., see release of Ali Mussa Daqduq).


 
But the mission changed over time. First we were all --> regime change!  then we accomplished it and we were all --> protect and rebuild! :-/ then it was --> insurgency? what insurgency?  then --> defeat the insurgency! :whatever: then --> "responsible withdrawal" :wall: then the Iraqis were all (queue Dave Chappelle skit) -->fuck yo' SOFA, Yankees! and then we were all -->peace out, bitches!

Now a brutal dictator has been replaced by a regime that is just as corrupt, if not (yet) as violent, that is still not pro-US, that is under the thumb of Iran, the country is still overrun with guns and jihadis, and with all that oil they're sitting on, I'm still paying $3.80 at the pump. So I'm not sure anyone can objectively look at Iraq and see it as anything other than a defeat for the US.


----------



## Rapid (Dec 22, 2012)

These shooters are mostly looking for a target where the response time will be at least a few minutes+. Does it really matter if they've got an assault rifle or a pistol? 30 round mags or 7 round ones? It might take a bit longer to reload, but it won't really matter when they've got plenty of time to kill dozens of people before the police even arrive. A pistol might not have as much firepower, but again, it doesn't matter as much if they're unopposed. They can just fire off a few more rounds per target, and they'll still get the job done. Just pack more ammo and magazines.

So yeah, those kinds of restrictions are stupid and obviously don't do anything to solve the root of the problem. Maybe the loss of firepower slows the perp down, but it doesn't stop him. Maybe a few more people survive, but the tragedy is still there. Politicians supporting the anti-gun movement obviously don't really care about doing anything intelligent, because the kind of legislation most of them are pushing is just as dumb as the excuses about violence on TV or in video games. It seems like they're supporting these kinds of measures to make themselves look good, because it's what people living in fear want to hear. _High capacity_ magazines, _assault_ rifles, _military_ style, etc... oooh, sounds _scary_, but don't worry, we'll take those away!

And when more of these tragedies will keep occurring, people will start to realize that guns are deadly no matter what, and that's when they'll try to move to ban them outright (regardless of the fact that that still wouldn't solve the root of the problem). I really hope someone will start to make some intelligent discussion on solutions for the real problems before that kind of mass fear takes its toll. Despite their strong support and other important contributions, the NRA can't help in this respect, if they stick to the angle they're taking right now. There should be more focus on the mental health aspects and what can be done there, and more focus on raising people's awareness of their responsibilities to keep their weapons safe, etc.


----------



## Rapid (Dec 22, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> This was an excellent post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Very true, when you put it like that. I think one of the main problems is with limp-wristed political actions. The majority of the population can't stomach the real measures that need to be taken sometimes, so politicians do everything half-assed. They never take the gloves off when needed, and when support inevitably drops, they cut and run on whatever half-assed measures they were taking in the first place.

I guess that's the problem when you have a government with so many people who are in it for a meal ticket or a 'prestigious' career (making decisions based on whether it'll get them reelected or not), as opposed to actually serving their country. Add that to all the political bullshit involved at the higher levels of the military (often leading to poor strategical choices), and that's just a recipe for utter mediocrity, despite having the tools and knowledge for a solid victory.

Oh, and of course, let's not forget the elements of the media which are hellbent on multiplying the negative effects from all of the above.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 22, 2012)

I just came from a lunch with friends when Newtown came up

"Guns R bad" "Restrict that and this and that" "Why" "Guns r bad"

I attempted to logic, reasons, facts and evidence

:wall:


----------



## Arrow 4 (Dec 22, 2012)

JBS said:


> Huge miscalculation:
> 
> A. There could be anywhere from 10 to 30 million Americans willing to take up arms in such a scenario. And although it's difficult to be precise, it is fair to say that the number of Iraqi insurgents in total would have ranged anywhere from several tens of thousands to less than 100,000. There is no comparison with the sheer volume of armed American citizens who would go to war under the right circumstances.
> 
> ...


 
Great post, very well stated!


----------



## Arrow 4 (Dec 22, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Did they call for anything else? Even Fox is only reporting this "solution" by the NRA, so if the NRA's sole stance is "armed guards in schools" and no weapons ban then I'm deeply disappointed. On the world's stage and all they could do was offer that along with criticism of video games and the press? That's IT? Christ, this thread has more ideas than the NRA with one week to prepare? One week of watching news coverage and it cannot even propose solutions that our unwashed masses thought of? And this is the leading voice of the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> Wayne LaPierre, your fail boat has arrived.


 
You must have missed the NRA's press conference...it also set forth a plan to come up with construction/access designs and standards to make schools more secure from these types of incidents. It has been against the law for those who have been adjudicated as mentally ill from obtaining weapons, however a review of the VT shooting it was recognized that the reporting process for that to work was insufficient. As a result, new legislation was passed in order to fix that...still the system lacks adequate reporting proceedures. There is plenty that can be done without banning hi-cap mags and assualt rifles.


----------



## AWP (Dec 22, 2012)

This suddenly came to so I apologize if I missed it in the 18 pages of this thread:

Pro-gun/ pro-2A literature and arguments frequently cite the Founding Fathers' view on an armed populace.

Where are quotes from the FF which support a weapons ban or restriction?

I understand that things change, but you can find divergent views from the FF on almost any topic, just not on the ownership of weapons. They argued over slavery, taxes, the military, state's rights, Federal powers, and the structure of our government, but not about owning weapons.


----------



## AWP (Dec 22, 2012)

Arrow 4 said:


> You must have missed the NRA's press conference...it also set forth a plan to come up with construction/access designs and standards to make schools more secure from these types of incidents. It has been against the law for those who have been adjudicated as mentally ill from obtaining weapons, however a review of the VT shooting it was recognized that the reporting process for that to work was insufficient. As a result, new legislation was passed in order to fix that...still the system lacks adequate reporting proceedures. There is plenty that can be done without banning hi-cap mags and assualt rifles.


 
No, I read their statement.

I'm firmly against a ban on high-cap magazines and "assault" rifles, but the main crux of the NRA's plan addressed schools and barely touched upon the societal issues which caused this. As I stated earlier, I think this board has come up with better ideas, more diverse ideas, and more realistic ideas than what the NRA could come up with in a week. I think they fell short.

I read Fox and CNN's coverage of the press conference and then I read the NRA's statement. The leading 1/3 from both "news" agencies had  the same information. Reading the statement they weren't wrong: the NRA focused on schools and hardening them 9which I support) but offered nothing new to the debate. No new solutions or causes.

I'm on the fence about waiting until Friday for the press conference. On one hand it gave them time to prepare and they weren't trying to convey a message while the country's blood was up. On the other, they were completely silent for a week and didn't bring a lot to the table when they did speak up.

Even some of the Republican base is shying away from them and firearms. The NRA should have grabbed the bull by the horns and it didn't. It fell short.

Maybe they will offer something more in the coming weeks, but they're reactive instead of proactive.


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 22, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> _post_


 
Additionally, they played DIRECTLY into the "NRA says the solution is more guns", which is like putting out a batting tee in the major leagues.


----------



## Arrow 4 (Dec 22, 2012)

Totentanz said:


> Additionally, they played DIRECTLY into the "NRA says the solution is more guns", which is like putting out a batting tee in the major leagues.


 
I think that is a false narrative being advanced by the media. There is a difference between saying, let's put cops in every school and saying we just need more guns in the market. I believe that this simple plan would be the most effective action we can take as a country in the short term while we wrestle over what other action may be appropriate. MSNBC was bashing the idea last night by claiming it wouldn't work and pointing to the fact that Virginia Tech had two armed security guards on duty at the time of the shooting. My response to that is it was a failure of scale (Size of campus/# of students compared to the number of security) They also pointed to the fact that there was a cop working at Columbine when that shooting occurred. The officer engaged the two suspects, then retreated to the parking lot where he stood by with other officers until SWAT arrived. This does not take into account the dramatic shift in how LE trains for and responds to active shooter scenarios today. Individual officers at that time were taught to do exactly as that officer performed...the world has changed and so has our response.


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 22, 2012)

Arrow 4 said:


> I think that is a false narrative being advanced by the media. There is a difference between saying, let's put cops in every school and saying we just need more guns in the market. I believe that this simple plan would be the most effective action we can take as a country in the short term while we wrestle over what other action may be appropriate. MSNBC was bashing the idea last night by claiming it wouldn't work and pointing to the fact that Virginia Tech had two armed security guards on duty at the time of the shooting. My response to that is it was a failure of scale (Size of campus/# of students compared to the number of security) They also pointed to the fact that there was a cop working at Columbine when that shooting occurred. The officer engaged the two suspects, then retreated to the parking lot where he stood by with other officers until SWAT arrived. This does not take into account the dramatic shift in how LE trains for and responds to active shooter scenarios today. Individual officers at that time were taught to do exactly as that officer performed...the world has changed and so has our response.


 
It is a false narrative.  However, it's a very easily identified talking point for the MSM use to misportray the NRA (and by extension, gun owners), that the NRA played directly into...

I'm not arguing with the point itself, I'm just annoyed that with a week to analyze public perception and pull together a statement, not only did they fail to grab the bull by the balls and get ahead of the opposition, they played directly into their hands with their statement.


----------



## CDG (Dec 22, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> I got the same thing in my email, pardus. The petition I signed was asking to uphold 2nd Amendment rights.


 
Yep.  I also signed one calling for the deportation of Piers Morgan.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 22, 2012)

CDG said:


> Yep. I also signed one calling for the deportation of Piers Morgan.


Link me..Id like to get in on that!


----------



## CDG (Dec 22, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> Link me..Id like to get in on that!


Here you go m'lady: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...piers-morgan-attacking-2nd-amendment/prfh5zHD


----------



## parallel (Dec 22, 2012)

> ...but the main crux of the NRA's plan addressed schools and barely touched upon the societal issues which caused this.


That's probably because they're the NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, not the National Fucked Up Psyche Association or the National Out of Control Culture Association. Their purpose is to protect our 2cd Amendment Rights, not to figure out what ails sick people and sick cultures.


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 22, 2012)

parallel said:


> That's probably because they're the NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, not the National Fucked Up Psyche Association or the National Out of Control Culture Association. Their purpose is to protect our 2cd Amendment Rights, not to figure out what ails sick people and sick cultures.


 
Doesn't mean they can't call a spade a spade... especially when they're taking the blame for some spades.


----------



## parallel (Dec 22, 2012)

Totentanz, I understand. I was talking about those who say they're disappointed seemingly because the NRA didn't solve the mass shooting ills of America after having an ENTIRE week to think about it.


----------



## AWP (Dec 24, 2012)

One of those stories which probably won't see a lot of airplay.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...s-sends-kids-high-security-school_691057.html



> The NBC host would go on the rest of the segment to suggest that armed guards might not be effective in preventing mass murders at school. Which is perhaps an interesting theoretical argument.
> But when it comes to Gregory's own kids, however, they are secured every school day by armed guards.


 
Hypocrites.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 24, 2012)

Oh this is just nifty.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blo...addresses-215214269--abc-news-topstories.html



> A newspaper in New York has received a wave of criticism from its readers after publishing the names and addresses of all of the individuals with handgun or pistol permits in its coverage area.
> Hundreds of residents in New York's Westchester and Rockland counties were surprised to find their names and addresses listed on a map posted by The Journal News on Sunday. Users can click any dot on the map to see which of their neighbors has a permit for a gun.
> The map sparked more than 500 comments from readers within a day of its appearance on the website, many of them voicing outrage at the paper's decision to make the information public.
> "This is CRAZY!! why in the world would you post every licensed gun owner information?? What do you hope to accomplish by doing this. This is the type of thing you do for sex offenders not law abiding gun owners. What next? should i hang a flag outside my house that says I own a gun? I am canceling my subscription with your paper today!!!" said commenter Curtis Maenza.
> ...


----------



## JBS (Dec 24, 2012)

Just another reason New York sucks donkey dick.

Pollution, WAY overvalued slummy properties stacked on top of each other like 300 square miles of human wasp nests, bums on every other corner, traffic that would make me want to smoke pot to cope with it, and the cherry on top is Mayor Furor Bloomberg.

Ostracizing law abiding citizens with the complicity of local governments: just add it to the list of why New York blows.


----------



## Tana (Dec 24, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> Oh this is just nifty.
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blo...addresses-215214269--abc-news-topstories.html


"There is nothing more horrifying, than stupidity in action."  - Adlai Stevenson.


----------



## Hillclimb (Dec 24, 2012)

Wow. I'm speechless, I honestly do not know what I would do if that happened to me. How did that fly through the work place without one person speaking up and saying.. 'this is fucked up.' And if someone did, shame on the editor, or whoever had the last call on sending this to the print without thinking it over.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 24, 2012)

Hillclimb said:


> Wow. I'm speechless, I honestly do not know what I would do if that happened to me. How did that fly through the work place without one person speaking up and saying.. 'this is fucked up.' And if someone did, shame on the editor, or whoever had the last call on sending this to the print without thinking it over.


I hope they get sued.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 24, 2012)

I'd be mad as hell if someone put my name out on a list of registered gun owners.

Then again, I live in Connecticut and apparently can't be trusted with a handgun, so I guess it's a moot point.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 24, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> I'd be mad as hell if someone put my name out on a list of registered gun owners.


Im no lawyer but it is my understanding that the FOA applies to government entities but NOT private citizens.  I think they are in the shit for putting individual names on a website like that.  I know Id be talking to a lawyer if my name was out on that list.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 24, 2012)

This is another example of why people don't want to register their weapons.  First it's stupid shit like this, then a while down the road there's a knock on the door and a group of armed men with a list want to know where all your registered weapons are, so they can take them from you.  Then when they come back later, you have no means to resist.

Screw it, I'd want people to know I have a gun and that I'm packing, maybe they'd break into someone else's garage to steal their bike instead of mine (again) if they knew the homeowner was armed.  And all of my neighbors know I'm in the Army and probably assume (incorrectly) that I'm armed to the teeth, so it's not like I'm going to lose any friends over it.  So yeah, give me my permit and print my name and address in the paper.


----------



## Hillclimb (Dec 24, 2012)

Not to mention people who cannot legally or financially obtain a gun, now know where to find one. I'm sure they could've found one regardless, but there is no reason to have put them on the radar, especially over the holidays.

No problem pushing the envelope on the 2nd amendment, but god forbid we tamper with their freedom of press/speech. Ehh. I'm not sure how I wanted to word that. Point being!!! -I hate the media.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 24, 2012)

As I said Im not a lawyer, but I think those clowns at the newspaper violated the Privacy Act of 1974.

http://www.justice.gov/opcl/privstat.htm


----------



## Arrow 4 (Dec 24, 2012)

Jackasses


----------



## 0699 (Dec 24, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> Im no lawyer but it is my understanding that the FOA applies to government entities but NOT private citizens. I think they are in the shit for putting individual names on a website like that. I know Id be talking to a lawyer if my name was out on that list.


 
In a lot of states, CCPs are a matter of public record and considered public information, just like mortgages, land ownership, etc.  Only a few states have passed laws stating that CCP information cannot be publicly released.  With the mood of the community lately, I'm sure it'll end up like sex offender websites; you'll be able to pull up a web page listing everyone around you that owns one of those evil guns...


----------



## walra107 (Dec 24, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> Oh this is just nifty.
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blo...addresses-215214269--abc-news-topstories.html


 
"This is how Liberty Dies"....


----------



## parallel (Dec 24, 2012)

0699 said:


> In a lot of states, CCPs are a matter of public record and considered public information, just like mortgages, land ownership, etc. Only a few states have passed laws stating that CCP information cannot be publicly released. With the mood of the community lately, I'm sure it'll end up like sex offender websites; you'll be able to pull up a web page listing everyone around you that owns one of those evil guns...


According to the story that information IS public record by State Law.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 24, 2012)

I do not want anyone to know I have a firearm.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 24, 2012)

In Florida a concealed weapons permit is protected information. I wonder if New York or other states have that stipulation? Im too tired to look it up just now LOL.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/cwrecords.html


> On July 1, 2006, a new law went into effect that makes personal identifying information pertaining to a Concealed Weapon or Firearm license confidential and exempt from Section 119.07(1), Florida Statutes and Section 24(a), Article 1 of the State Constitution.
> Exceptions to this exemption are:
> 
> With the express written consent of the applicant or licensee or his/her legally authorized representative.
> ...


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 25, 2012)

On the bright side, people might be less inclined to break into a house where they know the person has a firearm

Still goddamn stupid!


----------



## parallel (Dec 25, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> Oh this is just nifty.
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blo...addresses-215214269--abc-news-topstories.html


Turnabout is Fair Play  <----- Click Me


----------



## Hillclimb (Dec 25, 2012)

parallel said:


> Turnabout is Fair Play  <----- Click Me



This wont end well.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 25, 2012)

I was reading the comment on that link.  Those folks are now signed up for lots of guns and ammo magazines amongst other things.   ROFL.  They even posted up pics of her house.  Im not sympathetic in the least.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 25, 2012)

Some info for any of you who wish to reply to this womans stupidity.

Her eamil: jhasson@lohud.com

And the name, addy and phone numbers of the retards who decided to put all of those lawful gun owners in danger.



> Journal News President:
> Janet Hasson, 3 Gate House Lane Mamaroneck, NY 10534 (914) 694.5204
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JBS (Dec 25, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> I was reading the comment on that link.  Those folks are now signed up for lots of guns and ammo magazines amongst other things.   ROFL.  They even posted up pics of her house.  Im not sympathetic in the least.





JAB said:


> Some info for any of you who wish to reply to this womans stupidity.
> 
> Her eamil: jhasson@lohud.com
> 
> And the name, addy and phone numbers of the retards who decided to put all of those lawful gun owners in



I am so happy about this.  Law abiding citizens need to show they will not be harassed and intimidated by typical Leftist Progressive tactics.  They (Leftists like this publisher) are the same fools who sent mobs to the homes of bankers during "Occupy Wall Street" protests, and threatened and labeled anyone who participated in the Tea Party Movement with similar grade school techniques of bullying and ostracization.  During the Tea Party movement, everyone was labeled a racist.  It's always labels and threats and ostracization.  They need to be taught they are messing with the wrong sort now,  and that we will push back much harder than they bargained for.


----------



## Ex3 (Dec 25, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> This suddenly came to so I apologize if I missed it in the 18 pages of this thread:
> 
> Pro-gun/ pro-2A literature and arguments frequently cite the Founding Fathers' view on an armed populace.
> 
> ...


Could it be because a gun was pretty much a necessity in the 18th century?  If you wanted to eat, you owned a gun.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 25, 2012)

That was needlessly petty and stupid, and does nothing to help the image of gun owners in America.  Heaven forbid something should happen to any of those reporters, you can guarantee some kind of blanket ban in the next few months.  Anti-2A are acting out of emotion here, and it will take a well-reasoned response on all fronts by responsible gun owners to prevent them from getting what they want.  THAT MEANS not making threatening or near-threatening gestures towards the antis.  Let's take the high road here.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 25, 2012)

Let us steer back towards some of the questions facing us now. We seem to be chatting a bit here.

Should the current laws be tougher? Yes or No? Why or Why Why not?
Should new laws be written? Yes or No? Why or Why Why not?
Is the 2nd Amendment under attack Yes or No?
Why can we do to voice our opinions?
Do you have ideas or suggestions to prevent another Sandy Hook?

Do you agree with Gov Cuomo's gun proposals?

A link for an example: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/da...king-to-legislature-about-gun-control-package


----------



## JBS (Dec 25, 2012)

Deathy McDeath said:


> That was needlessly petty and stupid, and does nothing to help the image of gun owners in America. Heaven forbid something should happen to any of those reporters, you can guarantee some kind of blanket ban in the next few months. Anti-2A are acting out of emotion here, and it will take a well-reasoned response on all fronts by responsible gun owners to prevent them from getting what they want. THAT MEANS not making threatening or near-threatening gestures towards the antis. Let's take the high road here.


Is publishing the names and addresses of permit holders (and putting them on an interactive searchable map online) *more* threatening or* less* threatening than publishing the name and address of the publisher and staff?

I disagree with the "high road" stuff. Totally inappropriate reaction here. What I take into consideration is that some of these people might be permit holders because they have reason to fear for their lives. I've given self defense classes to women who had stalkers and wanted to defend themselves. In the course of instruction I've advised them to educate themselves on concealed carry permit laws and to explore that as a viable, legal, and healthy option in seeking to defend themselves. In one case, I trained a woman who weighed about 130 lbs., who had been previously assaulted by her alcoholic 200 + lbs. ex husband. She had a restraining order against him and went out of her way to keep a low profile. If she had been in the jurisdiction of this newspaper, do you think publishing her name and address would be a threat to her?

If there's anything reckless and outright disgusting, it is this newspaper attempting to ostracize people who are abiding by the law.   We should go out of our way to post their names and addresses on every forum and blog we can find.

If they don't like it they can think about that the next time they endanger hundreds of others in the same manner.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 26, 2012)

Deathy McDeath said:


> That was needlessly petty and stupid, and does nothing to help the image of gun owners in America. Heaven forbid something should happen to any of those reporters, you can guarantee some kind of blanket ban in the next few months. Anti-2A are acting out of emotion here, and it will take a well-reasoned response on all fronts by responsible gun owners to prevent them from getting what they want. THAT MEANS not making threatening or near-threatening gestures towards the antis. Let's take the high road here.


 
I did not make any threats, and posting that (public) information is nothing more than allowing people to reply to these retards as they see fit to do so.

Personally I think it is cowardly to not respond.

$0.02


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 26, 2012)

Deathy McDeath said:


> That was needlessly petty and stupid, and does nothing to help the image of gun owners in America. Heaven forbid something should happen to any of those reporters,


 
What about the innocent law abiding citizens on the list the reporters printed?  Are their lives and property less worthy than those of the reporter's?


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 26, 2012)

This keeps getting better. This just underscores how the media views themselves as above the law. They know better than the rest of us. I hope they prosecute Gregory to the fullest extend of the law(s) he flouted.  


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/26/david-gregory-police-investigation_n_2364637.html



> NBC News had requested and was denied permission to use a high capacity magazine on "Meet the Press." Legal Insurrection's William A. Jacobson looked into an email allegedly from the Metropolitan Police Department which said that the network contacted the police before the segment. The MPD's Aziz Alali confirmed it, telling Jacobson:
> "NBC contacted the Metropolitan Police Department inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for this segment. NBC was informed that that possession of a high capacity magazine is not permissible and the request was denied."


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 27, 2012)

I am going to throw this out here.

This is cut/paste from http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms;
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

Strengthens the 1994 _Assault Weapons Ban_ and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.

Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. 
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

PDF copy of the bill: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119


----------



## policemedic (Dec 27, 2012)

I love the use of the NFA. $200 tax stamps, and instant registration. 

I've worked with BATFE, and I have zero confidence in the probability of an expanded BATFE to function within Constitutional bounds in the setting of legislation like this.


----------



## JBS (Dec 27, 2012)

If that doesn't make your you-know-what pucker,  you're not fully appreciating the gravity of the situation.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 27, 2012)

I also love the creation of another unfunded federal mandate. Normally, I see the impact of these when dealing with healthcare issues. But the legislation requires certification from local LEOs as to identity and legality of the weapon.  I think that imposes a large duty on local PDs, without a funding stream for it. The result could be local law enforcement not cooperating, and without that certification, you can't register your gun under the expanded NFA. 

Hell, as it stands now I can't get the police commissioner to sign the form so I can buy a rifle suppressor to save my hearing should I have to discharge my M4 on duty. I can't imagine our commissioner--named to the Antigun panel--will be willing to assist civilians in any way.


----------



## JBS (Dec 27, 2012)

Registration makes something possible here that has never before been possible: door to door confiscation.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 27, 2012)

Yup.  The question is who would do it, and what methods would be used. 

None of the people I work with will confiscate weapons from law abiding American citizens.  We've discussed it and the consensus was that until the 2nd Amendment is repealed our oath is at odds with weapons confiscation. We won't do it. 

From a practical standpoint, I can't see this being done without the wholesale cooperation of local law enforcement. There aren't enough feds.


----------



## JBS (Dec 27, 2012)

National Guard. Don't like to think about it, but it is not outside the realm of conceivable. Hell, recently Director Mueller couldn't even answer the simple question of whether or not the new Obama doctrine of dropping Hellfires on American citizens -without a trial or due process- would also apply on US soil/within US territory. His answer: "I have to check with Eric Holder". Swear I am not making that up. These people have no compass (don't know enough about Director Mueller to say if that's an accurate characterization of him,  but it is certainly true about this administration)

In my opinion anything is possible in the next 4 years.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 27, 2012)

I just emailed my Senator after getting his e-newsletter.  I basically said "no new gun laws"


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 28, 2012)

*Teachers in Utah, Ohio get free gun training*



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/27/teachers-in-utah-ohio-get-free-gun-training/#ixzz2GJsf4B96​ 

SALT LAKE CITY –  English teacher Kevin Leatherbarrow holds a license to carry a concealed weapon and doesn't see anything wrong with arming teachers in the aftermath of the deadly Connecticut school shooting.
"We're sitting ducks," said Leatherbarrow, who works at a Utah charter school. "You don't have a chance in hell. You're dead -- no ifs, ands or buts."
Gun-rights advocates in Utah agree and were offering six hours of training Thursday in handling concealed weapons for 200 Utah teachers in the latest effort to arm teachers to confront school assailants.
In Ohio, a firearms group said it was launching a test program in tactical firearms training for 24 teachers. The Arizona attorney general is proposing a change to state law to allow an educator in each school to carry a gun.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/27/teachers-in-utah-ohio-get-free-gun-training/#ixzz2GJsf4B96​


----------



## JBS (Dec 28, 2012)

Any assault rifle* anyone on this board presently owns*, if this law rolls out, you WILL be required to voluntarily register it with the Federal Government or it will not be Grandfathered, and will therefore be *contraband*. The very notion that what you and I own now legally and responsibly today can be arbitrarily made into contraband should make our blood boil. I know it does mine.

I hope this helps wake this sleeping juggernaut of a nation out of its slumber.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 28, 2012)

JBS said:


> Any assault rifle anyone on this board owns, if this law rolls out, you WILL be required to voluntarily register it with the Federal Government or it will not be Grandfathered, and will therefore be contraband. The very notion that what you and I own now legally and responsibly today can be arbitrarily made into contraband should make our blood boil. I know it does mine.
> 
> I hope this helps wake this sleeping juggernaut of a nation out of its slumber.


 



Write your elected officials


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 28, 2012)

Another reason why citizens should be armed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman#U.S._Marine_and_college_student

Approximately 20 minutes after first shooting from the observation deck, Whitman began to encounter return fire from both the police and other *armed citizens*.

Armed private citizens stepping in to stop a POS from killing others.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 28, 2012)

Here is a really good write up on the 2nd amendment found on the NRA website. Well worth taking the time to read it.

http://www.nraila.org/second-amendment/the-second-amendment.aspx


----------



## AWP (Dec 29, 2012)

An interesting editorial. I find it slightly humorous that CNN would host it, given their recent "Ban, ban, ban" trend. Also, while I don't agree with all of it or some of his verbiage, the central them is one which shouldn't be unfamiliar to us.

http://us.cnn.com/2012/12/28/opinion/martin-gun-conversation/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7



> If we are going to keep saying, "let's have a conversation," then by God let's do it. Right now, we are seeing advocates against guns and for guns try to score points and demonize one another. That's not a conversation. It's an exercise in futility.
> 
> Issues such as education, poverty, income disparities, anger, violent video games and images, and many others must be looked at if we want to come to grips with America's deadly infatuation with guns.
> 
> ...


----------



## AWP (Dec 29, 2012)

The results of the LA gun buy back.

2,037 total weapons, 75 of which are "assault rifles". 75? Wow! That's a whole....oh, 3.68 percent if my math is right. The bulk of what's being turned in? Check out these scary photos:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-la-gun-buyback-pictures,0,308549.photogallery

Daddy's shotgun and bolt action rifles.

Oh, noes!!!! Rocket launchers!!!!!

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-surface-during-los-angeles-guns-buyback?lite



> "Those are weapons of war, weapons of death," said LAPD Chief Charlie Beck, according to the Los Angeles Times. "These are not hunting guns. These are not target guns. ... they have no place in our great city."


 
But the line just above that in the article even admits:



> The weapons, essentially long metal tubes once capable of firing rockets, lacked the projectiles and parts needed to fire them, but even so had no place on the streets, police said.


 
Completely non-functioning weapons, incapable of being reloaded or reused...those are "weapons of death".  Congrats on providing a quote designed only to scare people (or show your total ignorance on the subject). 

Back to the buyback photos, #6 in the link above shows a whole ton of "high cap" weapo....my bad, most of those are revolvers. I'd be interested to see the stats in revolvers vs. semiautos when committing crimes and even a breakdown of the semiautos between Glocks and the like vs. Raven .25's and their cousins.

Kudos to the LAPD for taking so many dangerous weapons off our streets...I wonder what the taxpayers shelled out considering you could receive up to $200 depending on the weapon?

Stay classy.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 29, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> An interesting editorial. I find it slightly humorous that CNN would host it, given their recent "Ban, ban, ban" trend. Also, while I don't agree with all of it or some of his verbiage, the central them is one which shouldn't be unfamiliar to us.
> 
> http://us.cnn.com/2012/12/28/opinion/martin-gun-conversation/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7


 
They printed "by God".


----------



## TH15 (Dec 29, 2012)

Journalism should not be considered a profession anymore. The bullshit these people have been spewing of late, the blatant disregard for fairly sound statistics, and the personal attacks on responsible gun owners is reprehensible. I would love to have the phone number, emails, and addresses of all national "journalists" touting their gun control stance. There needs to be repercussions for this kind of behavior, and I'm talking civil repercussions. Piers Morgan is #1 on that list.

It's also extremely unnerving to see federal law enforcement officers collecting weapons from citizens, regardless of the circumstances surrounding it. Liberty is dying..


----------



## Gypsy (Dec 29, 2012)

TH15 said:


> There needs to be repercussions for this kind of behavior, and I'm talking civil repercussions. Piers Morgan is #1 on that list.


 
So, probably the best way to target that jackass is to start a letter writing campaign to the sponsors of his show and the television station on which the program airs.


----------



## TH15 (Dec 29, 2012)

Gypsy said:


> So, probably the best way to target that jackass is to start a letter writing campaign to the sponsors of his show and the television station on which the program airs.


Oh, believe me, it's been an active winter break for me.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 29, 2012)

:wall:

I went to a party. I then got caught up in a post Sandy Hook Gun Debate

"I think we should make gun laws blah blah blah"
_*keep in mind we are all drinking which only adds to the fun*_
_Everyone there is a civilian except me_
"Guns laws, outlaw guns blah blah blah"
_*I'm ignoring this but...slowly......... being dragged into the BLACK VORTEX OF GUN DEBATE*_
"Ban all high capacity bullets (what?), guns, blah, blah, guns bad, more laws, prison, etc"
_*slowly my mind is starting to boil*_
"So what do you think?......"
Me: "I think (10 logical arguments) and so on so on etc"
"MORE LAWS GUNS BAD BLAH BLAH IF WE JUST BAN ETC ETC"

I then mentally jump in front of a speeding train.

:wall:​The point of that little rant was to point out there are some people out there that will not change their minds, and yet if we do not engage them in a debate (although a pointless one) then these people WILL scream loud until THEY are heard. Soon pens will be banned (sarcasm). Please people vote. Get out and e-mail your elected officials. Participate in the system.​


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 29, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> The results of the LA gun buy back.
> 
> Stay classy.


 
I want to go to one of these "buy back" things really bad. I would just stand around the table out bidding the cops and buying up all the classic and priceless guns that some crack head is selling for $100. Hell I would not mind having one of the old AT4 trainers (the one that fired the 9mm tracer), that would be a fun toy out here. Or better yet, if I could get a hold of one of those .30 cal Browning Machine Guns, mount it on top of my F250.

Fucking Cali, I am almost positive they put something in the water there, something  that just makes people say and do stupid-ass-shit.


----------



## AWP (Dec 29, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> They printed "by God".


 
Even in my God less state I was pleasantly surprised to see that.


----------



## Gypsy (Dec 29, 2012)

This is a long but worth the read opinion piece on gun control.  Some great information and several quotable gems in there.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/


----------



## Hillclimb (Dec 29, 2012)

Marine0311 said:


> The point of that little rant was to point out there are some people out there that will not change their minds, and yet if we do not engage them in a debate (although a pointless one) then these people WILL scream loud until THEY are heard. Soon pens will be banned (sarcasm). Please people vote. Get out and e-mail your elected officials. Participate in the system.​


 
I've found it best to not get involved in those arguments. I just say, "Give me your ONE best argument. You're only allowed one point/argument/idea to stand behind to make or break this debate. What would it be?" I counter with mine, and 9 times out of 10 they'll want to change their 'best' argument. You can't win with these people.



JAB said:


> I want to go to one of these "buy back" things really bad. I would just stand around the table out bidding the cops and buying up all the classic and priceless guns that some crack head is selling for $100.


 
Haha. I had the same exact idea. I've also been camping Armslist.org and other classifieds to see if anyone else is parting with ridiculous deals. Not much luck.


----------



## JBS (Dec 29, 2012)

Yeah,  Armslist hasn't had a good deal in a while.


----------



## AWP (Dec 30, 2012)

So, Hartford, Connecticut recently held a gun buyback program and the results were only slightly "better" than LA's.

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Gun-buyback-program-gains-traction-4152958.php



> Locally, Bridgeport officers on Friday recovered 108 guns, including about 10 assault weapons, on top of the 104 guns they took in last weekend, according to Officer Nick Ortiz. In all, they've paid out $22,775 in exchange for the guns.


 
So, about 9.5% were "assault rifles" and there was no count for the period where 104 total weapons were turned in...though I suspect if the haul was as significant they would say something.  But, fear not! One taken off the street was...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/world-war-ii-era-german-assault-rifle-_n_2270815.html



> Unbeknownst to the owner, the rifle was identified as a World War II-era German assault rifle valued between $30,000 and $40,000, NECN reports.
> 
> The gun is a Sturmgewehr 44, which holds a 30-round magazine, shoots 500 rounds per minute and is the basis for "every modern assault rifle produced today," Officer John Cavanna of the Hartford Police told NECN.


 
Jesus wept tears of blood when He saw that, I'm sure of it. At least they let her keep it though I'm saddened to live in a world where such a clueless twit has that sitting in her attic with no idea of what it is.

But all-in-all, if you read the stories from people who are turning in their guns you'll realize that these buyback programs are emptying someone's closet and doing little to nothing to makes our streets safe. They ARE doing a hefty business in fear mongering thanks to the media, but that seems to be the only real contribution so far.

Unless you find a StG 44 and are too stupid to realize it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 30, 2012)

Here's my question...no one in the makes the big bucks ranks have talked about revamping an eroded psychiatric system.  We used to commit psychos back in the day.  We don't have the facilities anymore, even though medical professionals know how to treat the problems the government has shut down the system starting in the Reagan administration and continued because the patients were supposedly being denied rights.

Well menaces to society need to be treated.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 30, 2012)

ThunderHorse said:


> Here's my question...no one in the makes the big bucks ranks have talked about revamping an eroded psychiatric system. We used to commit psychos back in the day. We don't have the facilities anymore, even though medical professionals know how to treat the problems the government has shut down the system starting in the Reagan administration and continued because the patients were supposedly being denied rights.
> 
> Well menaces to society need to be treated.


 
You're on a slippery slope.


----------



## AWP (Dec 30, 2012)

When I was in high school some 22 or so years ago, our Psych class went to the state's mental health hospital or whatever you would call it. We spent about 4 hours there, talked with the staff, and received a limited tour of the facility.

It creeps me out to this day. Think of every bad movie, every pseudo-horror show set in one of those places, and that's what it looked and felt like. Dirty, miserable, the walls were painted a pale green...the bus ride back to school was quiet. A bus full of teenagers and it was quiet.

There is no way in hell I could support facilities like that.

Alternatively, I've seen private centers in operation and it was vastly different in look and feel. I presume those places make their money via a patient's insurance plus whatever the state provides per patient per day. It was a little depressing vs. the slit-my-wrists experience 20 years prior. Now with the new health care bill in place? I just don't know.

The implementation is frightening no matter how you look at it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 30, 2012)

Why take the easy route of doing nothing which is what this Assault Weapons Ban would be.  They didn't talk about increasing security at schools (NRA did), and there is definitely no mention of revamping the mental health system.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 31, 2012)

http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-couple-arrested-explosive-substance-found-155041549.html
I thought Bloomberg did away with Big Gulps AND guns in NYC? 



> A Manhattan couple was facing weapons charges Monday after authorities said they found a substance used to make bombs and papers titled "The Terrorist Encyclopedia" in their Greenwich Village apartment.
> Morgan Gliedman, 27, and her 31-year-old boyfriend, Aaron Greene, were arrested on weapons-possession charges Saturday after officers with a search warrant discovered a plastic container with 7 grams of HMTD, a highly explosive white powder used in bomb making, police and prosecutors said.
> Also found in the living room were numerous written items containing instructions on the manufacture of explosive materials and bombs, including a collection of pages that had a cover page entitled "The Terrorist Encyclopedia," court papers said.
> According to the court papers, chemical precursors to HMTD also were found in the living room.
> ...


----------



## JBS (Dec 31, 2012)

Gliedman, Harvard grad, Leftist, Occupy Wall Street protestor and domestic terrorist.  WTF is wrong with our Ivy League schools?


----------



## 0699 (Dec 31, 2012)

JBS said:


> Gliedman, Harvard grad, Leftist, Occupy Wall Street protestor and domestic terrorist. WTF is wrong with our Ivy League schools?


 
Hell, Yale's worse than Harvard...


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 31, 2012)

0699 said:


> Hell, Yale's worse than Harvard...


 
But we have ROTC now!


----------



## Future_Leader (Dec 31, 2012)

ShadowSpear said:


> In other news....
> 
> http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/385705/man-stabs-22-children-in-china-authorities#.UMvfhHdPO8A


I'm not sure if someone posted this already (too many posts to read) but this link just proves JAB's point about guns not necessarily being the problem but instead the person itself and the security being issued.


----------



## 8654Maine (Dec 31, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> But we have ROTC now!


 
Not all Ivies have douchebags.

Cornell's had ROTC for decades.

I just can't see Eli cadets in New Haven...weird.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 31, 2012)

Just saw this:


----------



## Casimir (Dec 31, 2012)

We need to find a way to get this guy into the public eye with this video


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 31, 2012)

I am moving to Texas. They have good gun laws from what I hear.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 31, 2012)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/31/open-letter-to-joe-biden-on-guns/?page=2

Joe,
Congratulations on your appointment to lead a presidential commission to end gun-related violence.
As a National Rifle Association board member, husband, father, grandfather, law enforcement officer and genuinely concerned American, I too want nothing more than to see evil, senseless massacres stopped. I concur with the president and caring people everywhere: It’s time to end these slaughters.
As you gather your team to study massacres and how to stop them, I offer to you my services and a lifetime of expertise on guns in all their implementations. While I strongly differ with President Obama on many issues, I agree with him that we must work with all we can possibly muster to end these tragedies.
As you begin to formulate your thoughts on how to proceed with your task, I hope your starting point is to provide the president with the facts regarding these slaughters and to offer him common-sense recommendations that are void of a political agenda and will actually make a meaningful difference. If the American people smell a political agenda here, that will only bog down our efforts.
In the spirit of goodwill and a deep desire to end gut-wrenching, incredibly sad and senseless rampages, I offer you the following recommendations:
I encourage you to persuade the president to lead this effort by providing a number of public service announcements. The announcements should include watching out for each other, encouraging parents to be more involved in their children’s lives regarding entertainment choices, and knowing various indicators we should watch for in people who are unstable.
Clearly, the focus on solving these mass murders must be on the mentally ill. In almost every instance of mass killing, there were ample red flags and warning alarms that either were avoided or were not acted upon by mental health professionals, family members, friends and acquaintances. While I deeply respect an individual’s privacy and civil liberties, the American people need basic awareness of what indicators to look for regarding potentially violent, psychotic people. Our collective safety begins with being collectively vigilant.
You will find in your assessment that all of the massacres have occurred in gun-free zones. What gun-free zones create is an environment where good people are unarmed and virtually defenseless against an unstable person intent on committing mass murder. Gun-free zones are modern killing fields. I implore you to recommend that Congress pass a law to ban gun-free zones immediately.
Just like your full-time, armed security detail, qualified citizens with authorized, legal concealed-carry permits should be able to carry weapons virtually everywhere to protect themselves, their loved ones and innocents.
I also implore you to strongly consider recommending that trained school officials have access to weapons to protect students. Just as airline pilots may have access to a weapon to prevent another Sept. 11 mass murder, school officials also should be trained to stop shooting sprees at our schools.
I don’t encourage you to recommend a ban on any weapon, magazine capacity or type of ammunition. That won’t accomplish anything other than prevent the 99.9 percent of responsible, law-abiding Americans from enjoying these modern weapons as we do now. We should never recommend or develop public policy that restricts the rights of the good guys based upon what evil people do or might do. If that were the case, alcohol still would be banned. As you may know, drunk drivers kill an estimated 12,000 Americans each year and hurt tens of thousands more.
I encourage you also to keep this misnamed “gun violence” in perspective. While all deaths are tragic, the vast majority of gun-related murders and violence are committed by gang members who do not use guns that look like — but do not perform like — military assault weapons. The majority of crimes that involve a firearm are committed with handguns. I concurred with you back in 2008 when you stated, “If [Mr. Obama] tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem.” I trust you still maintain those sentiments.

Again, I offer you my services and a lifetime of expertise. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,

Ted Nugent


----------



## Casimir (Dec 31, 2012)

Marine0311 said:


> I am moving to Texas. They have good gun laws from what I hear.


 
Actually, there are several states that are better...Arizona for one. They have open carry and you don't even need a permit to carry concealed if you're not a prohibited possessor. You can still get one which will grant you a few more privileges under the law, not to mention reciprocity with most other states except the usuals.


----------



## Hillclimb (Dec 31, 2012)

Marine0311 said:


> I am moving to Texas. They have good gun laws from what I hear.


 
We got pretty a good one in my house. It's called: "live to take one, and you'll get shot by one of the many others."


----------



## HoosierAnnie (Dec 31, 2012)

Too bad it will fall on totally deaf ears


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 1, 2013)

Casimir said:


> Actually, there are several states that are better...Arizona for one. They have open carry and you don't even need a permit to carry concealed if you're not a prohibited possessor. You can still get one which will grant you a few more privileges under the law, not to mention reciprocity with most other states except the usuals.


 

I would say AZ has a much easier route to legal CCW (also really like the open carry laws), but TX is one of the only states that will allow you to walk around metal detectors in the state capital if you hold a TX CHL. Also one of the few states that already have “armed teachers” , also one of the states that actually allow you to use that concealed handgun for just about any reason you can make sound semi justifiable.  All said, I agree and wish TX would move to an open carry/no-lic state, but given the current playing rules of each state, I will stick with TX every day of the week…

It’s not for everybody, but it’s good for me…


----------



## policemedic (Jan 1, 2013)

JBS said:


> Gliedman, Harvard grad, Leftist, Occupy Wall Street protestor and domestic terrorist. WTF is wrong with our Ivy League schools?


 
He's not a Quaker


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 1, 2013)

JAB said:


> I would say AZ has a much easier route to legal CCW (also really like the open carry laws), but TX is one of the only states that will allow you to walk around metal detectors in the state capital if you hold a TX CHL. Also one of the few states that already have “armed teachers” , also one of the states that actually allow you to use that concealed handgun for just about any reason you can make sound semi justifiable. All said, I agree and wish TX would move to an open carry/no-lic state, but given the current playing rules of each state, I will stick with TX every day of the week…
> 
> It’s not for everybody, but it’s good for me…


 
That is the way it should be. Our 2nd Amendment should not be violated by piss poor knee jerk laws based upon emotion rather than logic. No written law will prevent violence. Only a multi approach will, at least, stem violence.


----------



## Casimir (Jan 1, 2013)

JAB said:


> I would say AZ has a much easier route to legal CCW (also really like the open carry laws), but TX is one of the only states that will allow you to walk around metal detectors in the state capital if you hold a TX CHL. Also one of the few states that already have “armed teachers” , also one of the states that actually allow you to use that concealed handgun for just about any reason you can make sound semi justifiable. All said, I agree and wish TX would move to an open carry/no-lic state, but given the current playing rules of each state, I will stick with TX every day of the week…
> 
> It’s not for everybody, but it’s good for me…


 
oh nice, I didn't know that about the metal detector thing. I wonder if that applies to reciprocated CHL's as well, or just Tx?


----------



## policemedic (Jan 1, 2013)

JAB said:


> I would say AZ has a much easier route to legal CCW (also really like the open carry laws), but TX is one of the only states that will allow you to walk around metal detectors in the state capital if you hold a TX CHL. Also one of the few states that already have “armed teachers” , also one of the states that actually allow you to use that concealed handgun for just about any reason you can make sound semi justifiable. All said, I agree and wish TX would move to an open carry/no-lic state, but given the current playing rules of each state, I will stick with TX every day of the week…
> 
> It’s not for everybody, but it’s good for me…


 
The Republic of Texas is sounding better and better every day.


----------



## Casimir (Jan 1, 2013)

before I go to bed finally, my brother keeps talking about the '14th amendment fraud' and the 'red amendment' as it is also referred to.

you mentioning the republic of Texas made me think of it. I've read a little about it. Anyone else looked it up? Thoughts?


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 1, 2013)

Casimir said:


> before I go to bed finally, my brother keeps talking about the '14th amendment fraud' and the 'red amendment' as it is also referred to.
> 
> you mentioning the republic of Texas made me think of it. I've read a little about it. Anyone else looked it up? Thoughts?


 
Look up the history behind "Republic of Texas"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas–United_States_relations


----------



## Casimir (Jan 1, 2013)

cool...will do,

really going to bed now lol


----------



## Spider6 (Jan 1, 2013)

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/#Y3rbcI2bgWYm4Gej.99

25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'
Apologies if this has already been mentioned.  Kennesaw is just north of Dobbins Air Reserve Base down here in Georgia.  I hope Kennesaw PD is hiring when I retire!

"In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender."


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 1, 2013)

The California Republic is worse everyday.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 1, 2013)

I dont understand this at all. I thought Bloomberg said there are no guns in NYC. 
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/7-shot-nyc-new-years-day-article-1.1230886



> Bullets rang in the new year in four boroughs, with nine people shot — but miraculously none killed — in the first seven hours of 2013.


----------



## SgtUSMC8541 (Jan 1, 2013)

Putnam County (NY) Standing up for pistol owners.

"There is the rule of law, and there is right and wrong and the Journal News is clearly wrong," Sant said in a statement. "I could not live with myself if one Putnam pistol permit holder was put in harm's way, for the sole purpose of selling newspapers."


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 1, 2013)

Coming back onto full topic


I believe the 2nd Amendment was created in part to act as a check against the government and its agents so they would not attempt to enrode the rest of our rights. Although it seems some of our rights have been chipped away the point I make is that the 2nd Amendment prevents a large wholesale shredding of the Constitution.
Any new laws smell of a Nanny State to me. I don't need the government in my life any more than it already is.​
I think the loophole of not conducting background checks at gun shows should be closed.​
Generally speaking thsoe in power such as a Hitler or a Stalin outlaw firearms as a means to assume, hold onto, or increase power over people.​


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 2, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> Coming back onto full topic
> 
> 
> I believe the 2nd Amendment was created in part to act as a check against the government and its agents so they would not attempt to enrode the rest of our rights. Although it seems some of our rights have been chipped away the point I make is that the 2nd Amendment prevents a large wholesale shredding of the Constitution.
> ...


 

I agree with the rest of your post. However, private sales, is not illegal and I don't think it should be. It's kind of like asking a person who owns firearms to become a FFL to sell any of those firearms. If they want to require the new owner to registor the firearm then okay, I think that should be between the new owner and the law, but not me as the one selling the firearm. Kind of like selling a car, the last owner is not the one who switches the title or registration, the new owner is.


----------



## 8654Maine (Jan 2, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> Coming back onto full topic
> 
> 
> I believe the 2nd Amendment was created in part to act as a check against the government and its agents so they would not attempt to enrode the rest of our rights. Although it seems some of our rights have been chipped away the point I make is that the 2nd Amendment prevents a large wholesale shredding of the Constitution.
> ...


 

Short and succinct.
Absolutely agree.


----------



## JBS (Jan 2, 2013)

Forget Gun Control; New York Needs To Ban Subway Trains:

http://news.yahoo.com/woman-stumbles-falls-nyc-subway-tracks-dies-015953787.html

*Yet Another victim stumbles, falls on NYC subway tracks, dies*


> NEW YORK (AP) — New York City police say a young woman stumbling around on a Manhattan subway platform not far from Times Square fell onto the tracks and was killed by a train.
> 
> The accident happened at around 5 a.m. on New Year's Day at the No. 2 line station on 34th Street and Seventh Avenue. That's one stop from where revelers gather in Times Square to see the ball drop.
> Police say the victim was in her 20s. Her name wasn't immediately released.
> ...


 
That's an average of about* 50 people killed per year*- rivaling the number of children killed by assault rifle mass shootings in America in the past *20 years.*


----------



## PACMan (Jan 2, 2013)

Blizzard said:


> Between 2010 and 2011 alone, China saw at least 7 school attacks, none using a gun, that left at least 21 dead and 90+ injured.
> 
> When you have societal issues or mental issues and there is will, there will alsways be a way.
> 
> *Sadly, it's only a matter of time before one of these animals takes "inspiration" from some methods that have long plagued the Middle East*.


 
Imagining the horror of someone strapping themselves with a suicide vest and walking into a crowded mall, theater, school, gov't facility..etc etc. You're exactly right though, it's not a matter of IF but WHEN is it going to happen.


----------



## pardus (Jan 2, 2013)

JBS said:


> Forget Gun Control; New York Needs To Ban Subway Trains:
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/woman-stumbles-falls-nyc-subway-tracks-dies-015953787.html
> 
> ...


 
The MTA was offered FREE glass walls and automatic opening doors for subway platforms in NYC, in exchange for free advertising. The MTA ignored it. 
The head of the MTA is now running for mayor of NYC...


----------



## AWP (Jan 2, 2013)

I'm not going to plow through all of the data, but crime in the US has declined by 15.5 percent since 1992. There wasn't a major acceleration with the passing of the AWB in 1994, trended up from 2004-2007, and then began to decline again. You could make an exceptionally weak argument that the passing of the AWB saw a reduction in crime and the repeal saw an increase...but that's laughable.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

Here's 2011's data for murder victims from 2007-2011:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

and 2006-2010:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

Shotguns outnumbered rifles as murder weapons. Handguns were a clear "winner" here. Even if you factor in the "Unknown" weapons, knives and cutting instruments came in second place every single year. Rifles actually DECLINED during this period. along with other weapons. Percentage rates of murder victims by rifle:
2006 - 4.28
2007 - 3.04
2008 - 2.67
2009 - 2.55
2010 - 2.75
2011 - 2.55

So, yeah..."assault rifles" are a clear problem in our society and a threat to our safety. 

Justifiable homicide by private citizens:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc....-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-15

Rifles were consistently at the bottom, percentage wise.

Violence commited with firearms, 2007-2011:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-7

Guns are almost always used in crimes, but we don't know how many crimes were stopped or the loss mitigated by an armed private citizen.

So...how does an assault weapons ban save lives?


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 2, 2013)

pardus said:


> The MTA was offered FREE glass walls and automatic opening doors for subway platforms in NYC, in exchange for free advertising. The MTA ignored it.
> The head of the MTA is now running for mayor of NYC...



So your choice is between MTA and Bloomberg?  

Hmmm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 2, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> I'm not going to plow through all of the data, but crime in the US has declined by 15.5 percent since 1992. There wasn't a major acceleration with the passing of the AWB in 1994, trended up from 2004-2007, and then began to decline again. You could make an exceptionally weak argument that the passing of the AWB saw a reduction in crime and the repeal saw an increase...but that's laughable.
> 
> http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1
> 
> ...



Let's not cloud the issue with facts...


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 3, 2013)

Totentanz said:


> Let's not cloud the issue with facts...


 
Facts of course confuse those who use emotion rather than logic. The only thing we who believe in gun rights should do is fight this anti-gun agenda with everything we have. There is no reasoning with them. I have tried many points of logic and all I get in return is "guns R bad blah blah blah". Any new AWB must fail and be defeated before they are signed into law. The focus needs to be on felons and those who are mentally unstable. There are common sense (technically making new laws by adding onto exsisting laws) rather than "new" laws.


----------



## RetPara (Jan 4, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> .... *There is no reasoning with them. I have tried many points of logic and all I get in return is "guns R bad blah blah blah".* ...


 
I don't discuss gun control with my daughter.


----------



## 8654Maine (Jan 4, 2013)

Made the mistake of entering a conversation at work.  Thought one of the nurses (anti) was gonna have a coronary.  "For the children" was her mantra.


----------



## HOLLiS (Jan 4, 2013)

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/...ly-incorrect-truth-about-the-second-amendment

The Bill of Rights are for the individual citizen, they protect them from abuses of the state. The reaffirms that the 2nd Amendment is a individual right. As this film points out, the citizen should be on par with the military when it comes to equipment. It is not however on par. Just as the FED eliminated the balance of power between the states and the Feds in the Mid 1860's, the Feds has been usurping power from the citizens. Our political process was designed with a balance of power, for fear that with out it, our government would do what other governments have done in the past. It would become the all supreme power answerable only to itself. A balance of power preserves the notion of a government of the people. 

The best defense of our freedom is knowledge. Maybe why our education system has been being hammered over the years. Look around the world the most uneducated countries are also the most oppressed countries.


----------



## Blizzard (Jan 4, 2013)

Some more facts to further confuse the issue:

FIREARMS TUTORIAL
In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600.

Of those 31K deaths, nearly 2/3rds were self inflicted (ie suicide). Will gun laws change that statistic in any meaningful way? No.

How does that compare?
FASTSTATS - Injuries
Mortality

All injury deaths
•Number of deaths: 177,154
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 57.7

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
•Number of deaths: 34,485
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.2
All poisoning deaths
•Number of deaths: 41,592
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.5

All firearm deaths
•Number of deaths: 31,347
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2

Leading Causes of Death in the U.S.
•Heart disease: 599,413
•Cancer: 567,628
•Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
•Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
•Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
•Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
•Diabetes: 68,705
•Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
•Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
•Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

The interesting thing is that many crime statistics show an overall decline and is near historical lows:
FBI: Violent crime rates in the US drop, approach historic lows - U.S. News


> Violent crime rates in the U.S. are reaching historic lows, according to new FBI data released Monday.
> 
> Instances of murder declined overall by 1.9 percent from 2010 figures, while rape, robbery and aggravated assault declined by 4 percent nationwide, according to records from more than 14,000 law-enforcement agencies around the country...
> 
> According to FBI analysis, the homicide drop would mean that nearly 280 fewer Americans were murdered last year, which would be the lowest homicide death toll since the mid-1950s.


 
So, considering the information above, the focus on guns as the problem appears very much misplaced.

As further evidence to this and as a testament as to the effectiveness of a weapons ban, read the following WT article based on a report from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ):
Washington Times: NIJ Report - Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence


> “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence...
> 
> ...It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence. Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement"


 
One last piece of evidence to consider - homicide rates worldwide in 2010:

Sorted by Rate per 100,000





Sorted by actual count




Explore on your at:
UNdata | record view | Intentional homicide, number and rate per 100,000 population
(Note: I filtered by date - 2010, to make it managable; then sort by rate (descending), count (descending), and country)

What is the relationship between Russia and Brazil? How about Mexico and Pakistan? South Africa and Columbia? U.S. and Venezula?

All this seems to point to a greater underlying societal/mental health issue or perhaps a dark side of human nature. As our society grows and technology evolves, we are more connected and in tune to issues than we've ever been before. Thus, our visibilty/awareness of such violence is greater.


----------



## Rapid (Jan 4, 2013)

Here's some further ammo to use against the anti-rifle crowd (no pun intended).

A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=96


----------



## Arrow 4 (Jan 4, 2013)

JAB said:


> I agree with the rest of your post. However, private sales, is not illegal and I don't think it should be. It's kind of like asking a person who owns firearms to become a FFL to sell any of those firearms. If they want to require the new owner to registor the firearm then okay, I think that should be between the new owner and the law, but not me as the one selling the firearm. Kind of like selling a car, the last owner is not the one who switches the title or registration, the new owner is.


I agree. The fact is that ATF was supposed to not keep permanent records of NCIC's checks, but have already been caught keeping them well past what the law allows. We should all be concerned when the govt. does not follow the law...or when they pick and choose what laws they will enforce such as some of the immigration laws. This gives them the opportunity to use political idealology to impose their will instead of using simply using existing laws. The Federal Govt. has already exempted it's self from too many laws, such as the case with labor laws, they have also given themselves their own benefit/medical/retirement packages that would make the richest CEO's envious. It's time they play by the same rules as the rest of the country.


----------



## Rapid (Jan 4, 2013)

I don't think deciding who to sell to based on just a 'gut feeling' is very wise at all (only because there are always idiots who screw up, or others who can use it as a loophole). I think one should at least be responsible for requesting some form of _basic_ background check from an individual who wants to buy your gun (at the buyer's expense, if there is any at all). Otherwise, nothing stops someone from just supplying a bunch of high-powered weapons to gang-bangers or drug dealers (and other people who shouldn't have access to them). And if they're caught, they can just say, "Oops, I didn't know." The killers might be the ones pulling the trigger, but, unless stolen, it was a seller who allowed those guns to get into their hands.

At the very least, I think people should keep a receipt and a copy of a simple background check, not only to prove that it's no longer their gun but also that they did their duty to check on who they were supplying. No registration with the police/government is required for this, and no one except people who are already exempt from ownership would be affected.


----------



## Rapid (Jan 5, 2013)

Oh, and here are some more facts to 'cloud' the minds of the extreme, anti-gun people crowd. A lot of them seem to have a very short memory and are especially showing a negative bias towards rifles because they’re experiencing a 'recency effect' from the tragedy at Sandy Hook. I thought I'd personally collect and analyze some wider data on rifles in the U.S. and their association with rampage killers, and school/workplace killers.

I decided to go back as far as 1980, a third of a century, to be thorough enough while being contemporarily relevant. The statistics show that pistols and shotguns have consistently proven themselves far more deadly and popular over the entire period covered. Rifles, simply put, played a much smaller role in these killings. They were beaten in every single category.

"Luby's massacre" was the deadliest shooting rampage in American history (24 killed) until the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre (32 killed). Both were committed with handguns. Before that, the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre also saw 21 people die in an attack where the perp used a semi-automatic, 9mm Uzi (or in other words, a clunky pistol with a high cap mag - certainly not an actual submachinegun or even a rifle).

Let’s start the statistics with general *rampage killers *(this section does not include school massacres or workplace killings, which form their own categories below).

Total number of people killed across all weapon types: 198

Total number of people killed by shotguns or pistol-type weapons: 142
Total number of people killed by semi-auto rifles: 56

Average number of deaths in sprees where shotguns or pistol-type weapons were used: 13.2

Average number of deaths in sprees where semi-auto rifles were used: 7

Highest number of deaths in sprees where shotguns or pistol-type weapons were used: 24

Highest number of deaths in sprees where semi-auto rifles were used: 12


Full list of massacres and details follow:

Luby's massacre (1991). 24 dead, pistols.

San Ysidro McDonald's massacre (1984). 21 killed, semi-automatic 9mm Uzi (or in other words, a clunky pistol with a high cap mag - certainly not an actual submachinegun or even a rifle).

Binghamton shootings (2009). 14 killed, pistols.

The Batman cinema massacre in Aurora (2012). 12 killed, semi-auto rifle.

GMAC massacre (1990). 9 killed, M1 rifle.

101 California Street shootings (1993). 9 killed, pistols.

Westroads Mall shooting (2007). 8 killed, AKM rifle.

Carl Robert Brown (1982). 8 killed, shotgun.

Carthage nursing home (2009). 8 killed, shotgun & pistols.

Seal Beach shooting (2011). 8 killed, pistols.

Larry Gene Ashbrook (1999). 7 killed, pistols.

Terry Ratzmann (2005). 7 killed, pistols.

Colin Ferguson (1993). 6 killed, pistol.

Jared Lee Loughner (2011). 6 killed, pistol.

McCarthy, Alaska - Louis D. Hastings (1983). 6 killed, semi-auto .223 rifle.

Lynwood Drake (1992). 6 killed, pistols & shotgun.

Chai Vang (2004). 6 killed, 7.62 rifle.

Capitol Hill massacre (2006). 7 killed, shotgun & pistol.

Crandon, Wisconsin shooting (2007). 7 killed, semi-auto .223 rifle.

Kirkwood City Council shooting (2008). 7 killed, pistols.

North Hills, Raleigh, shooting (1972). 3 killed, semi-auto rifle.

IHOP shooting (2011). 5 killed, semi-auto AK-type rifle.

Collier Township shooting (2009). 4 dead, pistols.


---

Next: *school shooters*.

Total number of people killed across all weapon types: 116

Total number of people killed by shotguns or pistol-type weapons: 72
Total number of people killed by semi-auto rifles: 44 (half accounted by Sandy Hook alone)

Average number of deaths in sprees where shotguns or pistol-type weapons were used: 9

Average number of deaths in sprees where semi-auto rifles were used: 8.8 (3.4 without Sandy Hook)

Highest number of deaths in sprees where shotguns or pistol-type weapons were used: 32

Highest number of deaths in sprees where semi-auto rifles were used: 27 (6 without Sandy Hook)


Full list of massacres and details follow:

V-Tech massacre (2007). 32 killed, pistols.

Sandy Hook (2012). 27 killed, mostly with .223 semi-auto rifle.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold – Columbine (1999). 8 killed, pistol-carbine & shotgun.

Jeff Weise (2005). 9 killed, pistols & shotgun.

Oikos University shooting (2012). 7 killed, pistol.

Cleveland School massacre (1989). 6 killed, semi-auto rifle.

Northern Illinois University shooting (2008). 5 killed, shotgun & pistols.

Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden (1998). 5 killed, semi-auto rifles.

Charles Carl Roberts (2006). 5 killed, pistol, shotgun & bolt-action rifle.

Kip Kinkel (1998). 4 killed, semi-auto rifle.

Lindhurst High School shooting (1992). 4 killed, shotgun.

Charles Andrew Williams (1986). 2 killed, pistol.

Tyrone Mitchell (1984). 2 killed, semi-auto .223 rifle.

---


Finally: *civilian workplace rampages*.

Total number of people killed across all weapon types: 88

Total number of people killed by shotguns or pistol-type weapons: 67
Total number of people killed by semi-auto rifles: 21

Average number of deaths in sprees where shotguns or pistol-type weapons were used: 8.4

Average number of deaths in sprees where semi-auto rifles were used: 7

Highest number of deaths in sprees where shotguns or pistol-type weapons were used: 14

Highest number of deaths in sprees where semi-auto rifles were used: 8


Full list of massacres and details follow:

Patrick Sherrill (1986). 14 killed, pistols.

Mark O. Barton (1999). 12 killed, pistols.

Standard Gravure shooting (1989). 8 killed, semi-auto AK-type rifle.

Hartford Distributors shooting (2010). 8 killed, pistols.

Richard Farley. 7 killed (1988), shotgun & pistols.

Xerox murders (1999). 7 killed, pistol.

Wakefield massacre (2000). 7 killed, semi-auto AK-type rifle, shotgun, pistol.

Jennifer San Marco (2006). 7 killed, pistol.

Lockheed Martin shooting (2003). 6 killed, shotgun.

John Felton Parish (1982). 6 killed, M1 carbine.

Minneapolis workplace shooting (2012). 6 killed, pistol.

---







And that brings us to a wrap. All the data used here is verifiable through various public sources. As usual, you can see that the extreme anti-gun crowd is so rabid that they don’t realize that they’re barking up the wrong tree. As these statistics show, banning rifles would do pretty much nothing. Pistols and shotguns have proven to be just as deadly, and, actually, have consistently shown themselves to have been responsible for more deaths than rifles in all categories (both in averages and in max figures) over the past 33 years.

Even if a rifle ban stopped one person from legally obtaining a rifle, and somehow they weren’t able to get one illegally, they would just move to pistols or shotguns instead… and their actions would be just as deadly, as history shows. I think a lot of this can be explained by something I posted a while ago:

These shooters are mostly looking for a target where the response time will be at least a few minutes+. Does it really matter if they've got an assault rifle or a pistol? 30 round mags or 7 round ones? It might take a bit longer to reload, but it won't really matter when they've got plenty of time to kill dozens of people before the police even arrive. A pistol might not have as much firepower, but again, it doesn't matter as much if they're unopposed. They can just fire off a few more rounds per target, and they'll still get the job done. Just pack more ammo and magazines.

Rifles, evidently, don't seem to change the game that much for these shooters because the main advantage of a rifle is its firepower in combat. Yet most of these cowards shoot themselves before the police even arrive or can stop them. What they're doing is more like shooting fish in a barrel, so it doesn't matter _that much_ if it's with a rifle or a pistol (you have to be careful with statistics, though these ones all point to a clear answer).

Finally, I think it's important for me to acknowledge all the victims involved in the shootings I've named. I don't want to be part of a culture where people are more interested in the killers/killing sprees than the victims themselves, so let me say 'rest in peace' to all those who were caught up in these tragedies.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 5, 2013)

My latest missive to the folks in Washington:



> As an active police sergeant with more than twenty years of service and a
> United States Army veteran I have taken an oath to protect and defend the
> Constitution of the United States several times. In your capacity as an
> elected representative--my voice in Washington--you have also taken a
> ...


----------



## Rapid (Jan 5, 2013)

More people need to see some of the statistics behind these mass murders. Then they'll realize that no amount of banning certain features, or rifles altogether, will limit these tragedies. The rifle has a really bad image right now, and people need to be set straight. It's groups like the NRA who should be making these arguments. Are there actually any major, pro-gun groups who are using modern, forward-thinking rhetoric to get through to the population? The NRA's stance doesn't really sway people who are undecided on the issue. I mean, the NRA is great, but it represents people who are already very pro-gun. I think one of the biggest dangers to gun ownership is this vacuum of any kind of major group who can get through to the uninformed, undecided people with simple facts and strong arguments (can't argue with that)... yet the anti-gun movement is very good at getting through to many of those people (by using bullshit). Seems like a pretty big danger to me.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 5, 2013)

Rapid said:


> More people need to see some of the statistics behind these mass murders. Then they'll realize that no amount of banning certain features, or rifles altogether, will limit these tragedies. ...


 
But therein lies the trap.  They'll say, "yes, your right, and your own statistics show that that *the only way to prevent this type of gun crime is to ban all private gun ownership*, which is where they ultimately want to take it.  So don't fall for it; instead of showing statistics that show only different types of gun crimes, which will only lead even a reasonable person to conclude that "all guns are bad," we need to frame the discussion by showing 1) how guns help prevent crime and 2) what weapons, accidents, and medical conditions kill more people every year than guns, and 3) (probably should be #1) explain why the individual right to keep and bear arms is so important both now and in the long term.  

We need to get away from discussions about certain features of weapons, and why some guns are not as bad as others, and concentrate on the reasons people need to have guns, and are allowed to have guns in the first place.


----------



## Rapid (Jan 5, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> But therein lies the trap. They'll say, "yes, your right, and your own statistics show that that *the only way to prevent this type of gun crime is to ban all private gun ownership*, which is where they ultimately want to take it. So don't fall for it; instead of showing statistics that show only different types of gun crimes, which will only lead even a reasonable person to conclude that "all guns are bad," we need to frame the discussion by showing 1) how guns help prevent crime and 2) what weapons, accidents, and medical conditions kill more people every year than guns, and 3) (probably should be #1) explain why the individual right to keep and bear arms is so important both now and in the long term.
> 
> We need to get away from discussions about certain features of weapons, and why some guns are not as bad as others, and concentrate on the reasons people need to have guns, and are allowed to have guns in the first place.


 
I did foresee that, but that's where you can point to the 2nd amendment. The anti-gun movement know they can only work on this by gradually chipping away at gun rights, and that they don't have a chance of abolishing the 2nd A. in one blow. They target assault rifles to begin with -- and that's where you can use the statistics to show them, 'no, you can't do that because it doesn't make any sense'.

The only thing they could retort is that guns should be banned altogether, but again, that can't/won't happen (not in one feel swoop anyway). Neither would it stop most gun _crime_, since there are already too many guns in circulation. At the very best, it would just put a dent in 'spur of the moment' killings. That's hardly worth it for the downsides: innocent people not being able to defend themselves, thus an increase in other types of crimes.

You have to be careful with how you present statistics, but I'm fairly confident there's always a way to make them work for you if you avoid the pitfalls.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 6, 2013)




----------



## policemedic (Jan 6, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


>


 
That young Corporal represented the issue, himself, and the United States Marine Corps very well.


----------



## Rapid (Jan 6, 2013)

Agreed -- and more people need to do so. It's also an example of a situation where it can help to know the facts behind these gun crimes. The ditzy news anchor used two recent shootings involving rifles as an argument for "CHANGE!" against assault rifles, yet she's completely oblivious to the wider history of these types of shootings. I think she would've been flustered if he would've pointed out that assault rifles are actually a minority problem in these shootings (on top of his argument that this shit just happens and more people should be armed).

Good on him for standing up and speaking out. Like I said, the more people doing so the better. Did you see that shit-eating grin where she just sniggers and dismisses what he says about the Constitution at the end? I'm sure it took a lot of restraint to not just flat-out call her a dumbass.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 6, 2013)

I like how she just brushed off the David Gregory comment.  She didnt want to go there LOL. Dumb ass.


----------



## CDG (Jan 8, 2013)

Apparently the Bank of America seems to feel that it can freeze accounts based on personal opinions. Not sure if this is true or not, but if it is, then I hope BoA gets hammered by a judge.

"Bank of America has reportedly frozen the account of gun manufacturer American Spirit Arms, according to its owner, Joe Sirochman.
In a Facebook post dated December 29, Sirochman wrote the following:
“My name is Joe Sirochman owner of American Spirit Arms...our Web site orders have jumped 500 percent causing our Web site e-commerce processing larger deposits to Bank of America. So they decided to hold the deposits for further review.
“After countless hours on the phone with Bank of America, I finally got a manager in the right department that told me the reason that the deposits were on hold for further review -- her exact words were -- ‘*We believe you should not be selling guns and parts on the Internet*.’”(emphasis added)"

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwy...un-manufacturers-account-company-owner-claims


----------



## pardus (Jan 8, 2013)

Bank of America are very anti gun, they can go fuck themselves, they'll never see a dime of my money.

http://www.examiner.com/article/att...k-of-america-closes-account-with-manufacturer


----------



## Yoshi (Jan 8, 2013)

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/alex-jones-piers-morgan-video-140201992.html

Alex Jones gives a few good points in between his ranting and raving about New World Order. Piers seemed to be a little hurt when told he fled from the UK . I wish this guy would go back to his crappy television shows and stay out of the media.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 8, 2013)

A certain state may be proposing that all guns owners date be made public. I'll go find a source. Stand by.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 8, 2013)

When are they going to post the personal info of people on antidepressants and people who have STDs?  I say lets go for broke on this.  Everyone in the pool!


----------



## AWP (Jan 8, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> When are they going to post the personal info of people on antidepressants and people who have STDs? I say lets go for broke on this. Everyone in the pool!



A public list of gun owners, those on anti-depressants, and those with STD's?

http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/members/


----------



## talonlm (Jan 8, 2013)

What?  No map?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 8, 2013)

there you go


----------



## AWP (Jan 8, 2013)

High five, Ranger. MS Paint FTW.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 8, 2013)

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/7_craziest_gun_laws_in_america/

*1. Five states allow students to carry concealed guns on college campuses     *
A March 2012 Colorado Supreme Court decision held that the University of Colorado could not ban students and employees with state-issued concealed weapon permits from carrying guns on campus. The decision overturned the university’s long-standing gun ban. While school policy prohibits guns at ticketed athletic and cultural events, Boulder and Colorado Springs’ campuses now designate dorms for permit-carrying students. (Guns are still banned in other dorms). “Not a single student has asked to live where guns are allowed,” the Denver Post reported last month.
In September 2011, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued a similar ruling, allowing guns on campuses throughout the Oregon University system.
Wisconsin passed legislation in 2011 allowing college students in the University of Wisconsin school system to bring a concealed weapon on campus grounds, parking lots and “other spaces that aren’t enclosed,” according to the Wisconsin State Journal. The school can prohibit guns in buildings, but only if signs are posted at each entrance.
A law passed by the Mississippi State Legislature in 2011 broadly extended the places where concealed weapons are allowed, including college campuses, secondary schools, courthouses, polling locations, churches, bars and passenger terminals of an airport – places previously off-limits. This year, the University of Mississippi, which previously required students to leave guns in their vehicles, began allowing students to bring concealed weapons on campus, provided they have a concealed weapons permit and take an 8-hour training course.
Utah grants the least discretion: Since 2004, the state has prohibited any public college or university from banning concealed weapons, as campuses are considered state property.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 9, 2013)




----------



## 8654Maine (Jan 9, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> youtube video


 
That was awesome.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 9, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> *1. Five states allow students to carry concealed guns on college campuses *


 
This is a perfect example of the media cherry-picking information. I guarantee they looked up info on the escalation of gun violence relating to these kind of laws. The problem? There hasn't been any escalation in gun violence:

Since the fall semester of 2006, state law has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of the nine degree-offering public colleges (20 campuses) and one public technical college (10 campuses) in Utah. Concealed carry has been allowed at Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) since 2003 and at Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA) since 1995. After allowing concealed carry on campus for a combined total of one hundred semesters, *none of these twelve schools has seen a single resulting incident of gun violence (including threats and suicides), a single gun accident, or a single gun theft*. Likewise, none of the forty ‘right-to-carry’ states has seen a resulting increase in gun violence since legalizing concealed carry, despite the fact that licensed citizens in those states regularly carry concealed handguns in places like office buildings, movie theaters, grocery stores, shopping malls, restaurants, churches, banks, etc. Numerous studies, including studies by University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, University of Georgia professor David Mustard, engineering statistician William Sturdevant, and various state agencies, show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes.​http://concealedcampus.org/common-arguments/#1​​So what they probably did is see that nothing has happened in these schools, refused to acknowledge that, & instead say “Not a single student has asked to live where guns are allowed.” 

It would be so refreshing to have a debate on this topic if the other side argued from something other than emotion. I'm sure there are some of them out there, but I haven't come across them yet. My first semester of college I had a debate on the topic of concealed carry on campus & not a single one of the arguments put against my position had any grounding in logic.

It's sad, because while I am strongly pro-2nd Amendment, there are some arguments that could be brought against our position worth debating. I still think we have the high ground at the end of the day, but it would be refreshing to have an informed debate on the topic. Ideally, that debate should happen BEFORE legislation is under way to infringe on our rights.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 9, 2013)

So I signed one of the petitions on that "We The People" website. The petition was "When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too". 
Look what I got in my email today. So nice of Jay Carney to get back to me.


> _By Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary_
> Thank you for participating in We the People to speak out on an issue that matters to you.
> Let’s not let arguments over the Constitution’s Second Amendment violate the spirit of its First. President Obama believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. However, the Constitution not only guarantees an individual right to bear arms, but also enshrines the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press -- fundamental principles that are essential to our democracy. Americans may disagree on matters of public policy and express those disagreements vigorously, but no one should be punished by the government simply because he or she expressed a view on the Second Amendment -- or any other matter of public concern.
> We recognize that the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, sparked an intense, and at times emotional, national conversation about the steps we can take as a country to reduce gun violence. In fact, your petition is one of many on the issue, and President Obama personally responded by sharing his views on this important issue.
> ...


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 9, 2013)

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/NY-s-Cuomo-proposes-gun-ammo-clip-restrictions-4178048.php

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is proposing to close loopholes on a state ban on assault weapons and ammunition clips that carry more than 10 bullets in this third State of the State speech.
According to information provided before the speech, Cuomo's gun proposal would also require follow-ups for owners of handgun licenses to make sure they are still qualified to possess a gun based on criminal and other records.


----------



## RetPara (Jan 9, 2013)

*Biden suggests White House could act without Congress as part of gun control plan*

*Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/09/vice-president-to-meet-with-gun-safety-groups/#ixzz2HVYtEoQV*








*Biden is either throwing out a trial balloon or once again showing major symptoms of "Cranial Rectal Inversion" or "Podiatry Dental Syndrome."*


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 9, 2013)

The President is considering using Executive Orders on the issue of gun reform. Is that legal to do? What effect would it have?

I don't like the White House acting without Congress. This doesn't sound like the checks and balances I've come to read in history.


----------



## AWP (Jan 9, 2013)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/u...bama-bypass-congress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



> For Mr. Obama, that meeting was a turning point. As a senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush for flouting the role of Congress. And during his first two years in the White House, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Obama largely worked through the legislative process to achieve his domestic policy goals.
> 
> But increasingly in recent months, the administration has been seeking ways to act without Congress. Branding its unilateral efforts “We Can’t Wait,” a slogan that aides said Mr. Obama coined at that strategy meeting, the White House has rolled out dozens of new policies — on creating jobs for veterans, preventing drug shortages, raising fuel economy standards, curbing domestic violence and more.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 9, 2013)

There are things he can do with an EO that could circumvent the process and ultimately curtail the 2nd Amendment as we have come to know it. For example, he couldn't outlaw guns or ammo, but he could make it such an administrative PITA, or could tax the shit out of it, to the point where people get tired of dealing with it. Over time, the number of people who remember "how it used to be" will dwindle, and there will be less resistance to other, more lasting measures.

Generally speaking, you can't put money or manpower against Executive Orders, but you can do a hell of a lot inside those parameters.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 9, 2013)

In the spirit of the new direction of the administration I wished to be addressed as "Comrade Chopstick" from this day forward.  (yes I said forward)


----------



## JBS (Jan 9, 2013)

I fear we are all about to be faced with having to make choices we will not want to be forced into.

An Executive Order will cause unrest. It's about to get real if they try.

I am just imagining having to register rifles as Class III. Or magazines as Class III . It's inconceivable to me.


----------



## Scotth (Jan 9, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> The President is considering using Executive Orders on the issue of gun reform. Is that legal to do? What effect would it have?
> 
> I don't like the White House acting without Congress. This doesn't sound like the checks and balances I've come to read in history.


 
He would be limited in scope for what he could do. He certainly couldn't re-institute the AWB through executive order. He probably could issue changes to things like how the government conducts background checks and when or stop the sale of excess brass that reloaders like to use. On the plus side for him he could implement the changes quickly but on the other side of the coin they can just as quickly be terminated by the next President. The rules could be challenged by congress which could be hard to beat with the Democratic Senate but it's possible. There is always the possibility of a court challenge depending on what he tries to implement.

Right now it feels more like posturing for his base and telling the Republican we better talk about this issue or else.

For me I think the NRA and Republican's should be talking non-stop about mental health as the cause of these tragedies. As long as they are talking about guns they are losing. Behind the scenes they should be talking about stiffer penalties and more enforcement for straw buyers and closing the gun show loop whole as alternatives to an AWB. Going with a change nothing position is a losing position.

Republican's may block all legislative action but they will pay for it at the ballot box in '14.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jan 9, 2013)

Scotth said:


> ...For me I think the NRA and Republican's should be talking non-stop about mental health as the cause of these tragedies. As long as they are talking about guns they are losing...


 
Find myself partially agreeing with Scotth here. 

But while we are talking about mental health, the glorification of killing that is so prevalent in movies, video games, TV, and music also needs addressing.  Guns are no more so responsible for the killing of man than the spoon is for making overweight people obese.


----------



## Scotth (Jan 9, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> Find myself partially agreeing with Scotth here.
> 
> But while we are talking about mental health, the glorification of killing that is so prevalent in movies, video games, TV, and music also needs addressing. Guns are no more so responsible for the killing of man than the spoon is for making overweight people obese.


 
Exactly, when people on a TV show says they used a Bushmaster as multiple tragedies, the gun rights advocate should be interrupting, politely of course, and redirecting the discussion towards whatever was the particular malfunction for that shooter. Like you said it doesn't have to be a singular cause. The important point they should be constantly making is in each tragedy there was an underlying problem that was driving these people. Addressing that underlying cause is what is going to stop future tragedies and those are the real answers the American people are looking for.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 9, 2013)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> ​So what they probably did is see that nothing has happened in these schools, refused to acknowledge that, & instead say “Not a single student has asked to live where guns are allowed.”


 
Or ignore the fact that as a general rule that pistol owners have to be 21+ and as such are usually already out and about on their own rather than staying in a dorm, instead spinning a useless fact as though it actually means something.


----------



## Brooklynben (Jan 9, 2013)

*http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...rt-in-new-york-city-is-best-in-114-years.html*

*Obama’s 81% Support in New York City is Best in 114 Years*

CRAP!  I guess there really is no hope for this wonderful place.  It may be time for me to get serious about moving.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 9, 2013)

http://news.msn.com/us/harvard-professors-call-for-substantial-new-tax-on-guns-ammo




> A group of Harvard professors is calling for a new national tax on all firearms and ammunition as part of a comprehensive strategy to curb gun violence in America.
> 
> The experts note that hefty taxes on tobacco products have funded anti-smoking campaigns and helped to drastically reduce the prevalence of cigarette smoking in the U.S. in the past few decades. Likewise, they say, a“substantial” national tax on all firearms and ammunition “would provide stable revenue to meaningfully target gun violence prevention.”
> 
> ...


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 9, 2013)

Firearms= smokes


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 10, 2013)

Mom who shot intruder inspires gun control foes
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/09/3175167/mom-who-shot-intruder-inspires.html#storylink=cpy

LOGANVILLE, Ga. -- A Georgia mother who shot an intruder at her home has become a small part of the roaring gun control debate, with some firearms enthusiasts touting her as a textbook example of responsible gun ownership.
Melinda Herman grabbed a handgun and hid in a crawl space with her two children when a man broke in last week and approached the family at their home northeast of Atlanta, police said. Herman called her husband on the phone, and with him reminding her of the lessons she recently learned at a shooting range, Herman opened fire, seriously wounding the burglary suspect.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/09/3175167/mom-who-shot-intruder-inspires.html#storylink=cpy


----------



## AWP (Jan 10, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> Mom who shot intruder inspires gun control foes


 
No, no, no...these are isolated cases, Comrade and as such must be discarded from any discussion on gun control. Now, the tragedy at Sand Hook reflects the real mentally of gun owners and as such should dominate the discussion. For the Children! For the Children! For the Children!


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 10, 2013)

Tough Path for Ban on Assault Guns Shifts Obama’s Focus

WASHINGTON — While President Obama pledged to crack down on access to what he called “weapons of war” in the aftermath of last month’s schoolhouse massacre, the White House has calculated that a ban on military-style assault weapons will be exceedingly difficult to pass through Congress and is focusing on other measures it deems more politically achievable

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/u...et-with-gun-advocates-including-nra.html?_r=0


----------



## JBS (Jan 11, 2013)

So where will they strike first?  Primers? Brass?  HiCap mags?  Or is this like when POTUS said he wouldn't sign the NDAA Indefinite Detention of Americans By Decree Without Charge Or Trial Act. Then he signed it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/01/03/ndaa-obama-indefinite-detention_n_2402601.html

Is this like feigning vulnerability?   Whatever the case,  our rights and liberties are being toyed with.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 11, 2013)

My opinion is they will go after new background checks (criminal & mental) requiring any sell, transfer and current ownership to register in a national firearms registry (something like NFA). I think they will limit the sale of ammunition and require special reporting on sales over X amount of ammo in Y specific time period. I think they will require the registration (something like NFA) of hi-cap magazines, AR/AK type rifles/pistol (listing them as military small arms & equipment). And I think they will do it all by executive order/policy.

They will expect the challenge in the congress and SCOTUS, so they will try to get major retailers on board (hints the reason Dicks sporting goods and Walmart were part of the Joe Biden talks). They will also look to fuck with FFL’s on review of license, changing requirements, making it too hard to get an FFL.

They will start trying to go after ammunition components (powder and primers) apply new regulations, registration and licensing. Thus affecting the control, sale and tax on the components and actual cartridges. Probably associating it with current explosive material control laws/regs.

I think it will be a wide sweep all at once approach much like Obama used during the affordable healthcare act, the green energy push, etc.

What do I think we can do to limit/reduce the affects? State level government all the way. Each state is going to have to challenge the federal government on many levels. States will have to declare things like Firearms Freedom Acts and general states rights/10th amendments grounds arguments, etc. It will probably further inflame the secede movements in several states and further the political discourse between the liberal and conservative states/federal government.

In other words this will be the next step/push towards our second civil war.


----------



## JBS (Jan 11, 2013)

What a worthless Congress we have.   

And this is what happens when we lose a generation or two to strictly brain junk food like reality TV and when we tolerate 2 decades of  failing schools with no quality History programs,  and a Liberal sanitization of the events surrounding the Founding of the country.  All those dumb flunkie kids have grown up and become voters.   That,  combined with flooding our nation with uncommitted,  unintegrated foreigners lacking knowledge of- or love for -the principles of our Constitution,  and we have a radically different composition as a national cross section.  Our population has changed. Our values have eroded and the numbers of people who want to rely on government for nearly everything is now becoming the majority.   

We will become a corrupt 3rd world hole within another decade if this continues.  We are divided,  dumber than ever as a whole,  completely broken at the borders,  bleeding out our once-distinct national identity and replacing it with a confusing mass of ignorance, 3rd world ideas ( demanding to be seen as equals) together with a uniquely American material-obsessed stupidity.  All the while our traitorous politicians just keep endlessly promising to supply the needs of a gullible emasculated population with the attention span of a fruit fly.


----------



## compforce (Jan 11, 2013)

And everyone's bestest friend (sarcasm!) had this to say...
NSFW - Language





 



Reactions like his will only enable Obama to go after the whole martial law thing and extend his stay in power


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 11, 2013)

compforce said:


> And everyone's bestest friend (sarcasm!) had this to say...
> NSFW - Language
> 
> 
> ...


 

Can any of the LEO's answer this?  Would this online statement not be considered a terrorist threat and substantiate this guys arrest?


----------



## AWP (Jan 11, 2013)

James Yeager everybody, pro-gun's Diane Feinstein.

What a fucking crackhead. Someone tell his doctor that the meds aren't working.


----------



## Arrow 4 (Jan 11, 2013)

RackMaster said:


> Can any of the LEO's answer this? Would this online statement not be considered a terrorist threat and substantiate this guys arrest?


 In my opinion this does not constitute a threat as defined by most statutes...I don't think it is specific enough (Not any one person or person(s) or groups named in the threat. Let's face it, there are a whole lot of people who agree with what he said, we just wouldn't post it on FB, and the fact that this guy is a weenie doesn't help.


----------



## JBS (Jan 11, 2013)

LOTS of people are thinking that way.

That said, Yeager is a terrible representative for the Pro Constitution movement for many reasons, not the least of which is irresponsible hip-shooting speech.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 11, 2013)

"We must learn to defend all our personal resources with reason, clarity and the kind of effective persuasion that wins friends, rather than alienating them. For this, no group is more helpful than the Advocates, which teaches independent thinking coupled with empathy and tolerance for others."

-- Tonie Nathan, first Libertarian Party vice-presidential candidate (1972), and first woman in American history to receive an electoral college vote.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 11, 2013)

TOLEDO, Ohio –  A rural school district in Ohio is drawing attention with its plans to arm a handful of its non-teaching employees with handguns this year — perhaps even janitors.
Officials say four employees in the Montpelier schools have agreed to take a weapons training course and carry their own guns inside the district's one building.
Superintendent Jamie Grime (GRIM) said Friday that "it's kind of a sign of the times."
The Toledo Blade reported that the employees were janitors. School officials would tell The Associated Press only that they were employees who don't directly supervise students and volunteered to carry a gun.
The move comes as districts and lawmakers across the nation weigh how to protect students following the December school massacre in Newtown, Conn.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/1...some-non-teaching-staffers-with-guns-perhaps/


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 11, 2013)

Wow..I got a letter back from Senator Toomey.  He even electronically signed it in his handwriting..although you cant see it on my copy and paste.   I know its probably the generic response as I never actually mentioned Newtown in my correspondence,  but I do like his point about mental illness.



> January 11, 2013​​Dear {insert Chopstick's real name here},​Thank you for contacting me about the killings in Newtown, CT. I appreciate hearing from you.​Like all Americans, I was horrified and sickened to learn about the mass murder in Newtown, CT on December 14, 2012. As you know, Adam Lanza murdered 26 people that day, including educators and young children at Sandy Hook Elementary School and his mother at her house, before committing suicide. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and the families who were affected.​In response, we need to come together as a nation, carefully reflect on what happened, and have a thoughtful dialogue on how we can improve public safety and protect our children. Of note, this atrocity in Newtown was the direct result of serious mental illness - something we have consistently observed in other mass killings over the years. We therefore need to better protect ourselves from mentally ill individuals who seek to carry out such atrocities. We also need to review and improve how we take care of the mentally ill. I therefore value your input on this issue and look forward to Congress debating which policies should be implemented to improve public safety.​Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.​Sincerely,​​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## AWP (Jan 11, 2013)

Was there any doubt about the outcome?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/politics/guns-nbc/index.html?hpt=hp_t1



> *Washington (CNN)* -- No employees of NBC will face criminal charges over the display of a high-capacity ammunition magazine on a "Meet the Press" program in violation of local law in Washington, prosecutors told the network on Friday.


It reminds of the Rick James segments on the Chapelle Show. That's crazy, I'd never break the law in the pursuit of my agenda. (cut) Yeah, I broke the law to pursue my agenda. Ratings are a helluva drug.


----------



## Hillclimb (Jan 11, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Wow..I got a letter back from Senator Toomey. He even electronically signed it in his handwriting..although you cant see it on my copy and paste. I know its probably the generic response as I never actually mentioned Newtown in my correspondence, but I do like his point about mental illness.


 
Have you tried calling before?

Our Senator Patty Murray will personally take calls from veterans which is neat, or maybe you have to tell her secretary you were a vet/she had nothing to do that day, not sure. All I know is a friend called to speak about Jon Hammar(Marine incarcerated in Mexico), and she took time out of her day, put everything on hold, and discussed it with him.

I would call her to talk about gun control, but the NRA rates her 

F: True enemy of gun owners' rights. A consistent anti-gun candidate.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 11, 2013)

Hillclimb, yes actually I have dealt with our House Rep, Tim Murphy's office previously and you can just call up or stop in and they help you out. Ive never contacted Senator Toomey's office before so I was surprised to get an email telling me they got my email..then that second one I posted. People shouldnt hesitate to contact their elected reps. After all they work for us. (in a perfect world)


ETA I just saw this on Huff. I wonder cant believe they actually printed this. LOL.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...maing-grid7|maing10|dl1|sec1_lnk2&pLid=256270



> "I don't want to lose a vote on this," said one progressive gun control advocate. "If we go too soon and we lose a vote then we are fucked."


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 11, 2013)

This kid did a pretty good job ass-raping Piers Morgan's entire argument.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/LJdhAm_oUUs

Every time PM is faced with an argument that decimates his own, he redirects the debate by saying "well let's talk about..." It's a cowardly way to debate a topic.

It was nice to see someone actually bring up the Constitution in all this, since that should be the focal point in the whole debate.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Jan 11, 2013)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> This kid did a pretty good job ass-raping Piers Morgan's entire argument.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/embed/LJdhAm_oUUs
> 
> ...


 
That was amazing.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 12, 2013)

Sen. Feinstein's new fan site: http://senatorfeinstein.com/


----------



## AWP (Jan 12, 2013)

That is gold, Totentanz. The only way to beat that is for the police to find the hooker after you leave the country...


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 12, 2013)

Totentanz said:


> Sen. Feinstein's new fan site: http://senatorfeinstein.com/


Apparently he has registered the domain for Barbara Boxer as well.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jan 12, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> James Yeager everybody, pro-gun's Diane Feinstein.
> 
> What a fucking crackhead. Someone tell his doctor that the meds aren't working.


 
James Yeager has been a crackhead for years E; he is Nucking-Futs.


----------



## Worldweaver (Jan 12, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> James Yeager has been a crackhead for years E; he is Nucking-Futs.


...and now he's MSN's new poster child for the "pro-gun" crowd.


----------



## Rapid (Jan 12, 2013)

The anti-gun crowd/media love Yeager. They can paint the dumbass as a paradigm for gun ownership -- and the average, uninformed person will really believe that. What do you think when you see Yeager, even if you don't know the full extent of his cowardice? "Dickhead." Now that's what other people will think/remember when they hear "pro-gun".


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 12, 2013)

Yeager's CCW permit has been suspended. LOL


----------



## JBS (Jan 12, 2013)

JAB said:


> Yeager's CCW permit has been suspended. LOL


Appropriate, in my opinion.


----------



## Hillclimb (Jan 12, 2013)

JBS said:


> Appropriate, in my opinion.


 
If we could suspend his ability to breath or talk, it would be even more appropriate.


----------



## AWP (Jan 12, 2013)

JAB said:


> Yeager's CCW permit has been suspended. LOL


 
Is this recent, because if it is the YT video should be awesome?

"Argh! Whargarbl!!! Freedom! They took my rights! I'll kill you! Whargarbl!!!"

The good news is that if the authorities ever go to arrest him, it will be an easy collar: his getaway vehicle will have the parking brake set.


----------



## Queeg (Jan 12, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> The good news is that if the authorities ever go to arrest him, it will be an easy collar: his getaway vehicle will have the parking brake set.


 
Oh no you didn't!


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 12, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Is this recent, because if it is the YT video should be awesome?
> 
> "Argh! Whargarbl!!! Freedom! They took my rights! I'll kill you! Whargarbl!!!"
> 
> The good news is that if the authorities ever go to arrest him, it will be an easy collar: his getaway vehicle will have the parking brake set.


http://www.wbir.com/news/article/24...ndgun-carry-permit-after-making-video-threats



> A West Tennessee man can no longer legally carry a a handgun, after he made threatening posts on the internet site YouTube.
> The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security announced Friday that they had suspended James Yeager's handgun carry permit.
> Yeager, 42, of Camden, posted videos claiming he would "start killing people" if the Obama administration took executive action to pass gun control measures.


----------



## AWP (Jan 12, 2013)

God, I don't believe in you, but if you're out there and made this happen?

You fucking ROCK!

Please, please, please, PLEASE let there be a follow on video from Parking Brake.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 12, 2013)

He has 2 other viedos where he is backpedaling.  Pack your bags Pt 1, 2 & 3. He is fucked and he knows it.


----------



## JBS (Jan 12, 2013)

What a moon rock. How do you not see that coming from a mile away? He had to know you can't just threaten people or make dangerous remarks without repercussions.

Only the Black Panthers and other friends of the Administration can do that.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 12, 2013)

Hey, moon rocks are cool. Don't insult them by association :)


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 12, 2013)

I really do believe he has a mental condition of some sort. I've been saying it for years, normal people don't act like that once they have grown up. That said I hope they destroy him, his comments were way out of line and with the amount of followers he has its possible that some crazy ass starts killing people because Yeager said to. 

I have mixed feelings about it. Legally he did not break any laws that I can think of. Ethically he fucking should be burnd at the stake for being so stupid,  inflammatory and possibly putting people at risk. I hope they dissolve his company,  lock his ass up until he is treated and destroy all of his internet content. 

Wishful thinking I know, but I can have my dreams.


----------



## JBS (Jan 12, 2013)

JAB said:


> I really do believe he has a mental condition of some sort. I've been saying it for years, normal people don't act like that once they have grown up. That said I hope they destroy him, his comments were way out of line and with the amount of followers he has its possible that some crazy ass starts killing people because Yeager said to.
> 
> I have mixed feelings about it. Legally he did not break any laws that I can think of. Ethically he fucking should be burnd at the stake for being so stupid, inflammatory and possibly putting people at risk. I hope they dissolve his company, lock his ass up until he is treated and destroy all of his internet content.
> 
> Wishful thinking I know, but I can have my dreams.


You don't have to break the law to lose your permit in most states. You just have to lose the confidence of the Sheriff or issuing agency and they can at any time withdraw consent for the privilege.  I know you know that, just saying.

In a high profile situation like this, numbnuts was begging for it, and somewhere there was a Sheriff that had to own it.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 12, 2013)

I don't disagree with his.permit being pulled at all. I think however,  that it's pointless unless they get this guy admitted to a mental health facility and have him checked out. Everyone knows my stance on gun laws, I think most are pointless at best. But here there is obviously someone who has irrational reasoning, after working as a police officer, and who not only owns several firearms but a training business as well. And the best they can do is suspend his ccw permit? He should haven been taken into custody under crisses intervention grounds and cleared or admitted by a doctor immediately.  This is exactly where the system is failing. Not magazine capacity or types of firearms. Crazy people not being felt with correctly. Sorry if this post is all f'ed up, I'm on my phone.


----------



## AWP (Jan 12, 2013)

JAB said:


> He has 2 other viedos where he is backpedaling. Pack your bags Pt 1, 2 & 3. He is fucked and he knows it.


 
Those are hilarious, especially bringing out the lawyer.

What a tool.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 12, 2013)

He's setting himself up as a martyr for the lunatic fringe.

If he does down in a blaze of glory, "fighting 'the man' when they came for his guns,'* he will be a far-right folk hero and all of the other bad shit he has done will be forgotten.  






*AKA, "came to arrest him because he's batshit crazy and a threat to himself and others"


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 12, 2013)

JBS said:


> You don't have to break the law to lose your permit in most states. You just have to lose the confidence of the Sheriff or issuing agency and they can at any time withdraw consent for the privilege. I know you know that, just saying.
> 
> In a high profile situation like this, numbnuts was begging for it, and somewhere there was a Sheriff that had to own it.


 
Basically known as the "Naked Field" test.  You could be the best person in the town, upstanding citizen, volunteer for all sorts of stuff, and have no criminal record.... but if you show up one night naked in a field howling at the moon... yeah.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 12, 2013)

This one time, at band ca...ummm, shit. Never mind.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 13, 2013)

Google news: Proposed guns laws on "high capacity magazines" are being put forth. :wall:


----------



## JBS (Jan 13, 2013)

Most of what I have read says anything more than 10 rounds.


----------



## AWP (Jan 13, 2013)

I can see a magazine restriction being passed and not an AWB. Not that I support that, but I can see it happening as a back room compromise.

This issue's so emotional it can go in any direction.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 13, 2013)

I found this article interesting.
http://freebeacon.com/comcasts-pro-gun-policy/


> The NBC Sports Network, a subsidiary of the communications giant Comcast, is helping to sponsor the largest gun trade show in the country despite anti-gun rhetoric on the NBC family of television networks, including a controversial monologue by one of its sports announcers.
> NBC Sports is listed as one of the primary sponsors of the 2013 SHOT Show, which takes place Jan. 15 to18 in Las Vegas and bills itself “the world’s premier exposition of combined firearms.”
> Comcast, which owns NBC Universal and its affiliated networks, including NBC Sports Network and the liberal news channel MSNBC, is involved with Vice President Joe Biden’s gun violence task force.
> Comcast’s lobbying chief, David Cohen, along with cable, broadcast, and movie industry trade groups, met Thursday with Biden to discuss ways to reduce gun violence in America. Cohen was a prominent bundler of donations to President Obama.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 13, 2013)

(Reuters) - Gun rights groups on Sunday forecast that bids to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips would fail in Congress, as Vice President Joe Biden prepares this week to give President Barack Obama proposals to curb gun violence.
Even some congressional Democrats indicated that a bill to revive the U.S. assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 would have a difficult time winning passage in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and Democratic-led Senate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/13/us-usa-guns-congress-idUSBRE90C0DK20130113


----------



## policemedic (Jan 13, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> I can see a magazine restriction being passed and not an AWB. Not that I support that, but I can see it happening as a back room compromise.
> 
> This issue's so emotional it can go in any direction.


 
Personally, I'm hoping that if anything goes through at all it's the universal background checks, enhanced and mandatory penalties, and other strategies that don't reduce availability of guns, ammo, or standard capacity magazines to law abiding citizens.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 13, 2013)




----------



## JBS (Jan 13, 2013)

That second chart is extraordinary.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 14, 2013)

These stats are fairly old but are pretty interesting and it wouldn't surprise me if they are using our laws/stats to "justify" the changes.



> *Firearms: Canada/United States Comparison*
> 
> 
> The rate of crime involving firearms is much lower in Canada than in the United States.
> ...


----------



## AWP (Jan 14, 2013)

Another article on gun buyback programs...this from the USA Today of all publications.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/12/gun-buybacks-popular-but-ineffective/1829165/



> Spread across tables or piled high into overflowing stacks, all those weapons reinforce the notion that trading cash for guns works. It gets guns off the street, organizers say, and makes the city safer.
> The problem, according to years of research, is that it does neither.


----------



## Hillclimb (Jan 14, 2013)

Because gun buy backs specifically target criminals, and remove guns from their hands. :wall:


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 14, 2013)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/14/cuomo-new-york-guns/1833271/

ALBANY, N.Y. — New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo detailed his proposal to bolster New York's gun laws Monday night, with a full ban on assault weapons slated to take effect as soon as it is passed.
Both the Senate and Assembly are expected to vote on the proposal late Monday night.
Cuomo's bill — named the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, or NY SAFE — would enact a number of new measures, including a ban of all magazines that hold more than seven rounds and universal background checks for all gun sales, regardless if they are private, person-to-person sales.


----------



## pardus (Jan 14, 2013)

Fuck New York.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 14, 2013)

pardus said:


> Fuck New York.


 
I know 2 Marines. One moved out of NY and one that might due to stupid shit like this.


----------



## pardus (Jan 14, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> I know 2 Marines. One moved out of NY and one that might due to stupid shit like this.


 
I'm done with this place. I will not register or hand in ANYTHING.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 14, 2013)

pardus said:


> I'm done with this place. I will not register or hand in ANYTHING.


 
From what I read if you don't they throw you in the house with Bubba.

Where I live (name withheld) isn't much better.

Now more than ever Americans must contact their elected officials to curb any further infringement on their rights.


----------



## AWP (Jan 15, 2013)

I hope our children don't hate us for the world we're leaving to them.


----------



## pardus (Jan 15, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> I hope our children don't hate us for the world we're leaving to them.


 

I'm concerned they will look at gun owners in the future like people look back on the KKK now.


----------



## Hillclimb (Jan 15, 2013)

pardus said:


> I'm concerned they will look at gun owners in the future like people look back on the KKK now.


 
Well.. if youtube is still around, then with people like James Yaeger, they just might.


----------



## compforce (Jan 15, 2013)

Beck is over the top so often, and occasionally completely inaccurate, that it requires separate research to fact check him, but he does have some decent food for thought.  In this video (watch the video, don't just read), I believe he may have it exactly right. 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...un-control-make-no-mistake-a-fight-is-coming/

I don't have any of the secondary effects, such as family members, to worry about.  That said, I don't believe that armed insurrection is preferable or even necessary to destroy a gun ban of any kind.  The way to win this argument is simple economics.  Current estimates are that 75-80 million people in the US legally own a firearm.  What kind of financial burden would it put on the courts if they had to literally try each case...and how many of those cases would be thrown out of court for violation of due process as the wait times for trials began to meet delays?  How many judges and attorneys would be taken out of the system as gun owners themselves?  Where would you put all the people found guilty?  How much more backed up would the court system get as the appeals process continued to stack up?  On the civil side, how many lawsuits would the US have to settle for wrongful imprisonment once the ban was reversed?  We know that most people that have served in the military along with many family members are willing to fight and die for what we believe in.  It's part of the job description.  It's also true that financial impact provides much more leverage with governments than individual deaths, even in large numbers.  There are other options that will, in the end analysis, be much more effective in eliminating a ban than to simply pick up our guns and fight it out.


----------



## Gypsy (Jan 15, 2013)

pardus said:


> I'm done with this place. I will not register or hand in ANYTHING.


 
I thought you lost everything in a boating accident.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 15, 2013)

*New York (CNN)* -- Lawmakers in New York are poised to pass a new set of gun laws intended to fortify the state's assault weapons ban, limit the number of bullets in magazines and strengthen laws that keep the mentally ill from firearms.
If passed, it would be the nation's first gun control bill since last month's massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, where a gunman killed 27 people, including 20 children.
New York's GOP-controlled Senate overwhelmingly approved the measure in a 43-18 vote late Monday night, one week after Gov. Andrew Cuomo spelled out tough new gun control proposals in his annual State of the State address.
Cuomo, a first-term Democratic governor, called for a tightening of the state's assault weapons ban, background checks for people who purchase guns in private transactions and more restrictions on high-capacity magazines.
A Democratic-controlled Assembly, which has been largely in favor of tight gun laws, is expected to pass the measure Tuesday afternoon.
The tentative deal would include a statewide gun registry and add a uniform licensing standard across the state, altering the current system, in which each county or municipality sets a standard.
Residents would also be restricted to purchasing ammunition magazines that carry seven bullets, rather than 10. It remains unclear what effect the measure will have on the state's already stringent approach to gun control.
"The changes in New York are largely cosmetic," said CNN Legal Contributor Paul Callan, who described New York's existing firearms regulations as "the toughest gun laws in the United States."
"The one change that arguably will have the greatest impact is the amendment to Kendra's Law, which will permit closer monitoring of the mentally ill," he said.
That 1999 law grants New York judges the authority to require residents to undergo psychiatric treatment if they meet certain criteria.
The proposed measures would extend Kendra's Law through 2017, expand outpatient treatment from six months to one year and require reviews before such treatment is allowed to end. Authorities could suspend or revoke licenses based on those reviews by mental health professionals.
The bill would also create mandatory life sentences for anyone who murders certain first responders, a provision that comes after two firefighters were killed in a shooting ambush as they battled a blaze in the town of Webster in upstate New York.
The vote coincides with a series of recommendations put together by Vice President Joe Biden meant to address the nation's gun violence.
Lawmakers in at least 10 other states are reviewing some form of new gun regulations in the new year.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/us/new-york-gun-bill/?hpt=po_c1


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 15, 2013)

SAN ANTONIO -- A homeowner shot two men, killing one, when he heard someone breaking into his SUV.

It happened on Lightstone Drive near Stone Oak and Hardy Oak Boulevard shortly before 2 a.m. Police say the owner of a parked SUV heard someone attempting to break into it. That's when, according to police, he went outside and spotted someone inside his vehicle. 

As he approached the vehicle the owner thought he spotted a gun. The SUV owner then fired at the suspect, hitting him one time in the upper torso. Police say the getaway driver then sped off. The SUV owner fired through the windshield killing the driver.

As of now, the owner is said to not be facing any charges because he was defending his property. The second suspect was taken to SAMM-C in critical condition.

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story...TXvVLo1xw.cspx


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 15, 2013)




----------



## Chopstick (Jan 15, 2013)

I hope alot of officials send letters to Joe Biden like this guy did.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 15, 2013)

South Carolina proposes nullification:http://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=224&session=120&summary=B


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 15, 2013)

That LEO in Org and S.C are doing it right. One must fight infringments on our rights. The Founding Fathers knew that a well armed people are the key to a free people.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jan 16, 2013)

Good for SC...and for me


----------



## policemedic (Jan 16, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I hope alot of officials send letters to Joe Biden like this guy did.
> View attachment 7604


 
I don't know anything about life in Oregon, or the Linn County Sheriff's Office.  But I'd work for that guy in an instant.  Wonder if he's hiring


----------



## policemedic (Jan 16, 2013)

ThunderHorse said:


> South Carolina proposes nullification:http://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=224&session=120&summary=B


Awesome.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 16, 2013)

> Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 7:30 pm | _Updated: 10:57 am, Tue Jan 15, 2013. _
> 
> State Rep. Steve Toth to file ‘firearm protection act’
> 
> ...


----------



## pardus (Jan 16, 2013)

That is fucking awesome. I love Texas and I don't even live there!


----------



## JBS (Jan 16, 2013)

I am going to move my ass to Texas.


----------



## Yoshi (Jan 16, 2013)

JBS said:


> I am going to move my ass to Texas.


 
Well come on then! We have all types of environments; hill country is nice as well as east Texas with all the trees. I am not too big on the Dallas/Ft. Worth area but to each their own. Also, if you really love the smell of crude in the morning might I suggest Odessa? . In the Houston area we are getting a pretty big influx of gun stores and new indoor ranges. There is a place inside the loop of Houston called Collectors Firearms that has a HUGE weapon selection(they advertise 10,000 guns and accessories on hand).


----------



## CDG (Jan 16, 2013)

Missouri threatens jail time for Feds trying to enforce a gun ban:

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.co...il-time-for-feds-violating-the-2nd-amendment/


----------



## Frank S. (Jan 16, 2013)

Somehow I think we're still going to see shootings big and small, hear political speeches etc. a year or two or three from now. Oh hell, make it ten years. These things happen when the future happens to look bleakest, and that's not gonna change anytime soon.


----------



## Gypsy (Jan 16, 2013)

I heard an interesting statistic that only 17% of the population fought during the Revolutionary War.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 16, 2013)

Gypsy said:


> I heard an interesting statistic that only 17% of the population fought during the Revolutionary War.


 

That's about 15.99999% more than are fighting in our current wars.


----------



## pardus (Jan 16, 2013)

I'm surprised it was as high as 17%


----------



## Frank S. (Jan 16, 2013)

Yeah but... No but... I'm shit at math but 17% of say, like 3 million would amount to what in today's population numbers..?


----------



## Frank S. (Jan 16, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> That's about 15.99999% more than are fighting in our current wars.


 
Nevah mind...


----------



## Red-Dot (Jan 16, 2013)

Georgia was ready as soon as he was re-elected.....

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/is-it-1861-all-over-again-thousands-call-for-georg/nS5rZ/


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 16, 2013)

Breaking new: President Obama Executive Orders re Gun Control.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/16/obama-executive-actions-gun-violence


----------



## AWP (Jan 16, 2013)

Many of those are "so what?" moments to be honest. I think what bothers me the most are the bits in there about doctors asking about guns in the home and the proposed overhaul of HIPAA. Patient-Doctor Confidentiality is about to take a hit.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 16, 2013)

The background check requirement for returning a seized gun is interesting.  The Guardian article said 'full background'; I wonder if that just means a NICS check or something more comprehensive.  

In Philadelphia, the Police Commissioner himself must personally authorize the release of any gun back to its owner once the DA's office advises them that there will be no charges.  In practice, it takes an act of God for many people to get their guns back--and some don't.  I can't imagine how Charles Ramsey will use this EO to further fuck those who justifiably use guns to defend themselves in Philadelphia.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 16, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Many of those are "so what?" moments to be honest. I think what bothers me the most are the bits in there about doctors asking about guns in the home and the proposed overhaul of HIPAA. Patient-Doctor Confidentiality is about to take a hit.


 
I can see many veterans instantly becoming prohibited persons.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 16, 2013)

All these gun law retards have gotten under my skin today, I think it is really freaking sad that we have elected officials who fail to look at or be rational about the facts regarding the AWB and hi-cap magazine topics. I am really fucking tired of explaining it to people and I am really tired of the ignorance people truly have towards the subject.

I am retired now so I can say a few things I have held back on.

Fuck you Obama, you are a fucking disgrace to this country. Take your liberal/progressive ideas and stick them right up your arrogant ass. You want to make me a criminal if I don’t get in line with your ideas? Move your sorry ass to some other country where people have no freedoms and eat a bowl of dicks. I do not want what you are offering, I will not be ruled by you or your stupid ideas, and I will not be made out to be a criminal for believing in my constitutional rights.

To the New Yorkers who just got turned into criminals by their own state government. Sue the fucking shit out of those cock-sucking retards, I mean sue each individual who voted for it, fucking destroy them in court. I would not pick up and move out of my home, leave my state because some cock-suckers in the state government wanted to violate my rights. I would make it my mission in life to ruin each and every one of those assholes. Regardless, Texas (aka Tejas aka “friend”) always welcomes new comers from anywhere. Just leave that liberal/progressive bullshit back home.

To the rest of you anti-gun retards…..suck it.






And now, because I am retired and because I have nothing better to do for the next 2 hours, I will go to the range and shoot my big evil Ar15's, with those evil 30rd magazines, all while watching the rest of the retired guys drool all over my sick ass toys.


----------



## JBS (Jan 16, 2013)

Thank you,  JAB for saying many of the things I want to say.

What I find striking is how the proposals would have prevented diddly squat for the Sandy Hook situation.


----------



## 8654Maine (Jan 16, 2013)

Congrats on the retirement, JAB!


----------



## dknob (Jan 16, 2013)

Come and take them?

Nobody is taking away guns.
They just wont let you buy more ;)

Can't take away something that didn't  belong to you in the first place.


----------



## dknob (Jan 16, 2013)

Um background checks for weapons sales should most definitely include HIPPA information. How many people out there with severe personality disorders qualify for weapons purchases? Probably all of them


----------



## JBS (Jan 16, 2013)

Wait until the ban goes through.   Banning=taking.  

The brand new New York law that says you have 365 days to sell your magazines... to me that is some crazy legislation.  If Paizano told you to do it in 1950's New York,  it. would be organized crime.  "Sell your pizzaria. You have 6 months.  If not I will have no ability to protect you".

We will have to see how similar the Federal ban is going to be,  and how much gets through.


----------



## AWP (Jan 16, 2013)

Things I ponder while on the Porcelin Bowl of Knowledge...

- If we're to believe that "assault rifles" were to blame for Sandy Hook, then the president bears a share of the blame. From Day One, maybe even before his election in '08, he's said his adminsitration would move to reinstate the 94 AWB...but he didn't until now. I understand political capital and the health care issue, but if he was so passionate about it, then why did it take a tragedy for him to move forward?

- RE: The health care debacle. Another emotional issue and how did that pass? Cloak and dagger, middle-of-the-night, "you have to pass it in order to read it" bullshit. The precedent set a few years ago could really bite us in the ass now.

- BAFTE Director: Liberal or Conservative, you have to question an organization which can exist for 6 YEARS with multiple interim Directors. Where else would you find something as absurd? Pro sports teams, business and CEOs, hell, a rental car....who in the world accepts an interim ANYTHING for 6 years? And 4 of those years were under "Mr. Get Tough on Gun Control"? Again, I return to "if this was important, why did it take so long and a tragedy to resolve?"

- The BAFTE is suddenly important again, but what about arming the Mexican drug cartels? These guys are like Ray Lewis: wait long enough and your image will improve.

- We can't help but to spend money. I saw where we're going to borrow against the Federal employee's retirement fund to pay for some things, and now we're going to add more and more Federal spending to combat this evil gun problem? Why isn't anyone asking how we're going to pay for this? It sounds great to say "You will do this check" or "we will train so-and-so..." but all of these extra checks and training are going to cost us what? One group about to be rich are lawyers because how much of this crap will wind up in the court system? I can presume our police and court system are sufficiently caught up to handle the administrative and financial costs of this issue. 

But this is for the children and that's all that matters. "Remember Sandy Hook" is the battle cry for people who don't any better , who think with their hearts, and those rubbing their hands to profit off of you or take something which is yours.

For the children.


----------



## JBS (Jan 16, 2013)

Another nugget: At what point does the NRA hire a platoon of high powered lawyers to codify and establish once and for all for the open-mouth-drooling politicians  the definition of "infringed"?


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 16, 2013)

JBS said:


> Another nugget: At what point does the NRA hire a platoon of high powered lawyers to codify and establish once and for all for the open-mouth-drooling politicians the definition of "infringed"?


 
I hope they use my money because I just joined the NRA today.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 16, 2013)

dknob said:


> Come and take them?
> 
> Nobody is taking away guns.
> They just wont let you buy more ;)
> ...



Do you know the history of that flag?

Believe what you want, history knows better...


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 16, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> Breaking new: President Obama Executive Orders re Gun Control.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/16/obama-executive-actions-gun-violence


All very mild.  Some gun folks will probably blanch at #16 because "OBAMACARE!!!!1!!!!" but no mention of an AWB or magazine bans is a good thing, from where I see it.


----------



## Scotth (Jan 16, 2013)

JBS said:


> Wait until the ban goes through. Banning=taking.


 
Banning doesn't equal taking.

When the last AWB was passed in '94 nobody went door to door taking guns.

There isn't going to be any AWB signed into law at the federal level now and I will give anyone 5-1 odds who thinks it will pass. An AWB will never even see a floor vote in the House and I will happily take bets on that point as well.(at 1 to 1 odds though) (PS all wager opportunities expire in 1 week)

What gun rights people fail to see is politics is 9/10th perception. There is no over whelming support in this country for a new AWB. There is over whelming support to do something. The President is doing something and that is all he has to do because the Republican's are doing nothing and that is going to play right into the Democrats 2014 campaign strategy. Republican's are playing for today and Obama is playing for the mid term election. God forbid there is a shooting just before November of 2014. Nobody is going to like the results of what happens then. Doing something that is least objectionable today might not feel like your wining the battle, but that is how you win the war for gun rights.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 16, 2013)

Texas Gov Rick Perry's response to POTUS new gun control.



> “The Vice President’s committee was appointed in response to the tragedy at Newtown, but very few of his recommendations have anything to do with what happened there.
> 
> “Guns require a finger to pull the trigger. The sad young man who did that in Newtown was clearly haunted by demons and no gun law could have saved the children in Sandy Hook Elementary from his terror.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 16, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> I hope they use my money because I just joined the NRA today.


I renewed mine and Mr. Chopstick's today too.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 16, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I renewed mine and Mr. Chopstick's today too.


 
I'm short of cash so I got one year. Next year I'll aim for a multi year or a Life Membership


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 16, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Banning doesn't equal taking.


 
I disagree because of our governments poor track record of all things. I don't want a ban because a ban infringes, among other reasons, my right under our Constitution. A ban COULD lead to taking if the government choose to use force of arms or force of will (law).


----------



## pardus (Jan 16, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> I'm short of cash so I got one year. Next year I'll aim for a multi year or a Life Membership


 
Have a look at the EPL, that's what I did to become a life member.  https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 16, 2013)

JAB said:


> Do you know the history of that flag?
> 
> Believe what you want, history knows better...


Here, fight the Indians...uh no Indians, give it back.

The way it was explained to me by an ATF agent, the feds don't return weapons, all weapons that are seized are destroyed.  You may get reimbursed but you ain't getting that shit back if you're acquitted.


----------



## Scotth (Jan 16, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> I disagree because of our governments poor track record of all things. I don't want a ban because a ban infringes, among other reasons, my right under our Constitution. A ban COULD lead to taking if the government choose to use force of arms or force of will (law).


 
I agree banning does infringe people from responsibly exercising 2nd Amendment rights.  The history of an AWB and the government going door-to-door isn't there.  Add into the equation the Heller ruling we don't even know if an AWB would stand a court challenge and a door-to-door seizure policy certainly wouldn't stand a court challenge after Heller.  It didn't happen pre-Heller and certainly couldn't happen post Heller.

Anyone that would suggest martial law could be declared and the SCOTUS disbanded etc, etc.  I would have to tell them to put the conspiracy bong back down on the table and then push your chair back.  You've been hitting it a little to hard lately.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 16, 2013)

Scotth said:


> I agree banning does infringe people from responsibly exercising 2nd Amendment rights. The history of an AWB and the government going door-to-door isn't there. Add into the equation the Heller ruling we don't even know if an AWB would stand a court challenge and a door-to-door seizure policy certainly wouldn't stand a court challenge after Heller. It didn't happen pre-Heller and certainly couldn't happen post Heller.
> 
> Anyone that would suggest martial law could be declared and the SCOTUS disbanded etc, etc. I would have to tell them to put the conspiracy bong back down on the table and then push your chair back. You've been hitting it a little to hard lately.


 
Haha. I don't do anything like that!

I have read Heller. Tough and close decision.

You and I are looking at the "slippery slope" argument but differently. I don't what it to happen period. People in power do things.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 16, 2013)

Scotth said:


> I agree banning does infringe people from responsibly exercising 2nd Amendment rights. The history of an AWB and the government going door-to-door isn't there. Add into the equation the Heller ruling we don't even know if an AWB would stand a court challenge and a door-to-door seizure policy certainly wouldn't stand a court challenge after Heller. *It didn't happen pre-Heller and certainly couldn't happen post Heller*.
> 
> Anyone that would suggest martial law could be declared and the SCOTUS disbanded etc, etc. I would have to tell them to put the conspiracy bong back down on the table and then push your chair back. You've been hitting it a little to hard lately.


 
Re: the section in bold.  The AWB grandfathered in all existing "evil" firearms and therefore there was no requirement for door to door.  With the recent shenanigans of the NYS legislature, a new can of worms has been opened.  It might not lead directly to door to door searches, but they've made a large step in that direction.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 16, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> People in power do things.


 
If I may add an addendum: "and they don't tend to "un-do" things...."


----------



## dknob (Jan 16, 2013)

would like to know who will take the weapons from us? police? military? ATF? neighborhood watch? FBI?

None of those agencies working together have that capability much less doing it alone.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 16, 2013)

Totentanz said:


> If I may add an addendum: "and they don't tend to "un-do" things...."


 
True they do. I am wary of those in power. I am wary of those in power for a length of time. The mind becomes complacent. I distrust government passing laws for the sake of....laws. No law will solve this problem. I fear that my state (withheld) will quickly follow suit and pass something similar to NY. Then I need to take a hard look at moving. People in power around here think that written laws are the answer to the ills of society.


----------



## pardus (Jan 16, 2013)

dknob said:


> would like to know who will take the weapons from us? police? military? ATF? neighborhood watch? FBI?
> 
> None of those agencies working together have that capability much less doing it alone.


 
Yeah, I think it would be more a case of "If we find you with one you will be prosecuted for it" rather than a door to door search.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 16, 2013)

dknob said:


> would like to know who will take the weapons from us? police? military? ATF? neighborhood watch? FBI?
> 
> None of those agencies working together have that capability much less doing it alone.


 
The ATF has a history of conducting military style raids where lawful gun owners have been killed. Regardless how you personally feel about Waco, or Ruby Ridge, the facts are what they are. They (the ATF & FBI or federal agents) killed American's due to “gun control” laws.

The US Army & NG along with state & local police illegally seized firearms from lawful gun owners during Katrina.

The comments that “the government is not going to do this or that” being made here are really either ignorant or downright deceptive. It has happened, it has happened several times within our modern (last 30 years) history and if you really believe it will not happen again, you are fooling yourself.

I really wish people would stop making candy-land-utopia comments, do a bit of reading on the history of the issue here in the United States, also on the many other nations that have been destroyed due to this very topic. Slippery slope? We have been on that slope for the last 75+ year’s people. It’s not just fantasy; it’s not some crazy redneck with too much internet time. This is the real-fucking-deal, no shit, we had better open our eyes and do something about it, reality that we are living in today.

“oh it won’t happen, you won’t lose what you have just can’t get new, no need for more than 10 rounds, etc, etc”

Yeah do any of you feel like you are armed well enough to defend against a tyrannical government? How many of you own a machine gun, cannon, tank, etc? Why don’t you? Because your government finds it harder to control you if you have one…

“government of the people, by the people, for the people”

Just as long as those “people” are not as well armed as the government....right.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 16, 2013)

ThunderHorse said:


> Here, fight the Indians...uh no Indians, give it back.


 

Started in the American Revolution when the Brit’s tried to confiscate cannon from the colonist. Than reused again during the Texas war for independence “specifically the battle of Gonzales” when the Mexican Army tried to disarm Texan’s.

In that period the best weapon you could have was a cannon (hints the king of battle), most oppressors knew that removal of cannon, removed the ability to engage in modern warfare.

I won’t go as far to say the AR15 is the modern day cannon, but it’s about as close as you can get currently. Could you imagine what liberals would do if we had civilian owned tanks, war planes, etc?

Either way the ability to resist the government is pretty much gone, low level guerrilla warfare is about it, and even then, pointless without the support of weapons & explosives from another government.

Civil war is another subject all together; state resources are a bit different.


----------



## pardus (Jan 16, 2013)

JAB said:


> Started in the American Revolution when the Brit’s tried to confiscate cannon from the colonist. Than reused again during the Texas war for independence “specifically the battle of Gonzales” when the Mexican Army tried to disarm Texan’s.
> 
> In that period the best weapon you could have was a cannon (hints the king of battle), most oppressors knew that removal of cannon, removed the ability to engage in modern warfare.
> 
> ...


 
The fucked up thing is mate, that we can own tanks, cannons, machine guns and war planes (e.g. a company in Florida just brought the New Zealand Air Force's entire jet fighter wing!). They aren't under attack from the libs, can you fucking work this shit out?


----------



## Scotth (Jan 16, 2013)

Totentanz said:


> Re: the section in bold. The AWB grandfathered in all existing "evil" firearms and therefore there was no requirement for door to door. With the recent shenanigans of the NYS legislature, a new can of worms has been opened. It might not lead directly to door to door searches, but they've made a large step in that direction.


 
Federal vs state, two very different animals and why I directed all my comments towards the fed. Let see what happens in a couple years down the road. After everyone has moved beyond Sandy Hook I'm betting there will be a court challenge especially if they are trying to force people to get rid of there larger clips. Just because a law get passed doesn't mean it is constitutional.

The more I think about it the more I like what NY did.  I don't live there.  They can be the guinea pigs to test the constitutionality of AWB.  If it survives a SCOTUS challenge then my pucker factor will get much higher.


----------



## pardus (Jan 16, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Federal vs state, two very different animals and why I directed all my comments towards the fed. Let see what happens in a couple years down the road. After everyone has moved beyond Sandy Hook I'm betting there will be a court challenge especially if they are trying to force people to get rid of there larger clips. Just because a law get passed doesn't mean it is constitutional.
> 
> The more I think about it the more I like what NY did. I don't live there. They can be the guinea pigs to test the constitutionality of AWB. If it survives a SCOTUS challenge then my pucker factor will get much higher.


 
A, there will be many other 'Sandy Hooks' like it or not.

B, they are magazines, not fucking clips!


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 16, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Federal vs state, two very different animals and why I directed all my comments towards the fed. Let see what happens in a couple years down the road. After everyone has moved beyond Sandy Hook I'm betting there will be a court challenge especially if they are trying to force people to get rid of there larger clips. Just because a law get passed doesn't mean it is constitutional.
> 
> The more I think about it the more I like what NY did.  I don't live there.  They can be the guinea pigs to test the constitutionality of AWB.  If it survives a SCOTUS challenge then my pucker factor will get much higher.


I will cross my fingers but won't hold my breath.  I'll bet this law set off a few light bulbs in the DC area in a bad way.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 16, 2013)

pardus said:


> The fucked up thing is mate, that we can own tanks, cannons, machine guns and war planes (e.g. a company in Florida just brought the New Zealand Air Force's entire jet fighter wing!). They aren't under attack from the libs, can you fucking work this shit out?



Demil'ed tanks and fighters is about the same as having a bulldozer and 2 passanger jet. lol but yeah I agree.


----------



## pardus (Jan 16, 2013)

JAB said:


> Demil'ed tanks and fighters is about the same as having a bulldozer and 2 passanger jet. lol but yeah I agree.


 
We could get them dangerous again


----------



## AWP (Jan 16, 2013)

You don't need tanks, you A-Team up and make a Killdozer.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16611_5-real-world-criminals-who-were-certified-supervillains.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer


----------



## pardus (Jan 16, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> You don't need tanks, you A-Team up and make a Killdozer.
> 
> http://www.cracked.com/article_16611_5-real-world-criminals-who-were-certified-supervillains.html
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer


 

Thank you. I now have a new mission in life.


----------



## Scotth (Jan 16, 2013)

pardus said:


> B, they are magazines, not fucking clips!


 
I'm a public school guy. Your making a pretty big assumption that I can spell "magazine" muchless understand what your saying when were not talking about the swimsuit addition.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 16, 2013)

President Obama has, through these actions, circumvented the natural order of Congress to enact laws (if such laws are able to pass Constituational muster) and the rights of the states to enact laws (re the 9th and 10th Amendments).


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 16, 2013)




----------



## Casimir (Jan 16, 2013)

dknob said:


> would like to know who will take the weapons from us? police? military? ATF? neighborhood watch? FBI?
> 
> None of those agencies working together have that capability much less doing it alone.



I apologize if this has already been replied to and said, hut I'm on my phone and about to go to bed and wanted to soot out this reply right quick. They've done it before during Katrina. The NOPD went on three news and said no one was to be permitted to have a firearm and subsequently went around with the NG and started confiscating firearms. They can do it.

P.s. My phone's browser is being gay as phuck and not letting me go scroll back to fix the autocorrect errors, sorry.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 16, 2013)

Casimir said:


> I apologize if this has already been replied to and said, hut I'm on my phone and about to go to bed and wanted to soot out this reply right quick. They've done it before during Katrina. The NOPD went on three news and said no one was to be permitted to have a firearm and subsequently went around with the NG and started confiscating firearms. They can do it.


That was under Bush so its a totally different ballgame under Comrade Obama.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 17, 2013)

I did some research over the past few days and wrote a lengthy letter to my representatives regarding what I found. I'm guessing it won't get read due to its length but I felt there was a lot to break down and explain. I attached it in pdf.




tl;dr: not much evidence that gun control works.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 17, 2013)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> I did some research over the past few days and wrote a lengthy letter to my representatives regarding what I found. I'm guessing it won't get read due to its length but I felt there was a lot to break down and explain. I attached it in pdf.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
That was awesome.


----------



## dknob (Jan 17, 2013)

Casimir said:


> I apologize if this has already been replied to and said, hut I'm on my phone and about to go to bed and wanted to soot out this reply right quick. They've done it before during Katrina. The NOPD went on three news and said no one was to be permitted to have a firearm and subsequently went around with the NG and started confiscating firearms. They can do it.
> 
> P.s. My phone's browser is being gay as phuck and not letting me go scroll back to fix the autocorrect errors, sorry.


On a NATIONAL basis?!


----------



## policemedic (Jan 17, 2013)

There is a radical difference between the confiscations that took place in New Orleans during Katrina and what would have to be done to accomplish the same thing nationwide.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 17, 2013)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> I did some research over the past few days and wrote a lengthy letter to my representatives regarding what I found. I'm guessing it won't get read due to its length but I felt there was a lot to break down and explain. I attached it in pdf.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Well done Marine!


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 17, 2013)

policemedic said:


> There is a radical difference between the confiscations that took place in New Orleans during Katrina and what would have to be done to accomplish the same thing nationwide.


 

I agree, however, government buy-back across the nation, further restrictions of gun ownership, new laws on the books being enforced over long period of time, along with lack of ability to buy new. It's kind of like the "long war" just on guns. 


What I really cannot understand about this whole debate/argument is why should I be disarmed? Why should I not be able to own an AR15 or a 30 round magazine? What did I do, that warrants the removal of my liberties? Why should I be punished for the crimes of others? How is my community any safer by limiting me to 10 rounds, no AR15, etc?


At the end of the day, it all boils down to lawful gun owners being punished for crimes they did not commit. I am a pretty dumb dude, but I don’t remember reading/learning about how our government is allowed to punish its citizens for crimes they have not committed. As a matter fact, I thought people had to be proven guilty to be punished here…Those silly things like the constitution that separate us from the rest of the world.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 17, 2013)

I liked you





Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> I did some research over the past few days and wrote a lengthy letter to my representatives regarding what I found. I'm guessing it won't get read due to its length but I felt there was a lot to break down and explain. I attached it in pdf.
> ...


 
I liked your paper.  And I love that you provided endnotes with sources.

After a quick reading, I noticed a number of minor errors ("effect" where you should have "affect," "having" instead of "have," etc.).  You may see these as cosmetic, but they detract from the overall message and effect of your paper.  I also thought it was too long for something to send to a Congressman; do you think you could shorten in dramatically and still convey the main points? (maybe it's not possible).

Next time you get ready to send something like this out, consider posting it up here on the site.  I do that quite often, under the idea "none of us are as smart as all of us."  Having more eyes on what you write helps detect errors and provides useful suggestions for improving the overall message.

Again, well done on the paper.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 17, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I liked you
> 
> I liked your paper. And I love that you provided endnotes with sources.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the compliments & critiques. I thought I caught all the errors before I sent it, and am bummed I missed some. That's what I get for rushing things. At the same time I was starting to kick myself for taking away time from Arabic & my senior research project (which I'll be sure to post up for review before turning in).

A friend wants to post it on his blog, so I'll tidy it up for that. I'm also working on a second part analyzing the Constitutional aspect, including Supreme Court decisions (that won't be out for a few weeks though).

I also agree with the length. I wanted to have it around one or two pages, but by the time I finished my rough draft I was close to twenty. I cut out a massive amount, especially where I went deeper into DGUs in regards to their effectiveness reducing home invasions, rape, and robberies. The problem I had was that at face value, to the average fence-sitting citizen unfamiliar with firearms, a lot of the gun control arguments seem logical. Part of this is unfamiliarity with firearms and how to analyze statistics. Short and sweet rebuttals are hard when you have to dissect one statistic into multiple parts (for me at least). 

Thanks again for the comments all. They are much appreciated.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 17, 2013)

Panetta:  "Only Soldier Need Assault Weapons"

http://news.msn.com/politics/only-soldiers-need-assault-weapons-panetta-says




> Defense Secretary Leon Panetta joined the gun control debate on Thursday when he told troops at a military base in Italy that only soldiers needed armor-piercing bullets or assault weapons.
> Asked by a soldier what President Barack Obama would do to protect school children from gun violence without infringing Americans' right to own guns, Panetta said action was needed after the attack on a Connecticut school in December in which a gunman killed 20 children and six adults.
> He told members of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team at Vicenza that there were areas where steps could be taken. "I mean who the hell needs armor-piercing bullets except you guys in battle?," he said.
> In the aftermath of the Connecticut shooting — the latest mass killing in the United States on a list that includes Columbine in 1999 and Virginia Tech in 2007 — Obama launched the biggest gun-control push in generations.
> ...


----------



## pardus (Jan 17, 2013)

Fuck you Panetta you liberal fuckstick.


----------



## 8654Maine (Jan 17, 2013)

Gov't official who doesn't get it.  Wonder of wonders.:wall:


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 17, 2013)




----------



## pardus (Jan 17, 2013)

Great fucking job Ted!


----------



## AWP (Jan 17, 2013)

The only reasons Panetta wasn't booed?
1) He's the SECDEF
2) His audience works for him


----------



## pardus (Jan 17, 2013)

I love doing the *cough* "bullshit" *cough* thing in the Army, always good for a laugh and some dirty looks.


----------



## AWP (Jan 17, 2013)

Supposedly, FL isn't changing state laws anytime soon:

http://jacksonville.com/news/florid...k-scott-wont-propose-changes-florida-gun-laws



> “Gov. Scott supports the second amendment,” a statement sent by Scott’s press secretary, Jackie Schutz, said. “He will listen to ideas about improving school safety during the legislative session, but he continues to support the second amendment and is not proposing any gun law changes.”


----------



## pardus (Jan 17, 2013)

The first thing Florida has to do is to improve it's image after it's failed, "Zombie Friendly Initiative" of May 26 2012.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 17, 2013)

What, if any new laws are acceptable at the federal level?
What can be done to strengthen the current system both in your state or on the federal level?


----------



## policemedic (Jan 18, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Panetta: "Only Soldier Need Assault Weapons"
> 
> http://news.msn.com/politics/only-soldiers-need-assault-weapons-panetta-says


 
SECDEF should stay in his lane.  Message ends.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 18, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> What, if any new laws are acceptable at the federal level?
> What can be done to strengthen the current system both in your state or on the federal level?


 


I think a case can be made for background checks of firearm purchases both from FFL's and private sales. I also think it could be argued that that lies within the bounds of the 2nd Amendment, which should be our main concern. However, I am hesitant to give full support for such a measure because
The number of criminals this would deter seems likely to approach zero
While it may prevent some mentally unstable people from being firearms legally (though it wouldn't stop them from getting the illegally), I fear the parameters for determining who is "mentally fit" to own a firearm might be exploited. We already see politicians stretch the 2nd Amendment to the point of oblivion to further their agenda, so I can only imagine what they would do to whatever guidelines would be given. How many veterans would be denied the right to buy a gun b/c they have PTSD? 
I haven't had the opportunity to research the effectiveness this may have, so until I do I don't feel comfortable recommending it whole heartedly, but I think it's worth discussing and debating.


I do believe that to strengthen our current system the focus needs to be taken off gun ownership and focused in on combating environments that give rise to violent behavior. So we should be looking at our education system, familial situations, poverty, and perhaps changing how we address drugs. Unfortunately, a lot of this would probably entail the government to relax regulations, and I don't see that happening. 
Ideally all this stuff would happen at the State level, where it belongs. This would allow them to tailor their approach based on their own needs and circumstances, as well as making it easier for other States to compare and contrast and recalibrate as they see fit.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 18, 2013)

There was a bill in Congress about 2 years ago that has something about anyone with PTSD would be denied a firearm, or somewhow it would be made tough to obtain one. I don't know the name of the bill or the specific language however the NRA and veterans groups latched onto it as an attack on veterans and their gun rights. I know because I get a number of mass e-mails. The bill died and I'm glad it did.

Yes I want to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people however I am not sure, and I am torn in my heart about the issue of veterans with PTSD not having the ability to own or carry firearms.

EDIT: It was this http://rense.com/general78/vett.htm

Of course at first glance, if you read the whole article, you can see how it was painted.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 18, 2013)

Here is a great site to refer someone to if they are concerned or confused about "assault weapons" and "high-capacity" magazines:

http://www.assaultweapon.info/


----------



## Casimir (Jan 18, 2013)

Chop: I know it was Bush, my point is that there's precedence.

Dknob: yes, I think there is a possibility something could be manufactured and justified to work on a national level. Perhaps not simultaneously, but the end result ultimately being national.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 18, 2013)

Well I am a veteran, I have PTSD and if anyone thinks I am going hand over my guns…well it just isn’t going to happen. You want to stop me from buying guns or ammo? FUCK YOU! My business depends on my ability to buy guns and ammo, just like many other vets who also have PTSD. I mean really, you want to strip my rights to self protection, destroy my small business and put me and my family on the street because I have PTSD? And you think I will go along with that?

I know several dudes who deployed with PTSD to include myself (i.e. carried an Army issue M4, representing the United States government). And I can’t buy one now? Fuck that, fuck anyone who thinks that way, fuck anyone who could justify that in their mind, those motherfuckers are the ones who shouldn’t own guns….leave everyone else the fuck alone (especially the vets).


----------



## AWP (Jan 18, 2013)

Like I posted somewhere earlier, bringing doctors into the process is a bad, bad idea. If a doc thinks you shouldn't have a weapon, does he/ she report it? What criteria are they bound by and how subjective is it? Degrading HIPAA to allow the reporting of mental health issues so your information can be reported to the Feds and what criteria will they use to determine if your mental status allows you to possess a weapon?

Think of the arguments had every time a DSM version is created and that's by mental health professionals...now we're going to involve them (presumably) with politicians to determine the boundaries? PTSD is an anxiety disorder, but anxiety disorders can present as being manic depressive (bi polar). Any mental illness or issue can be managed and the person a productive member of society and some cannot, so how do we draw the line? A gut call by a doc who might be anti-gun? Some type of review board to assess you? Consider anyone with a specific condition to have their rights taken away, no matter how slight that condition may be?

I know some of those are extreme cases, but seriously...this proposal takes us down a path with some profound consequences.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 18, 2013)

There is huge difference between having depression, having heightened alert, standoffish, or anxiety and being criminally insane, homicidal, etc. My issue with a “board” is that most doctors will not step on other doctors toes regarding diagnoses, and or re-diagnoses. Also, with everything, there is going to be a doctor who will lead the board, and that doctor will hold all the cards regarding who and how his opinion is agreed or disagreed with. Furthermore, doctors are not legal rights professionals, they are medical professionals. A doctor has no business determining if someone should or should not maintain their constitutional rights. That is for a court to decide, a judge and a jury, etc.

Fear mongering by all types leads to this kind of crap, “veterans are trained killers, and suffer from X-Y-Z and should not be trusted with guns” is fucking ridicules. Unless that veteran has done something to bring his sanity into question, why would we punish him/her at all? Where is his/her due process? The issue of mental health, as it is being brought forth, has little to do with the 2nd Amendment and much more to do with the 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9th amendments. In other words, it stomps all over most of your rights.

Personally, I think it is disgusting that anyone would expect a person to put a uniform, carry a weapon in the defense of freedom and then strip that veterans rights as they return home, because they are now afraid of them. Fucking cowards.

This is why I do not support any gun control. Where does it end? Regardless if laws are passed to restrict me from possessing a firearm, do you really believe I would not possess one? The laws will do nothing but take me, a law abiding citizen and turn me into a criminal. Forcing me to pick a side, and with my personal experiences of seeing the evil in the world, forcing me to pick the wrong side.

Gun control affects law abiding citizens, not the criminal element. Don’t want crazy people to have guns? How you going to stop it? Make a law? They are fucking crazy, they are not going to follow them. “Oh at least they can’t buy them in a store” so now you take that person and tell them to go buy it off the street, making the crack dealers and gangster more money?

This whole argument of gun control is really fucking retarded. STOP expecting someone else to protect you from evil, and take responsibility for yourself. When you do that, it doesn’t matter who has a gun, what that persons mental state is, or if they are abiding by the law or not.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 18, 2013)

> A doctor has no business determining if someone should or should not maintain their constitutional rights. That is for a court to decide, a judge and a jury, etc.


----------



## JBS (Jan 18, 2013)

We're all talking to ourselves somewhat. The people who voted for our leaders don't give a crap about any of this.

They get their check, their Obama phone, their benefits, their trinket stones and the rest of the country can just go to hell. They really could not be bothered to give a crap in the least about the country, debt, the future, let alone gun rights. I mean show me a prominent Liberal Progressive opinion piece on the subject of unmanageable debt. Show me a Liberal Progressive concerned with the ability of our nation to handle our debt. It's not even a concern, like they don't know where money comes from...

Especially in urban areas, all that matters is access to Starbucks, good television programming, and the rest of the comfort bubble. Otherwise they can't be troubled with such things.  Gun rights?  Lol, what are those even for?  That's redneck talk.

How do you get these issues to become important to smug Liberals with infinite faith in the government?


----------



## Karoshi (Jan 18, 2013)

Casimir said:


> Chop: I know it was Bush, my point is that there's precedence.
> 
> Dknob: yes, I think there is a possibility something could be manufactured and justified to work on a national level. Perhaps not simultaneously, but the end result ultimately being national.


 
Wasn't it actually then Police Superintendent Eddie Compass and Mayor Ray Nagin who authorized the seizures? The same Ray Nagin who was just indicted on 21 federal corruption charges?


----------



## Scotth (Jan 18, 2013)

Get this blunder by New York in there rush to pass a gun law.



> Due to slight oversight in New York’s new gun law, both police and private citizens will be banned from carrying high-capacity magazines.
> According to TV station WABC, the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, which bans magazines that carry more than seven rounds, does not provide an exemption for law enforcement officers, who typically carry handguns with a 15-round capacity.
> The New York Patrolman's Benevolent Association President Patrick J. Lynch said in a press release Thursday that they are "actively working to enact changes to this law that will provide the appropriate exemptions from the law for active and retired law enforcement officers."
> "As with many pieces of new legislation, there is a period shortly after enactment where omissions and unforeseen impacts become apparent that prompt a revision to the law," he said.
> The law takes effect in March. The bill can be read here.


http://news.msn.com/politics/oops-nys-new-gun-law-restricts-police-officers

Everyone of the idiots that passed that law should be forced to wear clown shoes.

I can't wait for this law to work it way through the courts.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 18, 2013)

AAAAAANNNNNND I just got a response from Senator Casey. 


> Dear Mrs. Chopstick:
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## policemedic (Jan 18, 2013)

Casey is an ass.  He needs to learn--as do most politicians--that his opinion is basically irrelevant.  He is there to vote as the majority of his constituents tell him to.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 18, 2013)

policemedic said:


> Casey is an ass. He needs to learn--as do most politicians--that his opinion is basically irrelevant. He is there to vote as the majority of his constituents tell him to.


I agree with you.  I said in my letter I was concerned with infringement of 2nd Amendment rights.  And this is the wishy washy crap he sends back..  Didnt vote for him...wont vote for him.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 18, 2013)

I'm waiting for responses from him...I expect I'll get the same, or just ignored...:-"


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 18, 2013)

policemedic said:


> I'm waiting for responses from him...I expect I'll get the same, or just ignored...:-"


LOL..I cant recall exactly what day I emailed and Im too lazy to go look through my mail but Im sure he will get to you..eventually.  Actually Im surprised that my side of the state got an answer first!


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 18, 2013)

*Fox News poll: Twice as many favor more guns over banning guns to reduce crime*

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ore-guns-over-banning-guns-to-reduce-violent/

Nearly twice as many voters say there would be less violent crime if more law-abiding Americans owned guns, than if guns were banned.
In addition, while American voters generally favor strengthening gun laws, 71 percent do not think tougher laws can stop shootings like the one last month in Newtown, Connecticut. Some 22 percent say new laws can prevent the next Sandy Hook.
These are just some of the findings from a Fox News poll released Friday.
Click here for full poll results.
Majorities of gun owners (81 percent), non-gun owners (58 percent), Democrats (58 percent), independents (72 percent) and Republicans (85 percent) say the people who do these kinds of things “will always find the guns” to commit violent acts.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 18, 2013)

I do NOT know if this story is true or not.


On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness. The following is a portion of the transcript:

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good &evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.
"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best. 

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. 
What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. 
Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts. 

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. 

To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! 

My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"
- Darrell Scott


----------



## CDG (Jan 18, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> post


 
All well and good, but you degrade your credibility by bringing god and religion into an issue like this.  The issue is about better mental health screening and not infringing on the 2nd Amendment.  "Finding god" is irrelevant.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 18, 2013)

Whose credibility is degraded?  It is the opinion of the grieving father of a murder victim (if this is even true).


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 18, 2013)

I'm sure this would the topic of another thread, but I don't think god or religion is necessary for morality. I also don't think school massacres happen because prayer/god was "removed."


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 18, 2013)

Laws? You mean like the ones that say you can't bring a firearm into a federal building? HAH! Those laws are only for you plebs, we in the ruling class do what we like.

http://gma.yahoo.com/photos/virginia-lawmaker-brandishes-ak-47-house-floor-photo-145619174.html




> A Virginia state lawmaker brandished an AK-47 on the floor of the state House of Delegates Thursday.
> Virginia Del. Joe Morrissey, a Democrat hailing from the Richmond area, showed off the weapon while pushing for tighter gun-control laws, The Washington Examiner reported.
> 
> "A lot of people don't know that in many locations in the commonwealth, you can take this gun, you can walk in the middle of Main Street loaded and not be in violation of the law," Morrissey said on the floor, according to the Examiner, assuring other lawmakers that the gun was not loaded.
> ...


I call complete BS on this:


> "Some of my Republican colleagues came up to me today and said, 'I've heard of assault weapons, I had no idea what they're like,'"


If this is true I think the voters in Virginia would very much like to know who they were by name.


And I love how he's brandishing a weapon in public, mag in, bolt closed with his thumb inside the trigger guard and against the trigger.


----------



## AWP (Jan 18, 2013)

The faces are priceless!!!!


----------



## 0699 (Jan 18, 2013)

Virginia is a good state to live in.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 18, 2013)

I would have laughed my ass off if he did a desk pop.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jan 18, 2013)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> I'm sure this would the topic of another thread...


 
I agree!


----------



## JBS (Jan 18, 2013)

Holy Jesus. Fuck if some of us are not fucking it up for all of us.  Sorry about the gratuitous use of foul language but I believe it's situations like this one for which the"f" word was invented. 

He must be the only one in the room qualified enough to handle a gun...


----------



## CDG (Jan 18, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Whose credibility is degraded? It is the opinion of the grieving father of a murder victim (if this is even true).


 
Sorry sir, not yours, his.    Opinions are fine, but if this is true, then he was speaking before a legislative body with the power to propose laws one way or the other.  If you are testifying/speaking in that venue, then it is my opinion that god and religion should be kept out of it and only facts and relevant anecdotes should be presented.


----------



## Casimir (Jan 18, 2013)

It was the  superintendent that announced that 'nobody but the police would have guns'. The 21 indictments were apparently leveled against Mayor Nagin. I should have been more clear, sorry.

http://www.examiner.com/article/former-n-o-mayor-nagin-indicted-on-corruption-charges


----------



## surgicalcric (Jan 18, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> The only reasons Panetta wasn't booed?
> 1) He's the SECDEF
> 2) His audience works for him


 
Good thing I wasnt in the audience then...


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 19, 2013)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/states-propose-gun-control/story?id=18253197

*Some States Propose Gun Control Law, Others Say No To Federal Proposals*



If you're thinking about the many ways this country is divided, look no further than the issue of guns. Since the president laid out his gun control proposals some states are proposing stricter laws while others say they won't enforce federal laws or the president's executive orders.  Some are going a step further, aiming to make it a crime for a federal agent to try and enforce the law in their states.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 19, 2013)

The is an absolutely fascinating youtube video I just found that argues that we are completely ignoring the real issues that give rise to violence in America. It's about an hour of statistics, but it is well worth the viewing.

Takeaway line: "That which harms families harm children; that which harms children harms society."


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 19, 2013)

I was just thinking about what a great smoke-and-mirrors thing this whole gun control debate is for the current administration. They have to know that they are never going to repeal the 2nd Amendment. They also know that in the knee-jerk reaction to these assinine gun laws that are cropping up, much of it isn't going to survive a legal challenge. But they're doing it anyway because 1) it plays very, very well to their base; 2) it serves to divide the country even further; and most importantly 3) it is a complete distraction from the other issues that the opposition would be focusing on if it wasn't fending off this anti-gun business.

Bengazi what? Financial Cliff, who? Budget controversy? War in Afghanistan and Iraq? "Fast and Furious," man why are you bringing up old shit? The issue right now is GUNS.

Bread and circuses...


----------



## AWP (Jan 19, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> But they're doing it anyway because 1) it plays very, very well to their base; 2) it serves to divide the country even further; and most importantly 3) it is a complete distraction from the other issues that the opposition would be focusing on if it wasn't fending off this anti-gun business.
> 
> Bengazi what? Financial Cliff, who? Budget controversy? War in Afghanistan and Iraq? "Fast and Furious," man why are you bringing up old shit? The issue right now is GUNS.


 
Slow down, cowboy. Now you sound like one of them there internet conspiracy theorists. Our government can be trusted. It would never, ever lie to We the People and in no way would any of our policies parallel the great despots of the 20th Century.

(insert maniacal laughter here)


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 19, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I was just thinking about what a great smoke-and-mirrors thing this whole gun control debate is for the current administration. They have to know that they are never going to repeal the 2nd Amendment. They also know that in the knee-jerk reaction to these assinine gun laws that are cropping up, much of it isn't going to survive a legal challenge. But they're doing it anyway because 1) it plays very, very well to their base; 2) it serves to divide the country even further; and most importantly 3) it is a complete distraction from the other issues that the opposition would be focusing on if it wasn't fending off this anti-gun business.
> 
> Bengazi what? Financial Cliff, who? Budget controversy? War in Afghanistan and Iraq? "Fast and Furious," man why are you bringing up old shit? The issue right now is GUNS.


 
4) When defeated by legal challenge, they will simply pass a different unconstitutional law preventing exercise of Second Amendment rights, rinse and repeat.  All of which is funded by the taxpayer's dime.... (see Ezell v. Chicago, which was filed in response to unconstitutional measures adopted by Chicago in the wake of McDonald v. Chicago)


----------



## pardus (Jan 19, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I was just thinking about what a great smoke-and-mirrors thing this whole gun control debate is for the current administration. They have to know that they are never going to repeal the 2nd Amendment. They also know that in the knee-jerk reaction to these assinine gun laws that are cropping up, much of it isn't going to survive a legal challenge. But they're doing it anyway because 1) it plays very, very well to their base; 2) it serves to divide the country even further; and most importantly 3) it is a complete distraction from the other issues that the opposition would be focusing on if it wasn't fending off this anti-gun business.
> 
> Bengazi what? Financial Cliff, who? Budget controversy? War in Afghanistan and Iraq? "Fast and Furious," man why are you bringing up old shit? The issue right now is GUNS.


 
Is anyone even aware that Obama et al have just attacked the 1st Amendment?


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 19, 2013)

The Secret Service gets to decide?  Are those the same Secret Service Agents that party with prostitutes in Colombia?


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 19, 2013)

I just talked with someone who tried to tell me that the phrase "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment grants the President the authority to regulate gun ownership as he deems necessary. 

My reaction:


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 19, 2013)

http://news.msn.com/us/kindergartner-suspended-for-comment-on-toy-bubble-gun

Hey Chopstick, isn't this up in your neck of the woods?




> MOUNT CARMEL, Pa. — A 5-year-old Pennsylvania girl who told another girl she was going to shoot her with a pink toy gun that blows soapy bubbles has been suspended from kindergarten.
> Her family has hired an attorney to fight the punishment, which initially was 10 days but was reduced to two.
> Attorney Robin Ficker says Mount Carmel Area School District officials labeled the girl a "terrorist threat" for the bubble gun remark, made Jan. 10 as both girls waited for a school bus.
> Ficker says the girl didn't even have the bubble gun with her and has never fired a real gun. He says she's "the least terroristic person in Pennsylvania."
> School district solicitor Edward Greco tells pennlive.com that officials are looking into the case. He said school officials aren't at liberty to discuss disciplinary actions.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 19, 2013)

Marauder06.  That is over on the easterly side of the Commonwealth.  People have truly and completely lost their minds.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 19, 2013)

Still "your" state, so still "your" people


----------



## AWP (Jan 19, 2013)

While I'm sure people notice this I know some haven't, in the last 20 years we've had 2 Democrat presidents and both have made a run at the 2nd Amendment.

The GOP would need to put a Klansman or Cobra Commander or something on the ticket in 2016 for me to not vote for him/ her.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 19, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> While I'm sure people notice this I know some haven't, in the last 20 years we've had 2 Democrat presidents and both have made a run at the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> The GOP would need to put a Klansman or Cobra Commander or something on the ticket in 2016 for me to not vote for him/ her.


I would vote for Cobra Commander.
Reed


----------



## Casimir (Jan 19, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> http://news.msn.com/us/kindergartner-suspended-for-comment-on-toy-bubble-gun
> 
> Hey Chopstick, isn't this up in your neck of the woods?


 
:wall::wall::wall::dead:


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 19, 2013)

Marauder06 and Casimir.  Eastern PA and Western PA are two entirely different entities.  Send all hate mail to policemedic and or Firemedic.
Oh and Pennsylvania is not a State.  It is a Commonwealth.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 19, 2013)

Sadly, the witch is right.  Mt. Carmel is about 2 hrs from Philly.  The difference is that here in Philadelphia, the mayor and police commissioner would have ordered a public trial in the city hall courtyard followed by banishment from the land.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 19, 2013)

policemedic, I just got my second email from Casey.  Same as the one I posted.  I guess I got yours?


----------



## policemedic (Jan 19, 2013)

Nah, he's just blasting them out.  I got the same load of horse crap.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 19, 2013)

policemedic said:


> Nah, he's just blasting them out. I got the same load of horse crap.


policemedic I know for a fact that our tax dollars are being wasted.  I have gotten 4 friggin copies of that lame ass email!


----------



## AWP (Jan 19, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I know for a fact that our tax dollars are being wasted. I have gotten 4 friggin copies of that lame ass email!


 
One for each of your personalities?

:-"


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 19, 2013)

That's four more replies than I have gotten from anyone in elected office, ever.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 19, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> One for each of your personalities?
> 
> :-"


Get with the program.  Ive got Sybil beat.  They still havent accounted for all of mine.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 19, 2013)

Should I send my letter to Feinstein again...I've gotten nothing from her, Boxer or dear old Grace Napolitano my new congress critter.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 19, 2013)

ThunderHorse said:


> Should I send my letter to Feinstein again...I've gotten nothing from her, Boxer or dear old Grace Napolitano my new congress critter.


 
If you expect to get a reaction out of Feinstein you have to write something that they can use to portray gun rights advocates as crazy anti-women extremists, like when that former Marine sent her his rant.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 19, 2013)

ThunderHorse said:


> Should I send my letter to Feinstein again...I've gotten nothing from her, Boxer or dear old Grace Napolitano my new congress critter.


 
I would however you should also consider banging your head against the wall...you might get the same results 

I have written my same Congressman 3 times and my State Senator twice.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 19, 2013)

Well I told her she didn't represent my views nor the views of many of her constituents. What these idiots fail to realize is that California as much as they've urbanized the South and even places like the Tomato, Fresno, and Bakersfield, it is still the bread basket with tons of cattle and a plethora of foodstuffs going everywhere in this country and across the world. You get out of the south and you are in rural areas everywhere aside from the desert.

I'm from the south though.  Maybe I should ask my mother if I'd received any mail from Feinstein or Boxer.  Doubt it.


----------



## TH15 (Jan 20, 2013)

Seems fitting..



> "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. "
> 
> -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 20, 2013)

TH15 said:


> Seems fitting..


 

What is the sourcing on that?


----------



## TH15 (Jan 20, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> What is the sourcing on that?


That should teach me to copy and paste from a Facebook post.. :wall:

I did a quick search and it appears that the second sentence is a witty fictional addition someone made. Thanks for catching that!


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 20, 2013)

That's the problem, and why we (all of us) have to be on top of these types of things.  If we start trotting out statistics, quotes, or other "facts" that the other side can easily disprove, it makes us look like uninformed assholes makes it that much harder to get our points across.  At the same time, you should factcheck EVERYTHING that comes across from the other side of the argument, and when you find BS, point it out loud and clear.


----------



## JBS (Jan 20, 2013)

TH15 said:


> That should teach me to copy and paste from a Facebook post.. :wall:
> 
> I did a quick search and it appears that the second sentence is a witty fictional addition someone made. Thanks for catching that!


Dangit, that would have been an amazing quote.   Make sure you throw some hate to whoever threw that bait out there.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 20, 2013)

JBS said:


> Dangit, that would have been an amazing quote. Make sure you throw some hate to whoever threw that bait out there.


 
You know another one I wish was true?  The commander of the Japanese forces saying, "You can't invade America, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."  I guess it turns out that there isn't anything solid historically that proves he said it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 20, 2013)

That's why when I see these on Facebook...I google that shit.  The Samuel L Jackson one though...straight TRUF, interview with the LA Times.


----------



## Grimfury160 (Jan 20, 2013)




----------



## Casimir (Jan 21, 2013)

My favorite so far is Jesse Jackson saying an assault rifle can shoot down an airplane Lmfao!
Here's two sources but if you google it there are a plethora of others to verify. What kills me is people will believe this crap.

http://redalertpolitics.com/
http://nation.foxnews.com/jesse-jac...ckson-assault-rifles-can-shoot-down-airplanes


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 21, 2013)

Grimfury160 said:


> View attachment 7675


He shot them on Christmas even.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 21, 2013)

Casimir said:


> My favorite so far is Jesse Jackson saying an assault rifle can shoot down an airplane Lmfao!
> Here's two sources but if you google it there are a plethora of others to verify. What kills me is people will believe this crap.
> 
> http://redalertpolitics.com/
> http://nation.foxnews.com/jesse-jac...ckson-assault-rifles-can-shoot-down-airplanes


 
Well, depending on the "assault weapon" and the kind of airplane, he might be correct!  "Assault weapon" is so broad now it could be anything from a DshK to a Barrett .50 to my Ruger 10/22 (which you couldn't really shoot anything down with... ever...).  Of course, you'd have to hit a plane with it first...


----------



## Casimir (Jan 21, 2013)

He was specifically talking about aurora at the time, so the ar15. Read the article, his quote and the context are priceless


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 21, 2013)

Well Charles Moffett could drop a helo using a Nagant revolver, so clearly an AR is well capable of bringing down a 747...


----------



## Dame (Jan 21, 2013)

A case study in gun phobia: Anyone ever seen these "big guns" that "run around out here" of their own accord?
http://cnsnews.com/node/625231


> *“We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them,” Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) told theCarroll (Iowa) Daily Times-Herald. “We can’t have those running around out here. Those are not hunting weapons. We should ban those in Iowa.”*
> 
> *Staff writer Douglas Burns reported that Muhlbauer supports a statewide ban and a voluntary buy-back plan, “but he would go further if needed” -- and that “the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program.”*
> 
> *“Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Muhlbauer was quoted as saying. “We can’t have those out there. Because if they’re out there they’re just going to get circulated around to the wrong people. Those guns should not be in the public’s hands. There are just too many guns.”*


----------



## Scotth (Jan 21, 2013)

Obviously your not taking an airliner down in mid flight with any type of assault weapon.  Taking off or landing that is a whole different argument if you have a skilled shooter or shooters.


----------



## AWP (Jan 21, 2013)

You could crash an airliner with a well-timed release of pigeons but no one's trying to outlaw them.

The whole "assault rifle vs. airliner" argument is stupid. There are several ways to bring one down without resorting to firearms.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 21, 2013)

Good thing for them that those hijackers on 9/11 had all of those assault rifles on board!  God knows what they would have had to resort to in order to bring down those airliners.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jan 21, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> If you expect to get a reaction out of Feinstein you have to write something that they can use to portray gun rights advocates as crazy anti-women extremists, like when that former Marine sent her his rant.


 
This!!!

If they cant use your words against you and our cause and you didnt leave any loopholes for her to manipulate then chances are you wont hear from her.

I am in the process of writing mine as we speak (just cant get it worded the way I like it) and will let you all know when I hear back.  He has been more than responsive in the past.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 21, 2013)

I hope this isnt a repost. This gentleman really touched me with his speech. He is a Tian'anmen Square "veteran" if you will. If anyone knows the value of the 2nd Amendment, I think he does.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 21, 2013)

lol- that sign says "I wish I had a gun" and it shows a gun standing in front of a column of tanks.  I think I'd be wishing for either a couple of Molotov cocktails or a change of drawers.  All a gun is going to do in that particular situation is get you killed.


----------



## 8654Maine (Jan 21, 2013)

Chopstick, great video.

His speech is spot on.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jan 21, 2013)

Great video indeed.


----------



## Casimir (Jan 21, 2013)

Gave me the chills.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 21, 2013)

That was a good speech.


----------



## Brooklynben (Jan 21, 2013)

'Chopstick' + Chinese Patriot video = Confucius say "Good Stuff"!


----------



## Brooklynben (Jan 21, 2013)

JBS said:


> I am going to move my ass to Texas.


  Well, that makes at least three of us so far.  We should have one hell of a Shoot & Link-Up as soon as each of us has secured a place for our toothbrush.


----------



## 8654Maine (Jan 21, 2013)

Brooklynben said:


> 'Chopstick' + Chinese Patriot video = Confucius say "Good Stuff"!



I'd say he's a US patriot.


----------



## Brooklynben (Jan 21, 2013)

8654Maine said:


> I'd say he's a US patriot.


 Abso-Fing-lutly!    Uh, logically; if he was a ChiCom Patriot - he wouldn't have immigrated to the US to start with would he?  (OK, OK... perhaps as a ChiCom spy.  But if that were so, he wouldn't now be making himself so visible as a protesting patriot.)   Regardless, sorry I wasn't clearer as I tried to include the dumb Confucius bit.


----------



## Dame (Jan 21, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I hope this isnt a repost. This gentleman really touched me with his speech. He is a Tian'anmen Square "veteran" if you will. If anyone knows the value of the 2nd Amendment, I think he does.


Chop, thanks so much for posting that. Brings tears.


----------



## Casimir (Jan 21, 2013)

Brooklynben said:


> Well, that makes at least three of us so far. We should have one hell of a Shoot & Link-Up as soon as each of us has secured a place for our toothbrush.


 
Hell ya, I can throw out the names of several good civilian ranges with a variety of steel and paper targets going from 25 to up to 600 yards here in central


----------



## Casimir (Jan 21, 2013)

I just wanna reiterate something, and I know, I'm preaching to the choir here.

My wife told me today that one of the drivers who works for the restaurant she manages was lured to a home on the pretense of a large delivery order and subsequently held at gun point by an assailant with 'some kind of rifle' while two others stripped him of the food, his work cash, wallet and cell phone. The delivery location was less than 200M from my front door.

Are these dickwads gonna turn in their gear if the AWB passes? I don't think so. So, if anything, my possession of a high quality weapon and accessories and the training and know how to use it properly theoretically gives me a superior edge against these animals should they try to get roudy in my neighborhood. Food for thought for the fucking idiot liberals.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 21, 2013)

Casimir said:


> I just wanna reiterate something, and I know, I'm preaching to the choir here.
> 
> My wife told me today that one of the drivers who works for the restaurant she manages was lured to a home on the pretense of a large delivery order and subsequently held at gun point by an assailant with 'some kind of rifle' while two others stripped him of the food, his work cash, wallet and cell phone. The delivery location was less than 200M from my front door.
> 
> Are these dickwads gonna turn in their gear if the AWB passes? I don't think so. So, if anything, my possession of a high quality weapon and accessories and the training and know how to use it properly theoretically gives me a superior edge against these animals should they try to get roudy in my neighborhood. Food for thought for the fucking idiot liberals.


 
Preach brother preach.


----------



## Dame (Jan 22, 2013)

Connecticut is proposing confiscation. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-00161-R00-SB.htm

Gov. Malloy, Sen. Beth Bye, and Rep. Bob Godfrey want outright bans. 

An outright ban on modern sporting rifles classifying them as "Assault Weapons."
Restricting magazine size to 10 rounds.
Confiscating magazines holding more than 10 rounds, pistols included.
Statewide gun registration for ALL firearms.
Re-registration every 2 years.
Requires permit for any rifle with a pistol grip.
Limiting how much ammunition you can purchase AND possess.
Registration of all ammunition purchases.
Bans internet sales of ammo in Connecticut.
Mandatory gun storage laws, like the one the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in the Heller decision.
The first hearing will occur next Monday, Jan. 28, at 10 a.m. at the Legislative Office Building.

Gun Violence Prevention Working Group Public Hearing
Monday, Jan. 28, 2013
Legislative Office Building
10 a.m., Room 2C

Other bills
HB 5268, SB140 
To require firearm owners to maintain liability insurance and establish a sales tax on the sale of ammunition at a rate of 50 percent and require all ammunition to be purchased in person.
SB 122 
A class C felony offense for any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate, transport, possess or use any gun except one made to fire a single round.
SB 124 
Prohibit the possession of magazines that accept more than ten rounds.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 23, 2013)

What the holy fuck sakes!. That is fucking stupid in every way shape and form.


----------



## dknob (Jan 23, 2013)

*eh, nvm. Won't get anywhere.*​


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 23, 2013)

dknob said:


> *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.*​How do most of you interpret the text? ​​Do you see it as two separate parts? 1) The right to a forming a well regulated militia and 2) the right to bear arms ​Or as one part: the right to a well regulated militia which is necessary for the freedom of American citizens by allowing the militia the right to weaponry?​


 
I agree with the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v Heller:




> (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.​(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.​(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.​(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.​(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.​(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U. S. 542 , nor _Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. _United States v. Miller_, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf​


​​


----------



## Centermass (Jan 23, 2013)

JBS said:


> Really great point. An unarmed hero, no matter how noble or courageous, can get only so far trying to rush an armed attacker.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
When I spent time in Israel, almost everyone in public was carrying. Whether a rifle or hand gun, it's pretty much a way of life there. I'm sure Hoepoe could weigh in on this as well.

As for the Samuel Jackson PSA, here's another counterpoint that reflects my beliefs/ Pay particular attention to .46 in the vid. Bingo.


----------



## Dame (Jan 23, 2013)

Meanwhile, the lamestream media in Chicago (Tribune) printed this image in a failed attempt to "educate" people on evil guns. :-/
And I bet all this time you guys thought that was for a sling, huh. :wall:


----------



## JBS (Jan 23, 2013)

dknob said:


> *eh, nvm. Won't get anywhere.*​


For one reason and one reason only: precisely because if it were attempted straight shooting Neanderthals like me all over this country would go apeshit on a mass scale. It's because we won't calm down and be quiet, because we are raising hell. If more people had gotten involved sooner, writing letters and making a scene like a spoiled fat kid on the cake aisle, things wouldn't have progressed even as far as they have.   My point is if it doesn't happen, it isn't because 'they' aren't going to try.

Confiscation is every sane gun owner's nightmare, and every Post-Apocalyptic Doomsday Prepper's wet dream, every retired KGB officer's vindication since they warned us it was coming, every domestic sleeper neo-communists's coming out party, every patriot's bat signal. Confiscation is an express ticket to civil war.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 23, 2013)

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/t...-it-brought-about-a-revolution/#ixzz2IkwUNk3G

Not like confiscation/restriction fired off the revolution or anything...


----------



## CDG (Jan 23, 2013)

Just saw a post on FB about Geico supposedly cancelling a guy's truck insurance because his company, gunadapters.com, is part of the "weapons industry".  Attached is a photo of the cancellation letter they sent him.  Anyone know if this is legit?  I have Geico currently, but will be switching companies immediately if this is true.


----------



## JBS (Jan 23, 2013)

CDG said:


> Just saw a post on FB about Geico supposedly cancelling a guy's truck insurance because his company, gunadapters.com, is part of the "weapons industry". Attached is a photo of the cancellation letter they sent him. Anyone know if this is legit? I have Geico currently, but will be switching companies immediately if this is true.
> 
> View attachment 7727


I'd approach that one with some measure of caution until it is confirmed.



Dame said:


> Meanwhile, the lamestream media in Chicago (Tribune) printed this image in a failed attempt to "educate" people on evil guns. :-/
> And I bet all this time you guys thought that was for a sling, huh. :wall:
> 
> View attachment 7725


 
So total body count of mass murders in the United States involving bayonets mounted on rifles and/or grenade launchers?  There must be some, since the Chicago Fishwrap feels compelled to warn every one of its' readers of this scourge upon humanity.


----------



## CDG (Jan 23, 2013)

JBS said:


> I'd approach that one with some measure of caution until it is confirmed.


 
Agreed. I contacted GEICO and am supposed to hear back within 24 hours.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 23, 2013)

JBS said:


> ...
> So total body count of mass murders in the United States involving bayonets mounted on rifles and/or grenade launchers? There must be some, since the Chicago Fishwrap feels compelled to warn every one of its' readers of this scourge upon humanity.


 
Exactly.  I'd file my bayonette adapter off of my AR if it meant I could hold onto it when I moved to NY.

Oh wait a minute, mine was post-ban and never had one to begin with :wall:


----------



## dknob (Jan 23, 2013)

Personally I don't believe it was ever meant to be an individual right when they wrote the 2nd amendment. To me the text is cut and dry - "join a well regulated State militia not under Federal control and you can own weaponry with the purpose of combating the government if it was ever necessary". I'm pretty sure that's what they meant when they wrote it.

They should have been more specific when it came to right to bear arms for personal self defense or hunting. That's their fault for fouling it up. I have an AR, I have a Glock. I'm not in a militia obviously. I, like all American citizens who are gun owners take advantage of what I believe is to be a misinterpreted text. Simply because I can. But I'm a minority who can tell it to your face that I am taking advantage of it instead of lie to myself in the mirror and say "the fore fathers wanted me to have this M240B". So if I'm being a hypocrite, which I am, then so be it.

With every passing decade, the constitution is becoming more arcane. But for some reason it's impossible to make it obsolete. 200 years ago there was no Islamic extremism that sought out nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that can destroy cities. The personal weaponry itself is something the forefathers never accounted for - one AR-15 with 200 rounds of ammo can decimate a 100 person column of musket carrying men with ease from a safe distance. And 200 years ago gun crime was almost nonexistent (please take note of the word almost). I'm not saying we should only be allowed to buy single shot rifles with a reload time of 15 seconds - that's pretty fn stupid. But you can't tell me that if gave the writers of the constitution a little glimpse of the 21st century, they wouldn't have slightly "tweaked" some of the texts.

But stop trying to justify today's gun requirements for self defense by saying its what the fore fathers would have wanted. That's arrogant and incredibly INCREDIBLY ignorant. Just admit the 2nd amendment is incredibly flawed and arcane - and change it all together. "*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, as well as the right of the population to keep and bear Arms to protect their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, shall not be infringed*" - BAM! Problem solved. If only there was a "Update Software Version" button on the constitution. We are all running version 1.1.0 and it's incompatible with the year 2013.

I hate the fact that anybody can buy a weapon, I don't think it's their right unless you earn it (I definitely don't believe in a gun ban of any kind). The NRA is complete and utter shit, and the gun control lobby is complete and utter shit. Both are incredibly arrogant, and both are incredibly ignorant.

Simply put I don't believe in birthright of ANY kind. Hell I hate the fact that most people are allowed to fucking vote without earning that right. But what can you do except roll with it.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 23, 2013)

You're ignoring US Code...

*10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


You joined the Militia when you turned 17, bub. You were in the Militia BEFORE you were in the army.

The 2nd amendment isn't rocket science. You're just reading into it entirely too much when it's very easy.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 23, 2013)

But you _*are*_ in "the" militia brother.  The militia is everyone (every male, technically) able to bear arms.  




> Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:
> 
> "(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> ...


 

The question of whether or not "keep and bear arms" is an individual right has already been settled by the Supreme Court.  (Wiki follows:)



> In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In _McDonald v. Chicago_, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]


 
Seeing that the Constitution grants all of its rights and privileges to all US citizens, you "earn" the right to keep and bear arms (and by extension to buy a gun) simply by being a US citizen living in the US.  No further qualification is required.

The Constitution and its Amendments can be updated/added to/abrogated, it's just really really hard to do it.  And that's probably a good thing.  Otherwise, anytime a majority party had a firm grip on power, they could radically change... everything.

The Constitution is not perfect.  But it has led to the development of the unambiguously most powerful and arguably most "free" country in the world.  And that should count for something.


----------



## dknob (Jan 23, 2013)

When you explain to me how this is considered "well regulated" as the 2nd Amendment calls for, then I'll take this US Code more seriously.

I don't consider a militia to be well regulated if the people don't know they are in it. Maybe your definition of well regulated is different from mine. Who knows.


----------



## JBS (Jan 23, 2013)

dknob said:


> Personally I don't believe it was ever meant to be an individual right when they wrote the 2nd amendment.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> ...


What do you make of all the other writings of the Framers regarding how necessary it is for the people to be governed by consent, and how important it was that they remain armed, so they could resist the resurgence of tyranny?

I *10,000%* agree with you the Constitution itself doesn't come right out and say, "just in case we need a 1776 do-over". But every founding father has left other writings that give us crystal clear insight into their thinking- and into the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment.

Unlike vague documents open to interpretation, these other writings are almost always straightforward, not requiring any analysis, nor a working knowledge of Latin or anything else. We might be able to dick around with the language of the Constitution - I can twist it to justify owning a Howitzer, and others can twist it to justify high cap mag bans- but nobody can dick up what the Founding Fathers meant in their other writings (which are important for context):



> "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
> _George Washington_
> First President of the United States





> "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
> _George Mason_
> Co-author of the Second Amendment
> during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788





> "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
> _Richard Henry Lee_
> writing in _Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic_, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.





> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
> _Samuel Adams_
> quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789





> "The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
> _Patrick Henry_





> "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
> _Patrick Henry_





> "Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
> _Thomas Jefferson_
> Third President of the United States





> "The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
> _Alexander Hamilton_
> The Federalist Papers at 184-8





> "There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. "
> _Noah Webster_





> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> _Thomas Jefferson_
> to James Madison


 
*If it is NOT today common knowledge WHO the militia is, and WHO was supposed to be armed and WHERE those arms were supposed to be kept* (in the homes and hands and vaults of We The People), then you can thank our shit school system for not educating us on the things that matter most to this civilization. Instead of learning where our Liberty comes from, we are busy teaching our 14 year olds how to put condoms on bananas.


----------



## dknob (Jan 23, 2013)

I completely agree with all those quotes. America should be armed. I personally don't believe that it is possible for the United States to become a tyrannical regime. There is too much oversight and barriers for an evil man to accomplish this. I think we can all agree that the president is not an evil person - just misguided. Not everybody is on the same road you are on.

And yes, you can interpret the constitution into allowing you a howitzer - which if it's meant to keep the population well armed so they are not subjugated. Then a howitzer is definitely well justified, right?

But back to the militia part - the moment "Well regulated" is inserted in the constitution: any talk of the entire population being a militia is rendered void.


----------



## JBS (Jan 23, 2013)

dknob said:


> I personally don't believe that it is possible for the United States to become a tyrannical regime.


 
What do you think is the guarantor of that 'belief' (which I share with you by the way)? Your opinion (which is the same as mine) is worthless if we can't back it up against those with unnatural power ambitions (history being replete with an infinite number of instances of them). We could be loud and pushy and stand on the corner with signs, but we will become subjects the same day we turn in our weapons, and no amount of protesting will change it. Protestors who are not ultimately backed by an armed 'militia' (i.e., population at large) .... well, let's just say they look kind of like that one really famous dead guy who stood in front of T-72's in Tienanmen Square.

What's the first thing we do when we want to liberate another nation that has fallen into tyranny? We arm them. And we do that because_ every time_ we encounter a nation that has fallen (key word) into tyranny, we always have to arm them... because to one degree or another, either by force, by stealth or by increments, they allowed themselves to be disarmed.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 23, 2013)

dknob said:


> When you explain to me how this is considered "well regulated" as the 2nd Amendment calls for, then I'll take this US Code more seriously.
> 
> I don't consider a militia to be well regulated if the people don't know they are in it. Maybe your definition of well regulated is different from mine. Who knows.


 
I knew what the federal level militia was when I was 14. Granted, it was a 2nd amendment focused portion of my Rifle merit badge.... but hey, I was taught about it.

Here, learn some about state militias. Your position indicates you're in need of the information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

You can try to throw the blame at the constitution and think it needs revision all you want... but it doesn't. It's simple, it's just not being followed by so many tiers of government it's absurd.

Cases in point:
People, able-bodied, that can't f'ing treat a simple laceration
People, able-bodied, that can't protect themselves
People, able-bodied, that can't survive 72 hours away from home
People, able-bodied, that can't walk 10 miles


These are all skills I had blown out of the water in qualification......... when I was 12.   I was a city boy too.   Now the government's turning around and tossing up all these survival things... FEMA wants you to have a multi-month survival cache (since they know they don't help for shit)

No regulation for the unorganized militia? How about the Civilian Marksmanship Program?  It's free choice to participate, but it's there if you want it. There's tons of other regulation and instruction out there that the government puts out. You can school yourself up with ICS courses from FEMA on communications, operations, etc etc etc.

but it's unorganized and takes someone who wants to take part to spend 30 seconds in front of google, or walk into your local governmental office and ask. 

After all, while the last resort is everyone... wouldn't you much rather have someone who made a minimal effort to find out and volunteer to do something rather than someone who was told under threat of law that they had to be there?  I mean... you did serve in a 3 time volunteer unit, as I did.  It's nice when people actually WANT to be where they are.


----------



## dknob (Jan 23, 2013)

The pieces needed for this to happen are all independent of each other: the military, local law enforcement, the department of justice, the house, the senate, the CIA, and the national guard would all have to join together to provide that person with tyrannical power. You really think all those pieces would come together regardless of whatever order is given? No of course not.

Nobody is going to take away people's weapons. 200 million guns out here - I think America is well armed against tyranny. Gun restrictions going on right now isn't going to do much to change the capability of the well armed American citizenry. Assault rifle bans? Fine, they could get away with that, it's not a crazy concept. Thinking that ATF, FBI, DEA, and local law enforcement will go door to door to confiscate weapons? That's a demented thought.

I feel like I'm the last realistic person left in the United States.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 23, 2013)

dknob said:


> I completely agree with all those quotes. America should be armed. I personally don't believe that it is possible for the United States to become a tyrannical regime. There is too much oversight and barriers for an evil man to accomplish this. I think we can all agree that the president is not an evil person - just misguided. Not everybody is on the same road you are on.


 











Nope, the federal government has always treated everyone properly and with great care.











It's also treated it's veterans with great respect and appreciated their sacrifices.


----------



## Servimus (Jan 23, 2013)

dknob said:


> Personally I don't believe it was ever meant to be an individual right when they wrote the 2nd amendment. To me the text is cut and dry - "join a well regulated State militia not under Federal control and you can own weaponry with the purpose of combating the government if it was ever necessary". I'm pretty sure that's what they meant when they wrote it.


 
That's a possibility, but I think it highly unlikely given the pure amount of directly attributable quotations from the FF's and the authors of the Constitution that provide clear backing to the interpretation that the second amendment is most certainly an individual right.




> I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.- George Mason


 




> Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.- George Washington


 
As we all know, the current Constitution was not our first as a nation. The Articles of Confederation were passed first, and after proving themselves to be too weak in binding the nation they were replaced by the Constitution. The Constitution, however, was entirely controversial in that many thought that it made the central government too powerful and that it would infringe on the rights of individuals. My point, and the point of the Bill of Rights, are to enumerate the rights of INDIVIDUAL Americans and the States.The Constitution was ONLY politically possible after the guarantee was made that the first ten amendments would be made. I'd think that makes it pretty clear that the second amendment was most certainly written as a guarantee against government infringement on the right to bear arms by individuals. 




dknob said:


> With every passing decade, the constitution is becoming more arcane. But for some reason it's impossible to make it obsolete. 200 years ago there was no Islamic extremism that sought out nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that can destroy cities. The personal weaponry itself is something the forefathers never accounted for - one AR-15 with 200 rounds of ammo can decimate a 100 person column of musket carrying men with ease from a safe distance.


 

How exactly has the Constitution become arcane? I'd argue that the Constitution will never be obsolete, because the enlightened political philosophy behind it is eternal. Freedom is eternal, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are eternal. These are rights that some believe to be rendered upon them by their creator while others, myself an atheist, believe them to be morally absolute. 

Freedom and the aforementioned rights can only be guaranteed as long as the people are not subjects, but citizens. The second amendment guarantees us this by allowing us to be armed. What point is there to an armed populace if they aren't able to arm themselves with firearms at least similar to those currently used by the government and the military?

This attack on the "AR" is entirely disproportionate from a statistical point of view as well due to the fact that rifles of all sorts account for less the 2% of gun related deaths in the United States. There's no logical reason to be opposed to rifles. If opposing gun ownership was logical simply due to gun deaths, then handguns would be a more appropriate topic- yet all we see are "assault weapons bans" over and over again. Someone posted a quote regarding the political purpose of these bans and it made the statement that the only victory to be found in the AWB was a liberal victory in being one step close to making harsh gun control a reality in the USA. I couldn't agree more.



dknob said:


> But stop trying to justify today's gun requirements for self defense by saying its what the fore fathers would have wanted. That's arrogant and incredibly INCREDIBLY ignorant. Just admit the 2nd amendment is incredibly flawed and arcane - and change it all together. "*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, as well as the right of the population to keep and bear Arms to protect their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, shall not be infringed*" - BAM! Problem solved. If only there was a "Update Software Version" button on the constitution. We are all running version 1.1.0 and it's incompatible with the year 2013.


 
I'm apparently misunderstanding how it is ignorant to believe that firearm ownership circa 2013 is not exactly what the FF's prescribed. Also, your write-up for a new 2nd amendment sounds pretty good to me, in that in changes nothing. I see a right to form a militia as well as the right to keep and bear arms. How is that different from what we currently have in our second amendment?


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 23, 2013)

dknob said:


> Personally I don't believe it was ever meant to be an individual right when they wrote the 2nd amendment. To me the text is cut and dry - "join a well regulated State militia not under Federal control and you can own weaponry with the purpose of combating the government if it was ever necessary". I'm pretty sure that's what they meant when they wrote it.
> 
> While I understand this reading of the 2nd Amendment, it is a collective interpretation that is a 20th Century invention. It also shows a misunderstanding of the terminology of the day. As any Constitutional scholar will know, any time the Constitution mentions "rights" it applies on an individual basis. The term "powers" are linked specifically to the federal government
> 
> ...


 
The more I research the whole gun control issue, the more I realize we are wasting time. Through analyzing statistics, we can pinpoint where gun crime is the highest & with which group(s). We also have a plethora of studies that show the key factors that give rise to a violent society. But instead we focus on a symptom (gun crime), which will get us nowhere due to political climate, Constitutional ramifications, and the evidence that gun control doesn't work. We do all this at the expense of addressing the real problems. We should be addressing poor family structure, our broken criminal justice system, education, and poverty. At least in these area we have a chance of making some form of helpful legislation.


----------



## Frank S. (Jan 23, 2013)

Did you know that back in the good old days (before 9/11 and in California), a foreigner with a temporary work permit (Employment Authorization Document) could go to the DMV, obtain a State ID under the name of their choice?
And with this, along with a utility or insurance bill showing their address, walk into a gun store, buy a handgun and obtain it fifteen days later?

Oh the good old days...


----------



## JBS (Jan 23, 2013)

Ranger Psych

When you post stuff like that, although I love being reminded of the very recent past, I'm sure some people's eyes roll into the back of their heads. It's black and white photography, after all, which means it might as well be hieroglyphics from some long dead and forgotten ancient society.

Never mind many of those Japanese men and women- survivors - and their kids- are still walking around in Wal Mart and Chili's and Home Depot today, knowing what it's like to be a citizen and rounded up like cattle. We have a short memory in this country.

Great post.


----------



## Brooklynben (Jan 23, 2013)

Frank S. said:


> Did you know that back in the good old days (before 9/11 and in California), a foreigner with a temporary work permit (Employment Authorization Document) could go to the DMV, obtain a State ID under the name of their choice?
> And with this, along with a utility or insurance bill showing their address, walk into a gun store, buy a handgun and obtain it fifteen days later?
> Oh the good old days...


  Don't you mean they could take their new name and credentials and run for public office?


----------



## Frank S. (Jan 23, 2013)

Brooklynben said:


> Don't you mean they could take their new name and credentials and run for public office?


 
Didn't try that. I thought about doing it or the clergy but you know, pedos on one side and people who wee on each other while drinking Bailey's from Boy Scouts' shoes, it's all too rich even for my blood...


----------



## Brooklynben (Jan 23, 2013)

Frank S. said:


> Didn't try that. I thought about doing it or the clergy but you know, pedos on one side and people who wee on each other while drinking Bailey's from Boy Scouts' shoes, it's all too rich even for my blood...


  Wake up man!  I wrote "public" NOT "pubic" office!


----------



## AWP (Jan 23, 2013)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> The more I research the whole gun control issue, the more I realize we are wasting time. Through analyzing statistics, we can pinpoint where gun crime is the highest & with which group(s). We also have a plethora of studies that show the key factors that give rise to a violent society. But instead we focus on a symptom (gun crime), which will get us nowhere due to political climate, Constitutional ramifications, and the evidence that gun control doesn't work. We do all this at the expense of addressing the real problems. We should be addressing poor family structure, our broken criminal justice system, education, and poverty. At least in these area we have a chance of making some form of helpful legislation.


 
Silly rabbit, you and your logic...

Take away your guns and the children are safe. For the children!


----------



## 8654Maine (Jan 23, 2013)

JBS said:


> Ranger Psych
> 
> When you post stuff like that, although I love being reminded of the very recent past, I'm sure some people's eyes roll into the back of their heads. It's black and white photography, after all, which means it might as well be hieroglyphics from some long dead and forgotten ancient society.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks to you and Ranger Psych for that.

That shit could easily happen all over again:  just change the ethnicity, color, religion, political leaning, hair color, language, etc...


----------



## CDG (Jan 23, 2013)

CDG said:


> Agreed. I contacted GEICO and am supposed to hear back within 24 hours.


 
I got this in response from GEICO:

"Thank you for contacting us and we appreciate your concern regarding this matter. There was some misunderstanding on our part in relation to the usage of the vehicle. We have reached out to the policyholder in an effort to clarify usage and continue his policy. We appreciate your business."

I e-mailed them asking for further clarification on their stance on insuring vehicles used for business purposes by those in the weapons industry.  So we'll see.


----------



## JBS (Jan 24, 2013)

Sounds like there was something to it!


----------



## Centermass (Jan 24, 2013)




----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 24, 2013)

dknob said:


> When you explain to me how this is considered "well regulated" as the 2nd Amendment calls for, then I'll take this US Code more seriously.
> 
> I don't consider a militia to be well regulated if the people don't know they are in it. Maybe your definition of well regulated is different from mine. Who knows.


 
Just because someone is ignorant of something, it doesn't make that thing any less true. God knows there is plenty I'm ignorant of. Until very recently, I was pretty ignorant about a lot of the case law and historical facts around 2A, and it seems a lot of other people are too.

In the context of 2A, "well regulated" could very well mean, "capable of performing the job for which they were constituted." If the militia is by definition "unorganized" (i.e. not a permanent, standing force that drills/practices regularly), then wouldn't it make sense that the people who constitute "the militia" (which as we have already established earlier in this thread is "every male capable of bearing arms") would need to keep and maintain their own arms so that 1) those arms are ready the minute that the militia is called up, and 2) the people who are going to be carrying those arms as part of the militia are familiar enough with them to actually be able to use them in the performance of the job for which they were constituted?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 24, 2013)

It's not like the national guard has to go through a train-up in order to be deployment ready.

Or that when called for back in the day, they did drill instruction so you don't have the first rank asshole stand up when the second rank's firing.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 24, 2013)

Oh goodie.  I got an email from Joe Biden this morning.  Im invited to a "hang out" to discuss reducing gun violence.  Its at 1:45 today.  Sadly I will be in the middle of PT at that time and cannot....uh...hang out.
Besides didnt his boss already sign a bunch of "executive orders" regardless of my opinions?


----------



## Brooklynben (Jan 24, 2013)

CDG said:


> I got this in response from GEICO:  [snap]
> I e-mailed them asking for further clarification on their stance on insuring vehicles used for business purposes by those in the weapons industry. So we'll see.


 Don't hold your breath Brother.  Geico and Progressive Insurance companies are known to be big funders and supporters of Liberal causes and this Administration.  And like all good Socialists, they're totally intolerant of divergent views.  So like the Bank of America, Geico is finding reasons to drop accounts on those often regarded as the "unwashed Americans" holding on to their guns and bibles.

Point in Case:  Approximately 5 months ago (late August), R. Lee Ermey ("The Gunney") was fired from Geico and his commercials were pulled because he committed the unforgivable sin of expressing a personal opinion that; "Obama seemed to be attempting to impose Socialism on the American people."  (How wild and crazy can one get!? )


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 24, 2013)

Hey Pennsylvanians, looks like "your people" are at it again:

Philly 5th grader busted for "toy gun"

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-murderer-for-paper-gun-that-looks-like-this/

What was the "toy gun?"


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 24, 2013)

Jesus H. Christ.
To redeem my esteemed Commonwealth(I thought the ESOS Boycott would have been worth major brownie points) I give you Pennsylvania House Bill 357(really)
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2013&sind=0&body=H&type=B&BN=0357



> Short Title: An Act providing that any Federal law which attempts to register, restrict or ban a firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm in this Commonwealth shall be unenforceable in this Commonwealth; and imposing penalties.
> Prime Sponsor: Representative METCALFE
> Last Action:
> Memo: Right to Bear Arms Protection Act


Pardon me while I go urge my elected officials to support HB 357


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 24, 2013)

Now, if only California would join on this side.


----------



## CDG (Jan 24, 2013)

Brooklynben said:


> Don't hold your breath Brother. Geico and Progressive Insurance companies are known to be big funders and supporters of Liberal causes and this Administration. And like all good Socialists, they're totally intolerant of divergent views. So like the Bank of America, Geico is finding reasons to drop accounts on those often regarded as the "unwashed Americans" holding on to their guns and bibles.
> 
> Point in Case: Approximately 5 months ago (late August), R. Lee Ermey ("The Gunney") was fired from Geico and his commercials were pulled because he committed the unforgivable sin of expressing a personal opinion that; "Obama seemed to be attempting to impose Socialism on the American people." (How wild and crazy can one get!? )


 
I hadn't heard that. Thank you for the info. I will be switching insurance companies before the week is over, even if my premium increases.


----------



## AWP (Jan 24, 2013)

Another historical tidbit for those interested or still reading this thread. In the New World, the Spanish forbid the natives to possess horses or firearms.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 24, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Hey Pennsylvanians, looks like "your people" are at it again:
> 
> Philly 5th grader busted for "toy gun"
> 
> ...


 
We can afford to use police and other public resources for this because we have conquered and eliminated all the other social ills, such as real crime....


----------



## Centermass (Jan 24, 2013)

Geico doesn't insure drivers with radar or laser detectors or cover them in the event of a crash if they're found to have one in the vehicle. Long standing policy from years ago. One reason not because I have one or need one, just the fact they use this discriminating tactic is why I've never even considered them for my insurance. Fuck that damn lizard with the funny accent.....


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 24, 2013)

Someone asked about this in another thread, and I decided to post a response to it here.

Some random guy made the following post to his Facebook page (I'm not linking to the page because I don't want to give this clown more hits/likes/whatever):



> I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new "litmus test" in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. "The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not". Those who will not are being removed.
> - Dr. Jim Garrow - January 21, 2013


 
Now, this all sounds bad.  Very bad.  Conspiracy-level bad.  So bad that several media outlets, particularly ones that want to fan the flames of alarmism, took this story and ran with it.  Here's one example:

http://www.examiner.com/article/sho...who-will-fire-on-u-s-citizens?cid=db_articles

Oh!  And the guy with all these high-ranking source?  He's a Noble Peace Prize nominee! (put that in your pocket for now, we'll deal with that later).

The problem is, this whole thing doesn't pass the sniff test.  Who is this guy, this random person no one has heard of, and who are these mysterious, "high ranking" sources?  While it's true I don't know everyone, or even a lot of people, I don't know this guy, this "Peace Prize nominee."  And if there were a conspiracy this large, as small as my "network" is, I'm pretty sure I would have heard about this by now though some other source.  A source a know.  A source who has reported reliably in the past.  ANY source other than some unknown guy's Facebook page, making unprovable accusations and citing unnamed sources with unspecified credentials.

As far as this guy's credibility goes, I'm sorry but it's just not that freakin' hard to get nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.  



> *Who May Nominate Candidates for the Peace Prize?*
> 
> _According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, a nomination is considered valid if it is submitted by a person who falls within one of the following categories:_
> _• Members of national assemblies and governments of states
> ...


 
So, conceivably, one of my professors here at school could nominate me for the Prize.  241 people were nominated last year alone.  You know who else was "nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?" Bradley f'ing Manning.  Yeah, that Bradley Manning.   So while a nomination might be good for your ego or for your resume, it's not a real big credibility booster in my eyes.  This guy's claim to fame (and his Nobel nomination) relates to something called the Pink Pagoda Project, a noble endeavor to be sure, but not the kind of hard-hitting, in-depth investigative journalism that I would require in order to believe something like this.

So, put up specifics, names and other details, or STFU, Mr. Pink Pagoda.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 25, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Your post


 
I figured out awhile a go that if something "made me so angry I just couldn't believe it!" then I probably should not believe it.
Reed


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 25, 2013)

Got a reply from one of my senators regarding my letter I wrote:



> Dear ---,
> 
> Thank you for contacting me about the tragic and senseless violence in Newtown, Connecticut. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and concerns with me.
> 
> ...


 
Easily the most blatant cut-and-paste reply I've ever received from a politician. At least I got a reply, I guess.


----------



## Hillclimb (Jan 25, 2013)

I wanna compare those response letters side by side when I get to the computer lab tomorrow(on mobile atm). I believe Dame had a pretty generic one as well.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 25, 2013)

Surprised this didn't get posted yet.

Tax credit for turning in your guns, since the government's got the money to spare.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr226/text


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 25, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> Surprised this didn't get posted yet.
> 
> Tax credit for turning in your guns, since the government's got the money to spare.
> 
> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr226/text


 
I don't expect this to pass, & I don't think there will be an "assault" weapons or "high-capacity" mag ban, but the audacity politicians have of even proposing such legislation boggles my mind. It wouldn't bother me if a these politicians could propose a well-informed argument regarding the Constitutionality of such legislation or evidence that such measures would bring about a more peaceful society. Yet the only arguments I have heard are anecdotal  at best (UK vs US gun crime) or appeals to emotion.

It's sad to think that Congress is a representation of the citizenry. 

"The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling." -Thomas Sowell


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 25, 2013)

Feinstein's ban list:


----------



## JBS (Jan 25, 2013)

Every so often, I read something that-despite my sane, rational mind knowing it's not not the best answer-makes me just say "bring it".  The calls in several States that demand confiscation were some; Pelosi's bill is another.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 25, 2013)

Anyone source this quote from my wonderful Senator Feinstein: "Women are not capable of defending themselves with the 'Death Machines' we call guns."​ 
I saw it one a the Uncle Sam's Misguided Children Page on ​Facebook, I want a published source not other folks saying they heard her say it.  Oh and she's such an idiot.


----------



## CDG (Jan 25, 2013)

Obviously she won't be tried for treason, but a petition calling for Feinstein to be tried for treason posted on We The People did garner the requisite 25,000 signatures needed to force a response by the Administration.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/white-house-petition-dianne-feinstein_n_2431980.html


----------



## JBS (Jan 25, 2013)

CDG said:


> Obviously she won't be tried for treason, but a petition calling for Feinstein to be tried for treason posted on We The People did garner the requisite 25,000 signatures needed to force a response by the Administration.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/white-house-petition-dianne-feinstein_n_2431980.html


That's actually a petition I would sign in a heartbeat... especially after reading the text.


----------



## CDG (Jan 25, 2013)

CDG said:


> I hadn't heard that. Thank you for the info. I will be switching insurance companies before the week is over, even if my premium increases.


 
Switched to USAA this morning.  The GEICO rep sounded shocked that I was cancelling my policy over a 2nd Amendment issue.  I told her I would not spend money supporting a company that appeared to not fully support the 2nd Amendment and there was a good 15 seconds of silence followed, by "Ummm.....ok.... Well.... Ok."  She put me on hold for awhile and came back to further explain the issue I referred to.  I was told that Geico would not cover the transportation of ammunition under his personal policy, and they wanted to him take out a commercial policy on the vehicle.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 25, 2013)

JBS said:


> That's actually a petition I would sign in a heartbeat... especially after reading the text.


I did sign that petition!


----------



## Loki (Jan 25, 2013)

At the end of the day this will be Political suicide for many Democrats if they go along with the POS in the White House. He would have to sign an executive order which I don't believe will stand at this time with the current court make up. This is his "Remember the Maine" moment.  He has to maintain momentum of fail completely.  The Congress can't get the votes and the house won't vote it in no matter what.  Hope for the best and prepare for the worst...


----------



## Loki (Jan 25, 2013)

Hitman2/3 said:


> I won't go too deep into this, as I will end up writing an essay. However, the one thing I will say is that in terms of fixing the problem it is an issue with our society. I.E. lets not fix the real problem because that would be too hard instead lets come up with a quick lazy solution.
> 
> An example of this would be our military bases abroad, combat zones to be exact. Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors were NDing like it was cool. Well clearly the problem is that their guns are loaded so we'll just make them walk around with unloaded weapons in a combat zone. Even though anybody with a little bit of intelligence could look at the situation and say maybe its a lack of proper training and exposure that is causing these issues and thats what should be fixed, they took the lazy/easy way out. Until all these "partnered" forces over here started going Ji'had on everybody, then all of a sudden it was like why are our soldiers walking around with unloaded guns. Even to this day, in the military even the wonderful Marine Corps, the average service members exposure and use of firearms is a joke. I'll shoot more in one day on the range than most will shoot in a four year enlistment.
> 
> Getting back on track my point is that the people screaming for more gun laws or just the complete absence of guns are taking that same easy/lazy approach. It won't work because the guns aren't the root of the problem. Now if machine guns were legal and the guy went in their with a M60 then of course I'd be the first one to say hey maybe we should rethink this, but since the issue with a lot of people seems to constantly be all guns are bad I have to think that its once again looking for the easiest/laziest answer. People who have their mind set on killing innocent people will always find a way to do it with or without guns. As Rampart pointed out you don't need a gun to terrorize, as in parts of Africa the machete is even more feared than the gun. Atrocities have always been committed, long before the invention of the gun. Even worse most were and are committed by people who are clinically sane and know exactly what they are doing, so I don't see how removing legally owned guns from the equation will help anyone.


 
Here, here well said!


----------



## JBS (Jan 25, 2013)

CDG said:


> Switched to USAA this morning. The GEICO rep sounded shocked that I was cancelling my policy over a 2nd Amendment issue. I told her I would not spend money supporting a company that appeared to not fully support the 2nd Amendment and there was a good 15 seconds of silence followed, by "Ummm.....ok.... Well.... Ok." She put me on hold for awhile and came back to further explain the issue I referred to. I was told that Geico would not cover the transportation of ammunition under his personal policy, and they wanted to him take out a commercial policy on the vehicle.


I'm switching, too provided they will give me a refund for the rest of the term (just payed 6 month premium 2 weeks ago).

This is a time for action on our part- even a thousand little, tiny, miniscule things like this. If we always assume our tiny actions will never amount to anything, we will never change the climate in this country.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 25, 2013)

Saw this on reddit, got a giggle out of it.


----------



## CDG (Jan 25, 2013)

JBS said:


> I'm switching, too provided they will give me a refund for the rest of the term (just payed 6 month premium 2 weeks ago).


 
They gave me a refund on my unused coverage.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 25, 2013)

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/rahm-emanuel-presses-banks-on-guns-86706.html
Doin' it the Chicago way! But seriously, does anyone else find this extremely disturbing?



> Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, moving to take a lead role in the gun control debate, is turning up the pressure on banks that do business with firearms manufacturers.
> Emanuel is sending letters to two major financial institutions, TD Bank and Bank of America, which offer lines of credit to gun makers suggesting that they stop lending money to the manufacturers if they don’t come out for new gun restrictions.
> 
> “TD Bank currently aids the gun manufacturing industry through a $60 million revolving line of credit with Smith & Wesson, a gun manufacturer that produces the AR-15 — an assault weapon that was used by James Holmes to kill 12 people and wound 58 in a crowded movie theatre in Aurora,” Emanuel’s missive to TD CEO Bharat Masrani states. “I ask you to use your influence to push this company to find common ground with the vast majority of Americans who support a military weapons and ammunition ban and comprehensive background checks.”
> ...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 25, 2013)

How I know my Senator, not Feinstein doesn't care:


> Dear Mr. :​Thank you for taking the time to write and share your views with me.  Your comments will help me continue to represent you and other Californians to the best of my ability.  Be assured that I will keep your views in mind as the Senate considers legislation on this or similar issues.
> If you would like additional information about my work in the U.S. Senate, I invite you to visit my website, http://boxer.senate.gov.  From this site, you can access my statements and press releases about current events and pending legislation, request copies of legislation and government reports, and receive detailed information about the many services that I am privileged to provide for my constituents.  You may also wish to visit http://thomas.loc.gov to track current and past federal legislation.
> Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.  I appreciate hearing from you.​
> Sincerely,
> ...


----------



## JBS (Jan 25, 2013)

It's laughable how little they care about their constituents. 

At present, they openly talk about upcoming legislation that many of them are going to support which is likely to cost them their seat.  Bill Clinton talked about it openly when he warned the Democratic party not to take gun control too lightly.   After Obamacare was passed against the will of the people of this country,  in the dead of night after weeks of closed door meetings that above all lacked bipartisan consensus,  we saw a wave of Congressmen retire because they KNEW that Obamacare would destroy their chances in their districts forever.  

They know full well they are doing whatever the hell it is they want to do and completely ignore We The People. .. to the point of calculating whether or not their decisions will render them unelectable.


----------



## Casimir (Jan 25, 2013)

JBS said:


> That's actually a petition I would sign in a heartbeat... especially after reading the text.


 
i signed it lol


----------



## Casimir (Jan 25, 2013)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> Saw this on reddit, got a giggle out of it.
> 
> View attachment 7738


 
STOLEN!


----------



## Casimir (Jan 25, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/rahm-emanuel-presses-banks-on-guns-86706.html
> Doin' it the Chicago way! But seriously, does anyone else find this extremely disturbing?


 
This burns me. This should be so illegal it ought not even be a question of legality. Talk about a misuse of power and political persuasion


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 25, 2013)

The People must use their power en mass by voting, writing and protesting.


----------



## CDG (Jan 25, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/rahm-emanuel-presses-banks-on-guns-86706.html
> Doin' it the Chicago way! But seriously, does anyone else find this extremely disturbing?


 
I just sent an e-mail in to the Office of the Mayor of Chicago.

_Mayor Emanuel,_

_I am not a resident of Chicago, nor a resident of the state of Illinois.  That being said, I find it infuriating that you feel the need to send letters to banks calling for them to stop lending money to gun affiliated businesses.  Perhaps you are unaware of our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment in particular.  Perhaps you simply cannot comprehend what the words "shall not be infringed" mean.  Or maybe you're just so unbelievably arrogant that you believe your opinion should matter in this situation.  You are WAY outside of the boundaries of the office of a city mayor.  Your position on guns is a direct contradiction to the 2nd Amendment.  As I said, I am not a resident of Chicago.  Thank god for that.  I would be ashamed to admit that I lived in a city you reside in. You are a disgrace to the City of Chicago, the State of Illinois, and the United States of America._


----------



## Casimir (Jan 25, 2013)

> I know the focus is on the idea that retired cops should be able to have access to weapons the “regular citizen” shouldn’t, but that sentence was so profound in its amount of fail I want to focus on it.
> *“As a law enforcement officer for over 20 years, I understand the importance of instituting a new policy on mandating the limits of bullets that a regular citizen can possess, but as a matter of fact the bad guys are not going to follow this law.”*


Has anyone seen this yet? pretty funny in an ironic sort of way.

http://www.libertynews.com/2013/01/...of-gun-control-law-while-trying-to-defend-it/


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 25, 2013)

CDG that was a great letter.  I agree with every word of it.  However Rahm is an arrogant fuck, cut from the same cloth as Obama.   He could care less what us little people think.


----------



## Hillclimb (Jan 25, 2013)

Are people really this dense? 

She must also think you can be killed by a sheathed knife as well.

And a parked car.

And an icicle.

I think these people ARE the zombie apocalypse.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 26, 2013)

You want some real shit?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...source=govtrack/email_update&utm_medium=email


----------



## Casimir (Jan 26, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> You want some real shit?
> 
> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...source=govtrack/email_update&utm_medium=email


 
I LOVE IT!!!! NRA says armed guards in schools = " YOU BLOOD THIRSTY SONS OF BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!"  Barbara Bow-Wow Boxer says Military in schools = " LETS PROPOSE A BILL!!!"


----------



## Casimir (Jan 26, 2013)

Hillclimb said:


> Are people really this dense?
> 
> She must also think you can be killed by a sheathed knife as well.
> 
> ...


 
You know...I just...I don't...:wall::wall::wall::wall::dead:


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 26, 2013)

Ranger Psych, what is the definition of "other purposes"? :-/

As far as the doofus on the video.  I guess an unloaded gun is an "assault object"?


----------



## reed11b (Jan 26, 2013)

Willing to bet she means "plenty of folks have been shot by a gun the user THOUGHT was unloaded" which would not be wholly inaccurate.
Reed


----------



## Casimir (Jan 26, 2013)

reed11b said:


> Willing to bet she means "plenty of folks have been shot by a gun the user THOUGHT was unloaded" which would not be wholly inaccurate.
> Reed


 
Most likely what she meant, though people need to stop and think critically and respond thoughtfully and carefully when they're in a position like that, especially when they're making statements such as those that are documented for everyone to see.


----------



## Casimir (Jan 26, 2013)

Well, according to the gov'ts website, feinstein's ban has something like a 2% projection of actually being passed. Let's hope that holds true. I think there would be some major uproar if that thing actually goes through.


----------



## JBS (Jan 26, 2013)

Casimir said:


> Well, according to the gov'ts website, feinstein's ban has something like a 2% projection of actually being passed. Let's hope that holds true. I think there would be some major uproar if that thing actually goes through.


Yep. 30 million people telling Feinstein, "F- you, you hag; we're not registering JACK."


----------



## Casimir (Jan 26, 2013)

lol...thank GOD


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 27, 2013)

doesn't mean stop writing your elected people, means write them more because it was introduced. There's also other retardation that's on the table as well, like the tax credits for returns of rifles, etc etc.

NO.


----------



## Casimir (Jan 27, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> doesn't mean stop writing your elected people, means write them more because it was introduced. There's also other retardation that's on the table as well, like the tax credits for returns of rifles, etc etc.
> 
> NO.


 
Ya that one made me roll my eyes as well. Just another variation on the whole buy back bullshit.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 27, 2013)

*H.R. 421: To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to enhance the COPS ON THE BEAT grant program, and for other purposes.*


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...source=govtrack/email_update&utm_medium=email

Posted for "and for other purposes", sounded like something they'd try to dick with to throw a curve ball. Monitor this one.
*H.R. 427: To prevent the illegal sale of firearms, and for other purpoes. (typo on congress)*

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...source=govtrack/email_update&utm_medium=email

Obviously related, thing is... if firearms sales are already illegal... what in the fuck are you going to do, make it MORE ILLEGAL? 
*H.R. 431: To restore certain authorities of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to administer the firearms laws, and for other purposes.*

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...source=govtrack/email_update&utm_medium=email


ATF is already over-reaching. They are presented laws for control of items, and administer them entirely in a retarded manner.... IE, the Class III shoestring, putting people in prison for damaged firearms that broke on a range and went FA, etc.


----------



## CDG (Jan 27, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> ATF is already over-reaching. They are presented laws for control of items, and administer them entirely in a retarded manner.... IE, the Class III shoestring, *putting people in prison for damaged firearms that broke on a range and went FA*, etc.


 
What?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 27, 2013)

The ATF has arrested and brought to court individuals whose firearms broke at a range, resulting in multiple rounds being discharged with the pull of a trigger.


----------



## Servimus (Jan 27, 2013)

David Olofson. I'm not sure if an arrest like that has ever happened more than once though. He spent about two years in prison.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 27, 2013)

Here is something else to keep in mind in all of this- this issue is in part a distraction.  Liberals and others who want to rescind 2A know it will never happen.  At least not in their lifetimes.  But they also know that this is such a visceral issue to so many Americans on both sides of the ideological divide, that as long as they keep it front and center, it is going to completely eclipse everything else important that is going on right now.  Smoke and mirrors with 2A on one side, and bread and circuses in the form of government handouts on the other.

What are we losing sight of as we focus everything on 2A?


----------



## pardus (Jan 27, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> What are we losing sight of as we focus everything on 2A?


 
Apart from the 2A/Liberty? Just the social and moral degradation of western civilization. Nothing to worry about.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 27, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Here is something else to keep in mind in all of this- this issue is in part a distraction. Liberals and others who want to rescind 2A know it will never happen. At least not in their lifetimes. But they also know that this is such a visceral issue to so many Americans on both sides of the ideological divide, that as long as they keep it front and center, it is going to completely eclipse everything else important that is going on right now. Smoke and mirrors with 2A on one side, and bread and circuses in the form of government handouts on the other.
> 
> What are we losing sight of as we focus everything on 2A?


 
I disagree with the idea that "[they] know it will never happen", and that it's a distraction. Their lifetimes aside, they know it's possible as long as they move slowly enough. It won't happen over night, it will just occur through a creep of "reasonable" restrictions. I don't think this is simply a smoke bomb thrown as a distraction - they've been moving forward on this through the entirety of the first term, both with the Fast and Furious operation (which if not actively promoted, was at least supported by the Attorney General's office during Congressional investigation), with multiple statements from the administration pertaining to pending legal action, including a statement from the President himself that gun control was going to occur "under the radar".

I think (and perhaps I'm heading into tinfoil-hat-land here), but the speed with which statements calling for bans and such came forward from the Democratic party on a national level is indicative that the plan was already in place; they simply needed the right tragedy and the timing to justify the implementation. They've been anti-2A for decades, and have now found the iron hot enough to strike.

I absolutely think they're exploiting the focus on the 2nd Amendment and the fact that the press has narrowly dialed in to do their work for them so they may advance other agendas, but I don't see it as a harmless smoke screen.


----------



## pardus (Jan 27, 2013)

Totentanz said:


> post.


 
Exactly!


----------



## JBS (Jan 27, 2013)

Olofson's malfunction.

It didn't help that he bragged the weapon was "automatic" (even though it wasn't).



> The prosecution advanced an argument, one that it consistently made throughout the trial, that: “a machine gun is any weapon that shoots more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger.” whether Olofson’s AR-15 shot more than one shot at the single pull of the trigger as a result of a “hammer follow” malfunction “makes no difference under the statute: If you pull the trigger of a firearm once and it fires more than one round, no matter what the cause, it’s a machine gun.”[5]
> 
> Olofson requested the court include the definition of “automatically” set forth in Staples v. United States: “that once the trigger is depressed the weapon will automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released or the ammunition is exhausted.” Refusing Olofson’s request, the trial court omitted the Staples definition, instructing the jury in the language of the statute that: “a machine gun is any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single pull of the trigger.”[5]


----------



## Casimir (Jan 27, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> *H.R. 421: To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to enhance the COPS ON THE BEAT grant program, and for other purposes.*
> 
> 
> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...source=govtrack/email_update&utm_medium=email
> ...


 
Maybe I'm going complete R-Tard right now, but for some reason I can't locate the actual text of these bills. Everytime I search gov't websites, or google which then takes me to a gov't looking website and click 'read bill' or something akin to that I get 'text of this bill hasn't been received as of this time' or something similar. What am I doin wrong here?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 27, 2013)

For whatever reason, it hasn't been imported into the system yet. Not sure exactly why, since the shit's printed out and being handed around in congress.


----------



## Casimir (Jan 27, 2013)

It's a conspiracy! They don't want us to read it!


----------



## Brooklynben (Jan 27, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Here is something else to keep in mind in all of this- this issue is in part a distraction. Liberals and others who want to rescind 2A know it will never happen. At least not in their lifetimes. But they also know that this is such a visceral issue to so many Americans on both sides of the ideological divide, that as long as they keep it front and center, it is going to completely eclipse everything else important that is going on right now. Smoke and mirrors with 2A on one side, and bread and circuses in the form of government handouts on the other.
> 
> What are we losing sight of as we focus everything on 2A?


 A VERY good point.  But remember that for the first time in US history, this Socialist Administration has successfully suspended the Posse Comitatus Act and then gone on to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which effectively allows the President to authorize the arrest of any US citizen and hold them indefinitely without legal process or trial. All of this happened without any appreciable outcry in the Media or Press. The Attorney General is currently (legally) in "Contempt of Congress" but no one will serve him an arrest warrant. Nobody seems to care.  Again for the first time in US History, The President now selectively controls the privacy of the mail and ALL other communication methods -  and again, without any appreciable outcry or protest.   The President hasn't attended a daily security briefing for months, but every Wednesday there's a White House meeting to determine who should be put on the (historically first overt) Administration's authorized assassination list - and at least 3 American citizens have already been put on this list and killed - without any trial.


So absolving the 2A now doesn't seem such a very far-fetched possibility to me.  Because previously I would have argued that none of these rights and protections of freedom could possibly be taken away without the American voters revolting.  But here we are.  





 Remember that the Liberals basically control the Media and the Press.   The power of well crafted propaganda upon the ignorant and sheeple should never be underestimated.  For example; just this morning I had to suffer a CBS "Morning Show" putting on a Georgetown U. professor stating that the Constitution was "old" and not in keeping with modern times - that Americans needn't; "suffer submitting themselves to it any longer".  It was a marvelous scripted piece of propaganda, allowing the "Constitutional Expert" to twist his carefully chosen words for more than 8 minutes without any counter-point or comment.   Welcome to the new 'United Socialist Union'.  :wall:


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jan 27, 2013)

Brooklynben said:


> ~snip NDAA...rabble, rabble
> The President hasn't attended a daily security briefing for months, but every Wednesday there's a White House meeting to determine who should be put on the (historically first overt) Administration's authorized assassination list - *and at least 3 American citizens have already been put on this list and killed - without any trial.*
> ~snip


Can you somehow confirm what's in bold?


----------



## pardus (Jan 27, 2013)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Can you somehow confirm what's in bold?


 
I can't comment on the numbers but it's been widely publicized that this has happened. Google it mofo.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jan 27, 2013)

This guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/a/anwar_al_awlaki/index.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...wlakis-passport-six-months-before-150521.html

Good riddance.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 27, 2013)

American Citizens deserve American law. Aiding and abetting the enemy is treason and I would much rather have seen him run downrange at oh, Kilo-22 while the mortar section hung rounds.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jan 27, 2013)

So you would have rather mortar'd the shit out of him?  I have no issues with that either.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 27, 2013)

I guess this the "hang out" discussion that I missed on Thursday.


----------



## JBS (Jan 27, 2013)

We all want to kill terrorists. Arrange the transportation and I am ready to go with 12 hours notice.

The problem is putting the power to declare a death sentence for an American citizen through extrajudicial/extralegal means in the hands of the POTUS.

It's the slippery slopes of all M_ F_n' slippery slopes to give a sitting President the power previously only ever wielded by monarchs and tyrants.

We shouldn't confuse our unanimous hatred of-and willingness to destroy our enemies- with the aggregation of power by elected officials. And we should not abandon our legal system under any circumstances. Our legal system is the world's worst... except for all the others.


----------



## Brooklynben (Jan 27, 2013)

JBS said:


> We all want to kill terrorists. Arrange the transportation and I am ready to go with 12 hours notice.
> 
> The problem is putting the power to declare a death sentence for an American citizen through extrajudicial/extralegal means in the hands of the POTUS.
> 
> ...


EXACTLY.  Along with all the former safety measures written into the Bill of Rights and Constitution now being bypassed, POTUS now has complete control of the US Internet and power grids.  Perhaps worse, every digital communication and transaction is now being recorded and stored.  Further; I'm reading that with the new wireless power meters, electrical utilities can be easily tracked so as produce very detailed living patterns of people within their homes.  Add this to the thousands of digital surveillance cameras and a very big potential problem clearly
 begins to emerge.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."  - regardless of who is in power or who is in office. 

Therefor now is definitely NOT the time to be allowing the guarantees of our personal liberties and freedoms to be mitigated or eliminated.


----------



## 8654Maine (Jan 28, 2013)

Amen, JBS, amen.

Rule of Law, not rule of men.


----------



## pardus (Jan 28, 2013)

*Seattle Gun BuyBack Get’s JACKED! Turns Into a Damn Gun Show!*


Now this is funny.


----------



## JBS (Jan 28, 2013)

pardus said:


> *Seattle Gun BuyBack Get’s JACKED! Turns Into a Damn Gun Show!*
> 
> 
> Now this is funny.


Damn. I can't wait for a buyback to go down near my area, so I can go withdraw a couple grand and load up. That's awesome.

HA! Look at this guy:


> But Schuyler Taylor, a previous gun retailer attending the event in hopes of buying weapons, asked _“Why not offer them cash versus a gift card? *I’m still taking the guns off the streets; they’re just going in my safe.*”_


----------



## compforce (Jan 28, 2013)

And a petition that says "If gun-free zones make schools safer, why not disband the Secret Service and declare the Capitol a gun-free zone" 

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...amilies-and-establish-gun-free-zones/6RDGkxLK

Now, I don't agree with the petition.  There are very good reasons for the Government to be protected by armed PSS details.  That said, it will be interesting to hear the response by the White House since the petition has enough signatures to meet the requirement.


----------



## Scotth (Jan 28, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Here is something else to keep in mind in all of this- this issue is in part a distraction. Liberals and others who want to rescind 2A know it will never happen. At least not in their lifetimes. But they also know that this is such a visceral issue to so many Americans on both sides of the ideological divide, that as long as they keep it front and center, it is going to completely eclipse everything else important that is going on right now. Smoke and mirrors with 2A on one side, and bread and circuses in the form of government handouts on the other.
> 
> What are we losing sight of as we focus everything on 2A?


 
It is all the issues coming down the pipe. The debt fight, budgets, debt ceiling, gun control and immigration just to name a few. Obama's counting on the typical knee jerk reaction from the Republican's to universally oppose anything he does. He is going to propose a reasonable gun law on universal background check. He isn't going to over reach for an AWB. He will give a little lip service to keep his base semi-happy but no bills coming out of the White House will focus on an AWB. I think he is counting on Republican to block every gun bill period. He is counting on the House to block any immigration effort.

He is looking at 2014 and he and the Democrats are all going to campaign that he tried to do this, that and the other thing but each step of the way the Republican's blocked the simplest solutions like universal background checks etc etc. He is focused on winning the war (midterm elections) by creating the narrative today and counting on Republican's to focus on the battle in front of them.

Not doing something gun control related will come back to haunt Republican's in 2014.  Maybe not to the same degree as the Democrat were hurt after passing the last AWB but there will be a cost.  If there is a shooting just before Nov '14 and nothing was done all bets are off.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 28, 2013)

Im not sure how scientific or accurate this is, but I took this "Online Poll" and as of my vote this is what the results are showing:



Interestingly, Pa Representative Metcalfe's House Bill 357 (Right to Bear Arms Act) got a 71% approval in the Tribune-Review poll yesterday.


----------



## Scotth (Jan 28, 2013)

Here is some Gallup polling from Dec.






There is a pretty good break down of a lot of different aspect of the issue here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

This site has more current data from a wide variety of sources.  http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 28, 2013)

I just got and email from the White House.  
They actually want people to watch Crazy Uncle Joe's video.  :wall:

Hear more about the plan to reduce gun violence
Last week, Vice President Biden led a conversation about ways to reduce reduce gun violence, and we wanted to make sure you saw it.
He spoke in an online video chat with folks who have a range of perspectives, and the Vice President laid out the White House policy recommendations and answered their questions.
*You can watch the video here: *
*http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013...ut-vice-president-biden-reducing-gun-violence*


----------



## Casimir (Jan 28, 2013)

I thought it was rather funny how he tried to rationalize how a two shot shotgun was better in a multi-attacker scenario than a weapon that can fire multiple, accurate shots without reloading :-/


----------



## pardus (Jan 29, 2013)

Casimir said:


> I thought it was rather funny how he tried to rationalize how a two shot shotgun was better in a multi-attacker scenario than a weapon that can fire multiple, accurate shots without reloading :-/


 
And with a hugely reduced recoil. Biden is a stupid cunt and no mistake!


----------



## Brooklynben (Jan 29, 2013)

*So The New 'Safer' New York Now Begins.....  *
2 Cases reported today.

*#1)* It's just been reported that a retired 4 tour Army SSGT has been arrested and charged with Class D Felony(s) after a traffic stop and search revealed (3) AR15 - 30 rd magazines found in his car.

*#2) *http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/09/07/long-island-man-arrested-for-defending-home-with-ak-47/
A Long Island man is going to drive his cousin home and finds 5 guys milling around his car who look like MS13 Gang members to him. He asks them to move on and they start threatening him. He gets an AK from his home (legally owned and registered) comes back out and now demands that they move on, but 20 more gang members start showing up all threatening death to him and his entire family. The man fires 4 rounds into his lawn, knowing that the police maintain a "ShotSpotter" technology pinpoints where a gun has been fired within 35 feet and would show up and he shot into the lawn to hold back the growing mob.

What happens? The homeowner is arrested and charged with a D felony; "reckless endangerment" — which requires 'a depraved indifference to human life'.  Even though the local police readily admit that there are over 2000 MS13 members living around this area.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 29, 2013)

That's awesome that NYC's got Shotspotter.  Police citystate, full bore. Woo hoo.


----------



## Rangermom (Jan 29, 2013)

http://twg2a.wordpress.com/tag/cascade-county-sheriff-bob-edwards/

"
Now Cascade County Sheriff Bob Edwards has offered his thoughts on the issue; he posted the following open letter on his Facebook page:
_A Note from your Sheriff: I have been fielding a lot of questions lately regarding my opinion on gun laws._
_I will start out by saying as your Sheriff, I have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and Montana and I take that very seriously. This means I will not support any unconstitutional laws and I do not think any Sheriff would._
_I have also pledged to protect and serve the citizens of Cascade County to the best of my ability._
_Guns are on the forefront of debate when it comes to violent crime. This is where I get frustrated. There is more to violent crime than just guns and in my opinion, new gun laws will not change the fact we have violent crimes._
_We recently had a suspect drive through our County throwing pipe bombs at responding law enforcement trying to kill them. Also, there was a suspect that attempted to attack one of my deputies with a baseball bat that had fencing nails attached to it._
_Obviously, these people were not in their right minds and did not use guns to commit their violent crimes._
_I would like to see our lawmakers start working on mental health issues. Granted, not everyone with a mental health issue has violent tendencies so please do not take this the wrong way...."_

_We here in Cascade County are proud to call Sheriff Bob one of ours! Don't tread on Montana._


----------



## Dame (Jan 30, 2013)

Brooklynben said:


> *So The New 'Safer' New York Now Begins..... *
> 2 Cases reported today...


 
Case #2 is over two years old.


----------



## Brooklynben (Jan 30, 2013)

Dame said:


> Case #2 is over two years old.


 You are absolutely correct - my bad.  If I need to serve some time in 'detention', can I do so in the library?  I've heard some good things about libraries lately.  Thanks. 

Case #1 is current.


----------



## SgtUSMC8541 (Jan 30, 2013)

From the last Connecticut "Gun Debate" .  Well thought out and articulate.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 30, 2013)

I wish I could buy that man drinks many times over. A well thought out statement with facts and evidence from someone not even born in the U.S. Other should follow this example.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 30, 2013)

Brooklynben said:


> *So The New 'Safer' New York Now Begins..... *
> 2 Cases reported today.
> 
> *#1)* It's just been reported that a retired 4 tour Army SSGT has been arrested and charged with Class D Felony(s) after a traffic stop and search revealed (3) AR15 - 30 rd magazines found in his car.


 
I don't know the details of this case.  With that said, as a general rule never ever never never consent to a search of your person, car, or home.  It may well happen anyway--and may be proper--but do _not _waive your 4th Amendment protections.

This arrest stinks.  



Brooklynben said:


> *#2) *http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/09/07/long-island-man-arrested-for-defending-home-with-ak-47/
> A Long Island man is going to drive his cousin home and finds 5 guys milling around his car who look like MS13 Gang members to him. He asks them to move on and they start threatening him. He gets an AK from his home (legally owned and registered) comes back out and now demands that they move on, but 20 more gang members start showing up all threatening death to him and his entire family. The man fires 4 rounds into his lawn, knowing that the police maintain a "ShotSpotter" technology pinpoints where a gun has been fired within 35 feet and would show up and he shot into the lawn to hold back the growing mob.


 
Am I the only person who sees problems with this series of decisions?


----------



## Scotth (Jan 30, 2013)

This should serve as fair warning to Democrats wanting to impose a new AWB.



> New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s approval rating is down by double digits weeks after the Democrat signed sweeping new gun control legislation, a new poll Wednesday says.
> 
> According to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday, Cuomo’s approval rating is at 59 percent, with 28 percent disapproving, down from last month’s sky-high 74 percent approval, with 13 percent disapproving of his performance in office.


 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/andrew-cuomo-poll-numbers-fall-after-gun-bill-86919.html#ixzz2JT7eDrhr​


----------



## Karoshi (Jan 30, 2013)

This is the letter that I just received from Rep. Doug Lamborn:



> January 30, 2013
> 
> Dear KAROSHI,
> 
> ...


----------



## Gypsy (Jan 30, 2013)

From the office of the LT Gov of IL addressed to MR. Gypsy.  I sent an email back, The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, but thanks anwyay.


> Dear Mr. Gypsy
> 
> Thank you for contacting my office. I appreciate your thoughts regarding the Second Amendment rights of all Illinois residents.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gypsy (Jan 30, 2013)

From a Congressman, at least he is much more thoughtful in his response.



> Dear Ms. Gypsy
> 
> Thank you for contacting me with regard to our nation's gun laws in the wake of the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. I appreciate hearing your thoughts surrounding this horrific event.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hillclimb (Jan 30, 2013)

Sorry if this is a repost, I did a quick search and saw nothing.

http://asmdss.com/page/news.html/_/articles/letter-from-special-forces-to-america-2nd-amendment.html



> After a getting a "WARNO" previously, ASMDSS and Stolen Valor received this letter from members of the SOF community on their concerns for America and the Second Amendment. This letter was signed by over 1100 members of the SOF community, of which the names will not be published as this is Active and Retired members.
> 
> Whether you agree with it or not, it is well worth the read.
> 
> ...


 
Amazing write up gentlemen. This hit every corner imaginable.


----------



## Brooklynben (Jan 30, 2013)

policemedic said:


> I don't know the details of this case. With that said, as a general rule never ever never never consent to a search of your person, car, or home. It may well happen anyway--and may be proper--but do _not _waive your 4th Amendment protections.
> This arrest stinks.
> ____________
> Am I the only person who sees problems with this series of decisions?


  I would agree with you to a certain extent.  Calling 911 before grabbing the AK, would seem to be a more prudent choice.  But I wasn't there, he certainly has a right to defend his property, and regardless; firing warning shots into the ground hardly sounds like "reckless disregard for life".   I'm guessing that in some parts of Texas they might just call that 'down right polite' - if not a waste of good ammo.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 30, 2013)

That thing with the gang members and the AK... something just doesn't seem quite right to me.  In fact it almost screams out "rival gang member" instead of "innocent bystander civilian."


----------



## 0699 (Jan 31, 2013)

policemedic said:


> I don't know the details of this case. With that said, as a general rule never ever never never consent to a search of your person, car, or home. It may well happen anyway--and may be proper--but do _not _waive your 4th Amendment protections.
> 
> This arrest stinks.
> 
> Am I the only person who sees problems with this series of decisions?


 
Maybe I don't know enough about the case, or maybe I'm a pacifist, but IMO rounds exiting the barrel (deadly force) should be the last option.  Once he walked in his house, he should have called 912 unless they started breaking down the door.


----------



## Gypsy (Jan 31, 2013)

Hillclimb said:


> Sorry if this is a repost, I did a quick search and saw nothing.
> 
> http://asmdss.com/page/news.html/_/articles/letter-from-special-forces-to-america-2nd-amendment.html
> 
> ...


 
This was originally posted at PS.com, and written by several of the members...


----------



## Casimir (Jan 31, 2013)

Anyone watch the hearings on the prevention of gun violence on c-span? Some good stuff overall. Ted Cruz killed it. He got my vote. It's rather long, but if you've got the time, I'd say it's worth a watch. As usual, I'd say Dick Durbin made a complete dick of himself. No pun intended, seriously lol.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/310644-1


----------



## compforce (Jan 31, 2013)

School shooting in ATL. 1 Student shot, one teacher injured (not shot). Suspect in custody. Story breaking now. That's all the info I have. http://www.wsbradio.com/

Update: Student is shot in the head, no word on condition. Many conflicting reports going on. Here's the Fox/AP report on it: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/31/school-officials-confirm-shooting-at-atlanta-middle-school/ The school is now on lockdown.

That said, I really hope that the reason there is only one shot is because someone was carrying and shot the perp.

Update: According to WSB, the suspect in custody is another student.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 31, 2013)

0699 said:


> Maybe I don't know enough about the case, or maybe I'm a pacifist, but IMO rounds exiting the barrel (deadly force) should be the last option. Once he walked in his house, he should have called 912 unless they started breaking down the door.


 
I'm with you.  Brandishing an AK at a group of people you believed to be MS-13---and therefore should assume to be armed--in an attempt to frighten them away is bad mojo.  Firing warning shots was not only stupid but likely to escalate the situation.  Using the warning shots to call the police via Shot-Spotter?  Insane.

I agree with Marauder06; it seems likely there's more to this guy than we know.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 31, 2013)

compforce said:


> School shooting in ATL. 1 Student shot, one teacher injured (not shot). Suspect in custody. Story breaking now. That's all the info I have. http://www.wsbradio.com/
> 
> Update: Student is shot in the head, no word on condition. Many conflicting reports going on. Here's the Fox/AP report on it: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/31/school-officials-confirm-shooting-at-atlanta-middle-school/ The school is now on lockdown.
> 
> ...


The Fox affiliate in Atlanta is saying the shooter was apprehended by a school resource officer. Imagine that. 

http://wap.myfoxatlanta.com/w/main/story/83987177/


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 31, 2013)

New Gun Advert. Thoughts?


----------



## Karoshi (Jan 31, 2013)

Thoughts... my thoughts were "How you doin' sexy?" and the redhead who was handling the Glock wasn't that bad either.


----------



## Dame (Jan 31, 2013)

Karoshi said:


> Thoughts... my thoughts were "How you doin' sexy?" and the redhead who was handling the Glock wasn't that bad either.


Had no idea you were into beards.


----------



## compforce (Feb 1, 2013)

Wait wait wait...  we've got it all wrong!  Where's the national discussion on banning ski masks since they are used by people to hide their identities?  Oh, there it is...  


> And while police from the Metropolitan Police Department’s 4th District said they think the Rittenhouse Crew — *many of whose members are known to police officers* — is responsible for some of the robberies, the ski masks are a huge stumbling block if victims are to be unable to identify their assailants.


 


> D.C. law already ban individuals — ages 16 and up — from wearing masks in public under certain circumstances, such as while committing a crime or with “the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse or harass any other person.” But * prosecution under the law appears infrequent*. The Office of the Attorney General, which handles juvenile and misdemeanor cases in the District, was aware of only two cases in which juveniles faced charges under the law, spokesman Ted Gest said.





> But where some were supportive of cracking down on ski masks, others saw scapegoats and irrational fears.


 


> “And the next thing you know, the irrational thinkers will be talking about getting rid of scarves. A long scarf can make a good mask. Hmm. What’s next after that?” one woman wrote on the police listserv in response to the ski mask discussion


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/30/ski-mask-is-fashion-accessory-to-crime-in-dc/

OK, so let's get this straight... 
a tool is being used to commit a crime
they know who the criminals are
they don't prosecute the laws that are already on the books
so they want to ban the tool...
and those that oppose a ban have fears of a slippery slope

sound familiar?  :wall:


----------



## Gypsy (Feb 1, 2013)

Oh. My. God.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 1, 2013)

Why are you typing in pink?  It's hard to read.  We know you're intending sarcasm, add an emoticon if you think there's going to be any doubt about your intent.


----------



## compforce (Feb 1, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Why are you typing in pink? It's hard to read. We know you're intending sarcasm, add an emoticon if you think there's going to be any doubt about your intent.


 
It's my revenge for the white text in the Sun Tzu thread (Case Study) that I really want to read, but haven't

Gotcha, will do in the future.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 1, 2013)

compforce said:


> It's my revenge for the white text in the Sun Tzu thread (Case Study) that I really want to read, but haven't
> 
> Gotcha, will do in the future.


 
OK, that was good...


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 1, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Why are you typing in pink? It's hard to read. We know you're intending sarcasm, add an emoticon if you think there's going to be any doubt about your intent.


The pink font is nice and bright on my monitor.  I like it.  I think it should be the site default color.


----------



## 8654Maine (Feb 1, 2013)

Ahhh, Mara has a thing for pink.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Feb 1, 2013)

8654Maine said:


> Ahhh, Mara has a thing for pink.


It's a chick thing.


----------



## pardus (Feb 1, 2013)

*From now on only ever write using black type. Color is not allowed, either is colour. *


----------



## Dame (Feb 2, 2013)

pardus said:


> *From now on only ever write using black type. Color is not allowed, either is colour. *


Neither. Just sayin'.


----------



## pardus (Feb 2, 2013)

Dame said:


> Neither. Just sayin'.


 
Double negative.


----------



## Dame (Feb 2, 2013)

pardus said:


> Double negative.


You gave it its own verb. There is a second "is" so the negative stops with the first.

I will defer to the Troll on this. What say you, x SF med ?


----------



## pardus (Feb 2, 2013)

I really don't give a fuck. It's meaningless to me.


----------



## Casimir (Feb 2, 2013)

ouch...getting a bit touchy in your old age? lol


----------



## pardus (Feb 2, 2013)

Casimir said:


> ouch...getting a bit touchy in your old age? lol


 
Fuck off! lol


----------



## Casimir (Feb 2, 2013)

hahaha


----------



## 8654Maine (Feb 2, 2013)

Pardus, man...you rock!  I needed that chuckle after last few shifts.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 2, 2013)

This thread is great, I get to load Pardus up with some "hate" for a change...


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 2, 2013)

SkrewzLoose said:


> It's a chick thing.


 
OK, now you KNOW you're getting some "hate" for that one, lol.

WTF, who gave you all those "likes" for that post?  I think they may have to get some hate too...


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Feb 2, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> OK, now you KNOW you're getting some "hate" for that one, lol.
> 
> WTF, who gave you all those "likes" for that post? I think they may have to get some hate too...


Currently at a 4:1 Like/Hate ratio, I'll take it!


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 2, 2013)

Whitehouse releases photo of Obama shooting a gun. Pic is on the link. Discuss.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-clings-shotgun-wh-photo-173722404--abc-news-politics.html

A post from a reader on Twitchy puts things very well(I left out the "mom jeans" comments)


> Karl H • 3 hours ago
> They say a picture is worth a thousand words and this is certainly the case here. Aside from this being a staged photo, which is obvious, there are so many things this photo tells.
> 1) We as a nation required photo evidence of the POTUS actually firing a gun. That speaks volumes of the trust Americans have in the POTUS,
> 2) That the POTUS offered up photo evidence of him firing a gun shows that he knows what little confidence we as a nation have in his ability with even the most basic of concepts such as shooting a gun.
> ...


----------



## 8654Maine (Feb 2, 2013)

From the comments section from the above linked article:  "How about a picture of him balancing a checkbook?"


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 2, 2013)

8654Maine said:


> From the comments section from the above linked article: "How about a picture of him balancing a checkbook?"


LOL..that was a good one.  Some friends on Facebook are arguing over the way he is holding the gun and so on.  One guy just chimed in "For God's sake shut it.  He is left handed. He shoots left handed.  Everything about the guy is left".


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Feb 2, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Whitehouse releases photo of Obama shooting a gun. Pic is on the link. Discuss.
> http://news.yahoo.com/obama-clings-shotgun-wh-photo-173722404--abc-news-politics.html
> 
> A post from a reader on Twitchy puts things very well(I left out the "mom jeans" comments)



The photoshops I've seen of that pic are priceless.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 2, 2013)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> The photoshops I've seen of that pic are priceless.


Whoa there! The Whitehouse warned not to photoshop that picture!!


> This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. *The photograph may not be manipulated in any way* and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House."


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Feb 2, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Whoa there! The Whitehouse warned not to photoshop that picture!!


I read that earlier (which is why I haven't posted them up). It seems my college peers aren't too concerned though, so it's on them. I just sit back & get the chuckles.


----------



## JBS (Feb 2, 2013)

We already knew he could shoot.

Remember *>>when he got Bin Laden*?<<


----------



## TH15 (Feb 5, 2013)




----------



## Chopstick (Feb 5, 2013)

Little Alex Evans ups the ante on the playground with his....IMAGINARY HAND GRENADE!
And the school goes full on retard by "dispending" him.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/2nd-grader-suspended-over-imaginary-grenade-224740937.html


> Alex's mom commented that she doesn't think the rule is practical. "Honestly I don’t think the rule is very realistic for kids this age,” Mandie Watkins said. "I think that when a child is trying to save the world, I don’t think he should be punished for it."
> Alex is just as perplexed as his mom. "I was trying to save people and I just can’t believe I got dispended," he told Fox 31.


----------



## Karoshi (Feb 5, 2013)

I am not surprised... LOL, Loveland.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 5, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Little Alex Evans ups the ante on the playground with his....IMAGINARY HAND GRENADE!
> And the school goes full on retard by "dispending" him.
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/2nd-grader-suspended-over-imaginary-grenade-224740937.html


 
Things are getting way out of hand and sadly in a generation or two will provide China with an opportunity to walk in.


----------



## Casimir (Feb 5, 2013)

There's nothing wrong with China! We've graciously allowed them to float us during our time of turmoil, and we can learn a lot from their nation loving, humanitarian and social philanthropists of the last century! HOW DARE YOU!


----------



## Casimir (Feb 5, 2013)

http://www.westernjournalism.com/new-yorkers-revolt-at-gun-ban-meeting/

I was actually kinda happy to see this...this wasn't Tx, or Az, or some other gun-toting red state. this was NY. I think we are gonna see a lot more of this to come, and probably a lot stronger response.

I am mixed about the implications to be honest. I am thrilled people are taking a stand. Tickled pink. BUT, there's the other part of me that really does not want to see anything turn violent or, worse, result in death. That wouldn't be good for anyone.

Lump this together with all the other crap that's coming out, i.e. the kill list/drone strikes, weapons to countries like Libya, Egypt, etc, we are living in the formation of something that is going to be analyzed and looked back upon with its' own chapter in US history books in the future.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 6, 2013)

HR 437 IH

113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 437
To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 29, 2013
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York (for herself, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. DEUTCH, Mr. CARNEY, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. NADLER, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. CICILLINE, Mr. TIERNEY, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. COHEN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. TAKANO, Mr. SWALWELL of California, Mrs. LOWEY, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Ms. MATSUI, Ms. FRANKEL of Florida, Mr. MEEKS, Mr. SIRES, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. TSONGAS, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. HIMES, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. HOLT, Mr. MORAN, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Ms. ESTY, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. SHERMAN, Ms. LOFGREN, Ms. HAHN, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. CONYERS, and Ms. MENG) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.
_ Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,_
*SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.*

This Act may be cited as the ‘Assault Weapons Ban of 2013’.
*SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.*

(a) In General- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:
‘(30) The term ‘semiautomatic pistol’ means any repeating pistol that--
‘(A) utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round; and
‘(B) requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.
‘(31) The term ‘semiautomatic shotgun’ means any repeating shotgun that--
‘(A) utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round; and
‘(B) requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
‘(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
‘(i) A pistol grip.
‘(ii) A forward grip.
‘(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
‘(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
‘(v) A barrel shroud.
‘(vi) A threaded barrel.
‘(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
‘(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.
‘(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
‘(i) A threaded barrel.
‘(ii) A second pistol grip.
‘(iii) A barrel shroud.
‘(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
‘(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
‘(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
‘(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any 1 of the following:
‘(i) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
‘(ii) A pistol grip.
‘(iii) A fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds.
‘(iv) The ability to accept a detachable magazine.
‘(v) A forward grip.
‘(vi) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
‘(G) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
‘(H) All of the following rifles, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:
‘(i) All AK types, including the following:
‘(I) AK, AK47, AK47S, AK-74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR-47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK-47, VEPR, WASR-10, and WUM.
‘(II) IZHMASH Saiga AK.
‘(III) MAADI AK47 and ARM.
‘(IV) Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S.
‘(V) Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS.
‘(ii) All AR types, including the following:
‘(I) AR-10.
‘(II) AR-15.
‘(III) Armalite M15 22LR Carbine.
‘(IV) Armalite M15-T.
‘(V) Barrett REC7.
‘(VI) Beretta AR-70.
‘(VII) Bushmaster ACR.
‘(VIII) Bushmaster Carbon 15.
‘(IX) Bushmaster MOE series.
‘(X) Bushmaster XM15.
‘(XI) Colt Match Target Rifles.
‘(XII) DoubleStar AR rifles.
‘(XIII) DPMS Tactical Rifles.
‘(XIV) Heckler & Koch MR556.
‘(XV) Olympic Arms.
‘(XVI) Remington R-15 rifles.
‘(XVII) Rock River Arms LAR-15.
‘(XVIII) Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles.
‘(XIX) Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles.
‘(XX) Stag Arms AR rifles.
‘(XXI) Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles.
‘(iii) Barrett M107A1.
‘(iv) Barrett M82A1.
‘(v) Beretta CX4 Storm.
‘(vi) Calico Liberty Series.
‘(vii) CETME Sporter.
‘(viii) Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C.
‘(ix) Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000.
‘(x) Feather Industries AT-9.
‘(xi) Galil Model AR and Model ARM.
‘(xii) Hi-Point Carbine.
‘(xiii) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1, and HK USC.
‘(xiv) Kel-Tec Sub-2000, SU-16, and RFB.
‘(xv) SIG AMT, SIG PE-57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551.
‘(xvi) Springfield Armory SAR-48.
‘(xvii) Steyr AUG.
‘(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M-14/20CF.
‘(xix) All Thompson rifles, including the following:
‘(I) Thompson M1SB.
‘(II) Thompson T1100D.
‘(III) Thompson T150D.
‘(IV) Thompson T1B.
‘(V) Thompson T1B100D.
‘(VI) Thompson T1B50D.
‘(VII) Thompson T1BSB.
‘(VIII) Thompson T1-C.
‘(IX) Thompson T1D.
‘(X) Thompson T1SB.
‘(XI) Thompson T5.
‘(XII) Thompson T5100D.
‘(XIII) Thompson TM1.
‘(XIV) Thompson TM1C.
‘(xx) UMAREX UZI Rifle.
‘(xxi) UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine.
‘(xxii) Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78.
‘(xxiii) Vector Arms UZI Type.
‘(xxiv) Weaver Arms Nighthawk.
‘(xxv) Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.
‘(I) All of the following pistols, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:
‘(i) All AK-47 types, including the following:
‘(I) Centurion 39 AK pistol.
‘(II) Draco AK-47 pistol.
‘(III) HCR AK-47 pistol.
‘(IV) IO Inc. Hellpup AK-47 pistol.
‘(V) Krinkov pistol.
‘(VI) Mini Draco AK-47 pistol.
‘(VII) Yugo Krebs Krink pistol.
‘(ii) All AR-15 types, including the following:
‘(I) American Spirit AR-15 pistol.
‘(II) Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol.
‘(III) DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol.
‘(IV) DPMS AR-15 pistol.
‘(V) Olympic Arms AR-15 pistol.
‘(VI) Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol.
‘(iii) Calico Liberty pistols.
‘(iv) DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol.
‘(v) Encom MP-9 and MP-45.
‘(vi) Heckler & Koch model SP-89 pistol.
‘(vii) Intratec AB-10, TEC-22 Scorpion, TEC-9, and TEC-DC9.
‘(viii) Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol.
‘(ix) The following MAC types:
‘(I) MAC-10.
‘(II) MAC-11.
‘(III) Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol.
‘(IV) Military Armament Corp. Ingram M-11.
‘(V) Velocity Arms VMAC.
‘(x) Sig Sauer P556 pistol.
‘(xi) Sites Spectre.
‘(xii) All Thompson types, including the following:
‘(I) Thompson TA510D.
‘(II) Thompson TA5.
‘(xiii) All UZI types, including Micro-UZI.
‘(J) All of the following shotguns, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:
‘(i) Franchi LAW-12 and SPAS 12.
‘(ii) All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following:
‘(I) IZHMASH Saiga 12.
‘(II) IZHMASH Saiga 12S.
‘(III) IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP-01.
‘(IV) IZHMASH Saiga 12K.
‘(V) IZHMASH Saiga 12K-030.
‘(VI) IZHMASH Saiga 12K-040 Taktika.
‘(iii) Streetsweeper.
‘(iv) Striker 12.
‘(K) All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms, including TNW M2HB.
‘(L) Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraphs (A) through (K) can be assembled.
‘(M) The frame or receiver of a rifle or shotgun described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (F), (G), (H), (J), or (K).
‘(37) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’--
‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; and
‘(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.’.​(b) Related Definitions- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(38) The term ‘barrel shroud’--
‘(A) means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel; and
‘(B) does not include--
‘(i) a slide that partially or completely encloses the barrel; or
‘(ii) an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.
‘(39) The term ‘detachable magazine’ means an ammunition feeding device that can be removed from a firearm without disassembly of the firearm action.
‘(40) The term ‘fixed magazine’ means an ammunition feeding device that is permanently fixed to the firearm in such a manner that it cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm.
‘(41) The term ‘folding, telescoping, or detachable stock’ means a stock that folds, telescopes, detaches or otherwise operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of a firearm.
‘(42) The term ‘forward grip’ means a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.
‘(43) The term ‘rocket’ means any simple or complex tubelike device containing combustibles that on being ignited liberate gases whose action propels the tube through the air and has a propellant charge of not more than 4 ounces.
‘(44) The term ‘grenade launcher or rocket launcher’ means an attachment for use on a firearm that is designed to propel a grenade, rocket, or other similar destructive device.
‘(45) The term ‘permanently inoperable’ means a firearm which is incapable of discharging a shot by means of an explosive and incapable of being readily restored to a firing condition.
‘(46) The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.
‘(47) The term ‘threaded barrel’ means a feature or characteristic that is designed in such a manner to allow for the attachment of a device such as a firearm silencer or a flash suppressor.
‘(48) The term ‘qualified law enforcement officer’ has the meaning given the term in section 926B of title 18, United States Code.
‘(49) The term ‘grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any semiautomatic assault weapon the importation, possession, sale, or transfer of which would be unlawful under section 922(v) but for the exception under paragraph (2) of such section.
‘(50) The term ‘belt-fed semiautomatic firearm’ means any repeating firearm that--
‘(A) utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round;
‘(B) requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge; and
‘(C) has the capacity to accept a belt ammunition feeding device.’.​


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 6, 2013)

*SEC. 3. RESTRICTIONS ON ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.*

(a) In General- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting after subsection (u) the following:
‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.
‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.
‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm that--
‘(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
‘(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
‘(C) is an antique firearm, as defined in section 921 of this title.
‘(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
‘(A) the importation for, manufacture for, sale to, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a sale or transfer to or possession by a qualified law enforcement officer employed by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty), or a sale or transfer to or possession by a campus law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
‘(B) the importation for, or sale or transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;
‘(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired in good standing from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon--
‘(i) sold or transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or
‘(ii) that the individual purchased, or otherwise obtained, for official use before such retirement;
‘(D) the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General; or
‘(E) the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of a firearm specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearm was manufactured on the date of introduction of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.
‘(5) For purposes of paragraph (4)(A), the term ‘campus law enforcement officer’ means an individual who is--
‘(A) employed by a private institution of higher education that is eligible for funding under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.);
‘(B) responsible for the prevention or investigation of crime involving injury to persons or property, including apprehension or detention of persons for such crimes;
‘(C) authorized by Federal, State, or local law to carry a firearm, execute search warrants, and make arrests; and
‘(D) recognized, commissioned, or certified by a government entity as a law enforcement officer.
‘(6) The Attorney General shall establish and maintain, in a timely manner, a record of the make, model, and, if available, date of manufacture of any semiautomatic assault weapon which the Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a crime under Federal or State law, and the nature and circumstances of the crime involved, including the outcome of relevant criminal investigations and proceedings. The Attorney General shall annually submit a copy of the record established under this paragraph to the Congress and make the record available to the general public.
‘(w)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.
‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
‘(A) the importation for, manufacture for, sale to, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a sale or transfer to or possession by a qualified law enforcement officer employed by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty), or a sale or transfer to or possession by a campus law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
‘(B) the importation for, or sale or transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;
‘(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired in good standing from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity ammunition feeding device--
‘(i) sold or transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or
‘(ii) that the individual purchased, or otherwise obtained, for official use before such retirement; or
‘(D) the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General.
‘(4) For purposes of paragraph (3)(A), the term ‘campus law enforcement officer’ means an individual who is--
‘(A) employed by a private institution of higher education that is eligible for funding under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.);
‘(B) responsible for the prevention or investigation of crime involving injury to persons or property, including apprehension or detention of persons for such crimes;
‘(C) authorized by Federal, State, or local law to carry a firearm, execute search warrants, and make arrests; and
‘(D) recognized, commissioned, or certified by a government entity as a law enforcement officer.’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘(aa) Secure Storage or Safety Device Requirement for Grandfathered Semiautomatic Assault Weapons- It shall be unlawful for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to store or keep under the dominion or control of that person any grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon that the person knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, will be accessible to an individual prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under subsection (g), (n), or (x), or any provision of State law, unless the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon is--
‘(1) carried on the person, or within such close proximity that the person can readily retrieve and use the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon as if the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon were carried on the person; or
‘(2) locked by a secure gun storage or safety device that the prohibited individual has no ability to access.’.​(b) Identification Markings for Semiautomatic Assault Weapons- Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘The serial number of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 shall clearly show the date on which the weapon was manufactured or made, legibly and conspicuously engraved or cast on the weapon, and such other identification as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe.’.
(c) Identification Markings for Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices- Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 shall be identified by a serial number and the date on which the device was manufactured or made, legibly and conspicuously engraved or cast on the device, and such other identification as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe.’.
(d) Seizure and Forfeiture of Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices- Subsection (d) of section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ‘or large capacity ammunition feeding device’ after ‘firearm or ammunition’ each time it appears;
(B) by inserting ‘or large capacity ammunition feeding device’ after ‘firearms or ammunition’ each time it appears; and
(C) by striking ‘or (k)’ and inserting ‘(k), (r), (v), or (w)’;
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ‘or large capacity ammunition feeding devices’ after ‘firearms or quantities of ammunition’; and
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (E), by inserting ‘922(r), 922(v), 922(w),’ after ‘922(n),’.
(e) Appendix A- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
*‘APPENDIX A--FIREARMS EXEMPTED BY THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN OF 2013*​*‘Centerfire Rifles--Autoloaders*

‘Benelli R1 Rifle
‘Browning BAR Mark II Safari Magnum Rifle
‘Browning BAR Mark II Safari Semi-Auto Rifle
‘Browning BAR Stalker Rifles
‘Browning High-Power Rifle
‘Browning Longtrac Rifle
‘Browning Shorttrac Rifle
‘Heckler & Koch HK630
‘Heckler & Koch HK770
‘Heckler & Koch HK940
‘Heckler & Koch Model 300 Rifle
‘Heckler & Koch SL7 Rifle
‘Iver Johnson 50th Anniversary M-1 Carbine (w/o folding stock)
‘Iver Johnson M-1 Carbine (w/o folding stock)
‘M-1 Carbines with standard fixed stock
‘M-1 Garand with fixed 8 round capacity and standard stock
‘Marlin Model 9 Camp Carbine
‘Marlin Model 45 Carbine
‘Remington Model 74
‘Remington Model 81
‘Remington Model 740
‘Remington Model 742
‘Remington Model 750 Synthetic
‘Remington Model 750 Woodmaster
‘Remington Model 7400 Rifle
‘Remington Model 7400 Special Purpose Auto Rifle
‘Remington Nylon 66 Auto-Loading Rifle
‘Ruger Mini 30
‘Ruger Mini-14 (w/o folding stock)
‘Ruger PC4
‘Ruger PC9
‘SKS type rifles with fixed 10 round magazine and standard fixed stock
‘Winchester Model SXR​*‘Centerfire Rifles--Lever & Slide*

‘Action Arms Timber Wolf Pump Action
‘Beretta 1873 Renegade Lever Action
‘Beretta Gold Rush Slide Action
‘Big Horn Armory Model 89
‘Browning BLR Model 181 Lever Action, All Models
‘Browning BPR Pump Rifle
‘Browning Model 53 Lever Action
‘Browning Model 65 Grade 1 Lever Action Rifle
‘Browning Model 71 Rifle and Carbine
‘Browning Model 81 BLR
‘Browning Model 81 BLR Lever-Action Rifle
‘Browning Model 81 Long Action BLR
‘Browning Model 1886 High Grade Carbine
‘Browning Model 1886 Lever-Action Carbine
‘Browning Model B-92 Carbine
‘Charles Daly Model 1892 Lever Action, All Models
‘Chiappa 1886 Lever Action Rifles
‘Cimarron 1860 Henry Replica
‘Cimarron 1866 Winchester Replicas
‘Cimarron 1873 30" Express Rifle
‘Cimarron 1873 Short Rifle
‘Cimarron 1873 Sporting Rifle
‘Cimarron 1873 Winchester Replicas
‘Dixie Engraved 1873 Rifle
‘Dixie Lightning Rifle and Carbines
‘E.M.F. 1860 Henry Rifle
‘E.M.F. 1866 Yellowboy Lever Actions
‘E.M.F. Model 73 Lever-Action Rifle
‘E.M.F. Model 1873 Lever Actions
‘Henry .30/30 Lever Action Carbine
‘Henry Big Boy .357 Magnum
‘Henry Big Boy .44 Magnum
‘Henry Big Boy .45 Colt
‘Henry Big Boy Deluxe Engraved .44 Magnum
‘Henry Big Boy Deluxe Engraved .45 Colt
‘Marlin Model 30AS Lever-Action Carbine
‘Marlin Model 62 Lever Action
‘Marlin Model 93 Lever Action
‘Marlin Model 308MX
‘Marlin Model 308MXLR
‘Marlin Model 336 Deluxe
‘Marlin Model 336C
‘Marlin Model 336CS Lever-Action Carbine
‘Marlin Model 336DL Lever Action
‘Marlin Model 336SS
‘Marlin Model 336W
‘Marlin Model 336XLR
‘Marlin Model 338MX
‘Marlin Model 338MXLR
‘Marlin Model 444
‘Marlin Model 444 Lever-Action
‘Marlin Model 444XLR
‘Marlin Model 1894 Marlin Model 1894 Cowboy
‘Marlin Model 1894 Lever Action, All Models
‘Marlin Model 1894C
‘Marlin Model 1894CL Classic
‘Marlin Model 1894CS Carbine
‘Marlin Model 1894S Lever-Action Carbine
‘Marlin Model 1894SS
‘Marlin Model 1895
‘Marlin Model 1895 Cowboy
‘Marlin Model 1895 Lever Action, All Models
‘Marlin Model 1895G
‘Marlin Model 1895GS
‘Marlin Model 1895M
‘Marlin Model 1895MXLR
‘Marlin Model 1895SBL
‘Marlin Model 1895SS Lever-Action Rifle
‘Marlin Model 1895XLR
‘Marlin XLR Lever Action Rifles
‘Mitchell 1858 Henry Replica
‘Mitchell 1866 Winchester Replica
‘Mitchell 1873 Winchester Replica
‘Mossberg 464 Lever Action Rifle
‘Mossberg Model 472 Lever Action
‘Mossberg Model 479 Lever Action
‘Navy Arms 1866 Yellowboy Rifle
‘Navy Arms 1873 Sporting Rifle
‘Navy Arms 1873 Winchester-Style Rifle
‘Navy Arms 1892 Short Rifle
‘Navy Arms Henry Carbine
‘Navy Arms Henry Trapper
‘Navy Arms Iron Frame Henry
‘Navy Arms Military Henry Rifle
‘Puma Bounty Hunter Rifle
‘Puma Model 92 Rifles & Carbines
‘Remington 7600 Slide Action
‘Remington Model 6 Pump Action
‘Remington Model 14, 14 1/2 Pump Actions
‘Remington Model 141 Pump Action
‘Remington Model 760 Slide Actions
‘Remington Model 7600 Special Purpose Slide Action
‘Remington Model 7600 Synthetic
‘Remington Model 7615 Camo Hunter
‘Remington Model 7615 Ranch Carbine
‘Remington Model 7615 SPS
‘Rossi M92 SRC Saddle-Ring Carbine
‘Rossi M92 SRS Short Carbine
‘Rossi R92 Lever Action Carbines
‘Ruger Model 96/44 Lever Action
‘Savage 99C Lever-Action Rifle
‘Savage Model 170 Pump Action
‘Taurus Thunderbolt Pump Action
‘Taylor’s & CO., Inc. 1865 Spencer Carbine/Rifle
‘Taylor’s & CO., Inc. 1892 Carbine/Rifle
‘U.S. Fire Arms Standard Lightning Magazine Rifle
‘Uberti 1866 Sporting Rifle Uberti 1873 Sporting Rifle
‘Uberti 1876 Rifle
‘Uberti 1883 Burgess Lever Action Rifle/Carbine
‘Uberti Henry Rifle
‘Uberti Lightning Rifle/Carbine
‘Winchester Lever Actions, All Other Center Fire Models
‘Winchester Model 94 Big Bore Side Eject
‘Winchester Model 94 Ranger Side Eject Lever-Action Rifle
‘Winchester Model 94 Side Eject Lever-Action Rifle
‘Winchester Model 94 Trapper Side Eject
‘Winchester Model 94 Wrangler Side Eject
‘Winchester Model 1895 Safari Centennial​*‘Centerfire Rifles--Bolt Action*

‘Accurate Arms Raptor & Backpack Bolt Action Rifles
‘Alpine Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Anschutz 1700D Bavarian Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Anschutz 1700D Classic Rifles
‘Anschutz 1700D Custom Rifles
‘Anschutz 1733D Mannlicher Rifle
‘Arnold Arms African Safari & Alaskan Trophy Rifles
‘A-Square Caesar Bolt-Action Rifle
‘A-Square Genghis Khan Bolt Action Rifle
‘A-Square Hamilcar Bolt Action Rifle
‘A-Square Hannibal Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Auguste Francotte Bolt-Action Rifles
‘Bansners Ultimate Bolt Action Rifles
‘Beeman/HW 60J Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Benton & Brown Firearms, Inc. Model 93 Bolt Action Rifle
‘Blackheart International BBG Hunter Bolt Action
‘Blackheart International LLC BBG Light Sniper Bolt Action
‘Blaser R8 Professional
‘Blaser R84 Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Blaser R93 Bolt Action Rifle
‘BRNO 537 Sporter Bolt-Action Rifle
‘BRNO ZKB 527 Fox Bolt-Action Rifle
‘BRNO ZKK 600, 601, 602 Bolt-Action Rifles
‘Brown Precision Company Bolt Action Sporter
‘Browning A-Bolt Gold Medallion
‘Browning A-Bolt Left Hand
‘Browning A-Bolt Micro Medallion
‘Browning A-Bolt Rifle
‘Browning A-Bolt Short Action
‘Browning A-Bolt Stainless Stalker
‘Browning Euro-Bolt Rifle
‘Browning High-Power Bolt Action Rifle
‘Browning X-Bolt Bolt Action Rifle
‘Carbon One Bolt Action Rifle
‘Carl Gustaf 2000 Bolt-Action Rifle Century
‘Centurion 14 Sporter
‘Century Enfield Sporter #4
‘Century M70 Sporter
‘Century Mauser 98 Sporter
‘Century Swedish Sporter #38
‘Cheytac M-200
‘Cheytac M70 Sporter
‘Cooper Model 21 Bolt Action Rifle
‘Cooper Model 22 Bolt Action Rifle
‘Cooper Model 38 Centerfire Sporter
‘Cooper Model 56 Bolt Action Rifle
‘CZ 527 Bolt Action Rifles
‘CZ 550 Bolt Action Rifles
‘CZ 750 Sniper Rifle
‘Dakota 22 Sporter Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Dakota 76 Classic Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Dakota 76 Safari Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Dakota 76 Short Action Rifles
‘Dakota 97 Bolt Action Rifle
‘Dakota 416 Rigby African
‘Dakota Predator Rifle
‘DSA DS-MP1 Bolt Action Rifle
‘E.A.A./Sabatti Rover 870 Bolt-Action Rifle
‘EAA/Zastava M-93 Black Arrow Rifle
‘Ed Brown Hunting and Model 704 Bolt Action Rifles
‘Heym Bolt Action Rifles
‘Heym Magnum Express Series Rifle
‘Howa Bolt Action Rifles
‘Howa Lightning Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Howa Realtree Camo Rifle
‘H-S Precision Bolt Action Rifles
‘Interarms Mark X Bolt Action Rifles
‘Interarms Mark X Viscount Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Interarms Mark X Whitworth Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Interarms Mini-Mark X Rifle
‘Interarms Whitworth Express Rifle
‘Iver Johnson Model 5100A1 Long-Range Rifle
‘KDF K15 American Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Kenny Jarrett Bolt Action Rifle
‘Kimber Bolt Action Rifles
‘Krico Model 600 Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Krico Model 700 Bolt-Action Rifles
‘Magnum Research Mount Eagle Rifles
‘Marlin Model XL7
‘Marlin Model XL7C
‘Marlin Model XL7L
‘Marlin Model XL7W
‘Marlin Model XS7
‘Marlin Model XS7C
‘Marlin Model XS7Y
‘Marlin XL-7/XS7 Bolt Action Rifles
‘Mauser Model 66 Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Mauser Model 99 Bolt-Action Rifle
‘McMillan Classic Stainless Sporter
‘McMillan Signature Alaskan
‘McMillan Signature Classic Sporter
‘McMillan Signature Super Varminter
‘McMillan Signature Titanium Mountain Rifle
‘McMillan Talon Safari Rifle
‘McMillan Talon Sporter Rifle
‘Merkel KR1 Bolt Action Rifle
‘Midland 1500S Survivor Rifle
‘Mossberg Model 100 ATR (All-Terrain Rifle)
‘Navy Arms TU-33/40 Carbine
‘Nosler Model 48 Varmint Rifle
‘Parker Hale Bolt Action Rifles
‘Parker-Hale Model 81 Classic African Rifle
‘Parker-Hale Model 81 Classic Rifle
‘Parker-Hale Model 1000 Rifle
‘Parker-Hale Model 1100 Lightweight Rifle
‘Parker-Hale Model 1100M African Magnum
‘Parker-Hale Model 1200 Super Clip Rifle
‘Parker-Hale Model 1200 Super Rifle
‘Parker-Hale Model 1300C Scout Rifle
‘Parker-Hale Model 2100 Midland Rifle
‘Parker-Hale Model 2700 Lightweight Rifle
‘Parker-Hale Model 2800 Midland Rifle
‘Remington 700 ADL Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Remington 700 BDL Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Remington 700 BDL European Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Remington 700 BDL Left Hand
‘Remington 700 BDL SS Rifle
‘Remington 700 BDL Varmint Special
‘Remington 700 Camo Synthetic Rifle
‘Remington 700 Classic Rifle
‘Remington 700 Custom KS Mountain Rifle
‘Remington 700 Mountain Rifle
‘Remington 700 MTRSS Rifle
‘Remington 700 Safari
‘Remington 700 Stainless Synthetic Rifle
‘Remington 700 Varmint Synthetic Rifle
‘Remington Model 40-X Bolt Action Rifles
‘Remington Model 700 Alaskan Ti
‘Remington Model 700 Bolt Action Rifles
‘Remington Model 700 CDL
‘Remington Model 700 CDL ‘Boone and Crockett’
‘Remington Model 700 CDL Left-Hand
‘Remington Model 700 CDL SF Limited Edition
‘Remington Model 700 LSS
‘Remington Model 700 Mountain LSS
‘Remington Model 700 Sendero SF II
‘Remington Model 700 SPS
‘Remington Model 700 SPS Buckmasters Edition
‘Remington Model 700 SPS Buckmasters Edition ‘Young Bucks’ Youth
‘Remington Model 700 SPS Stainless
‘Remington Model 700 SPS Tactical Rifle
‘Remington Model 700 SPS Varmint
‘Remington Model 700 SPS Varmint (Left-Hand)
‘Remington Model 700 SPS Youth Synthetic Left-Hand
‘Remington Model 700 VL SS Thumbhole
‘Remington Model 700 VLS
‘Remington Model 700 VS SF II
‘Remington Model 700 VTR
‘Remington Model 700 XCR
‘Remington Model 700 XCR Camo
‘Remington Model 700 XCR Compact Tactical Rifle
‘Remington Model 700 XCR Left-Hand
‘Remington Model 700 XCR Tactical Long Range Rifle
‘Remington Model 715
‘Remington Model 770
‘Remington Model 770 Bolt Action Rifles
‘Remington Model 770 Stainless Camo
‘Remington Model 770 Youth
‘Remington Model 798
‘Remington Model 798 Safari
‘Remington Model 798 SPS
‘Remington Model 799
‘Remington Model Seven 25th Anniversary
‘Remington Model Seven Bolt Action Rifles
‘Remington Model Seven CDL
‘Remington Model Seven Custom KS
‘Remington Model Seven Custom MS Rifle
‘Remington Model Seven Predator
‘Remington Model Seven Youth Rifle
‘Ruger M77 Hawkeye African
‘Ruger M77 Hawkeye Alaskan
‘Ruger M77 Hawkeye All-Weather
‘Ruger M77 Hawkeye All-Weather Ultra Light
‘Ruger M77 Hawkeye Compact
‘Ruger M77 Hawkeye International
‘Ruger M77 Hawkeye Laminate Compact
‘Ruger M77 Hawkeye Laminate Left-Handed
‘Ruger M77 Hawkeye Predator
‘Ruger M77 Hawkeye Sporter
‘Ruger M77 Hawkeye Standard
‘Ruger M77 Hawkeye Standard Left-Handed
‘Ruger M77 Hawkeye Tactical
‘Ruger M77 Hawkeye Ultra Light
‘Ruger M77 Mark II All-Weather Stainless Rifle
‘Ruger M77 Mark II Express Rifle
‘Ruger M77 Mark II Magnum Rifle
‘Ruger M77 Mark II Rifle
‘Ruger M77 Mark II Target Rifle
‘Ruger M77 RSI International Carbine
‘Ruger M77
‘Ruger Compact Magnum
‘Ruger M77RL Ultra Light
‘Ruger M77VT Target Rifle
‘Ruger Model 77 Bolt Action Rifles
‘Sako Bolt Action Rifles
‘Sako Classic Bolt Action
‘Sako Deluxe Lightweight
‘Sako FiberClass Sporter
‘Sako Hunter Left-Hand Rifle
‘Sako Hunter LS Rifle Sako Hunter Rifle
‘Sako Mannlicher-Style Carbine
‘Sako Safari Grade Bolt Action
‘Sako Super Deluxe Sporter
‘Sako TRG-S Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Sako Varmint Heavy Barrel
‘Sauer 90 Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Savage 16/116 Rifles
‘Savage 110 Bolt Action Rifles
‘Savage 110CY Youth/Ladies Rifle
‘Savage 110F Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Savage 110FP Police Rifle
‘Savage 110FXP3 Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Savage 110G Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Savage 110GV Varmint Rifle
‘Savage 110GXP3 Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Savage 110WLE One of One Thousand Limited Edition Rifle
‘Savage 112 Bolt Action Rifles
‘Savage 112FV Varmint Rifle
‘Savage 116 Bolt Action Rifles
‘Savage 116FSS Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Savage Axis Series Bolt Action Rifles
‘Savage Model 10 Bolt Action Rifles
‘Savage Model 10GXP Package Guns
‘Savage Model 11/111 Series Bolt Action Rifles
‘Savage Model 12 Series Rifles
‘Savage Model 14/114 Rifles
‘Savage Model 25 Bolt Action Rifles
‘Savage Model 110GXP3 Package Guns
‘Savage Model 112BV Heavy Barrel Varmint Rifle
‘Savage Model 112FVS Varmint Rifle
‘Savage Model 116FSK Kodiak Rifle
‘Shilen Rifles Inc. DGA Bolt Action Rifles
‘Smith & Wesson i-Bolt Rifle
‘Steyr Scout Bolt Action Rifle
‘Steyr SSG 69 PII Bolt Action Rifle
‘Steyr SSG08 Bolt Action Rifle
‘Steyr-Mannlicher Luxus Model L, M, S
‘Steyr-Mannlicher Model M Professional Rifle
‘Steyr-Mannlicher Sporter Models SL, L, M, S, S/T
‘Thompson/Center ICON Bolt Action Rifles
‘Thompson/Center Icon Classic Long Action Rifle
‘Thompson/Center Icon Medium Action Rifle
‘Thompson/Center Icon Precision Hunter
‘Thompson/Center Icon Weather Shield Long Action Rifle
‘Thompson/Center Icon Weather Shield Medium Action Rifle
‘Thompson/Center Venture
‘Tikka Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Tikka Premium Grade Rifles
‘Tikka T3 Bolt Action Rifles
‘Tikka Varmint/Continental Rifle
‘Tikka Whitetail/Battue Rifle
‘Ultra Light Arms Model 20 Rifle
‘Ultra Light Arms Model 24
‘Ultra Light Arms Model 28, Model 40 Rifles
‘Voere Model 2155, 2150 Bolt-Action Rifles
‘Voere Model 2165 Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Voere VEC 91 Lightning Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Weatherby Classicmark No. 1 Rifle
‘Weatherby Lasermark V Rifle
‘Weatherby Mark V Crown Custom Rifles
‘Weatherby Mark V Deluxe Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Weatherby Mark V Rifles
‘Weatherby Mark V Safari Grade Custom Rifles
‘Weatherby Mark V Sporter Rifle
‘Weatherby Vanguard Bolt Action Rifles
‘Weatherby Vanguard Classic No. 1 Rifle
‘Weatherby Vanguard Classic Rifle
‘Weatherby Vanguard VGX Deluxe Rifle
‘Weatherby Vanguard Weatherguard Rifle
‘Weatherby Weatherguard Alaskan Rifle
‘Weatherby Weathermark Alaskan Rifle
‘Weatherby Weathermark Rifle
‘Weatherby Weathermark Rifles
‘Wichita Classic Rifle
‘Wichita Varmint Rifle
‘Winchester Model 70 Bolt Action Rifles
‘Winchester Model 70 Custom Sharpshooter
‘Winchester Model 70 Custom Sporting Sharpshooter Rifle
‘Winchester Model 70 DBM Rifle
‘Winchester Model 70 DBM-S Rifle
‘Winchester Model 70 Featherweight
‘Winchester Model 70 Featherweight Classic
‘Winchester Model 70 Featherweight WinTuff
‘Winchester Model 70 Lightweight Rifle
‘Winchester Model 70 SM Sporter
‘Winchester Model 70 Sporter
‘Winchester Model 70 Sporter WinTuff
‘Winchester Model 70 Stainless Rifle
‘Winchester Model 70 Super Express Magnum
‘Winchester Model 70 Super Grade
‘Winchester Model 70 Synthetic Heavy Varmint Rifle
‘Winchester Model 70 Varmint
‘Winchester Ranger Rifle​*‘Centerfire Rifles--Single Shot*

‘Armsport 1866 Sharps Rifle, Carbine
‘Ballard Arms Inc. 1875 #3 Gallery Single Shot Rifle
‘Ballard Arms Inc. 1875 #4 Perfection Rifle
‘Ballard Arms Inc. 1875 #7 Long Range Rifle
‘Ballard Arms Inc. 1875 #8 Union Hill rifle
‘Ballard Arms Inc. 1875 1 1/2 Hunter Rifle
‘Ballard Arms Inc. 1885 High Wall Sporting Rifle
‘Ballard Arms Inc. 1885 Low Wall Single Shot
‘Brown Model 97D Single Shot Rifle
‘Brown Model One Single Shot Rifle
‘Browning Model 1885 Single Shot Rifle
‘C. Sharps Arms 1875 Target & Sporting Rifle
‘C. Sharps Arms Custom New Model 1877
‘C. Sharps Arms New Model 1885 High Wall Rifle
‘C.Sharps Arms 1874 Bridgeport Sporting Rifle
‘C.Sharps Arms 1875 Classic Sharps
‘C.Sharps Arms New Model 1874 Old Reliable
‘C.Sharps Arms New Model 1875 Rifle
‘C.Sharps Arms New Model 1875 Target & Long Range
‘Cabela’s 1874 Sharps Sporting
‘Cimarron Billy Dixon 1874 Sharps
‘Cimarron Model 1885 High Wall
‘Cimarron Quigley Model 1874 Sharps
‘Cimarron Silhouette Model 1874 Sharps
‘Dakota Model 10 Single Shot Rifle
‘Dakota Single Shot Rifle
‘Desert Industries G-90 Single Shot Rifle
‘Dixie Gun Works 1873 Trapdoor Rifle/Carbine
‘Dixie Gun Works 1874 Sharps Rifles
‘Dixie Gun Works Remington Rolling Block Rifles
‘EMF Premier 1874 Sharps
‘Harrington & Richardson Buffalo Classic Rifle (CR-1871)
‘Harrington & Richardson CR 45-LC
‘Harrington & Richardson Handi-Mag Rifle
‘Harrington & Richardson Handi-Rifle
‘Harrington & Richardson Handi-Rifle Compact
‘Harrington & Richardson New England Hand-Rifle/Slug Gun Combos
‘Harrington & Richardson Stainless Handi-Rifle
‘Harrington & Richardson Stainless Ultra Hunter Thumbhole Stock
‘Harrington & Richardson Superlight Handi-Rifle Compact
‘Harrington & Richardson Survivor Rifle
‘Harrington & Richardson Synthetic Handi-Rifle
‘Harrington & Richardson Ultra Hunter Rifle
‘Harrington & Richardson Ultra Varmint Fluted
‘Harrington & Richardson Ultra Varmint Rifle
‘Harrington & Richardson Ultra Varmint Thumbhole Stock
‘Krieghoff Hubertus Single Shot
‘Meacham High Wall
‘Merkel K1 Lightweight Stalking Rifle
‘Merkel K2 Custom Stalking Rifle
‘Model 1885 High Wall Rifle
‘Navy Arms #2 Creedmoor Rifle
‘Navy Arms 1873 John Bodine Rolling Black Rifle
‘Navy Arms 1873 Springfield Cavalry Carbine
‘Navy Arms 1874 Sharps Rifles
‘Navy Arms 1874 1885 High Wall Rifles
‘Navy Arms Rolling Block Buffalo Rifle
‘Navy Arms Sharps ‘Quigley’ Rifle
‘Navy Arms Sharps Cavalry Carbine
‘Navy Arms Sharps Plains Rifle
‘New England Firearms Handi-Rifle
‘New England Firearms Sportster/Versa Pack Rifle
‘New England Firearms Survivor Rifle
‘Red Willow Armory Ballard No. 1.5 Hunting Rifle
‘Red Willow Armory Ballard No. 4.5 Target Rifle
‘Red Willow Armory Ballard No. 5 Pacific
‘Red Willow Armory Ballard No. 8 Union Hill Rifle
‘Red Willow Armory Ballard Rifles
‘Remington Model Rolling Block Rifles
‘Remington Model SPR18 Blued
‘Remington Model SPR18 Nickel
‘Remington Model SPR18 Single Shot Rifle
‘Remington-Style Rolling Block Carbine
‘Rossi Match Pairs Rifles
‘Rossi Single Shot Rifles
‘Rossi Wizard
‘Ruger No. 1 RSI International
‘Ruger No. 1 Stainless Sporter
‘Ruger No. 1 Stainless Standard
‘Ruger No. 1A Light Sporter
‘Ruger No. 1B Single Shot
‘Ruger No. 1H Tropical Rifle
‘Ruger No. 1S Medium Sporter
‘Ruger No. 1V Special Varminter
‘Sharps 1874 Old Reliable
‘Shiloh 1875 Rifles
‘Shiloh Sharps 1874 Business Rifle
‘Shiloh Sharps 1874 Long Range Express
‘Shiloh Sharps 1874 Military Carbine
‘Shiloh Sharps 1874 Military Rifle
‘Shiloh Sharps 1874 Montana Roughrider
‘Shiloh Sharps Creedmoor Target
‘Thompson/Center Contender Carbine
‘Thompson/Center Contender Carbine Survival System
‘Thompson/Center Contender Carbine Youth Model
‘Thompson/Center Encore
‘Thompson/Center Stainless Contender Carbine
‘Thompson/Center TCR ’87 Single Shot Rifle
‘Thompson/Encore Rifles
‘Traditions 1874 Sharps Deluxe Rifle
‘Traditions 1874 Sharps Standard Rifle
‘Traditions Rolling Block Sporting Rifle
‘Uberti (Stoeger Industries) Sharps Rifles
‘Uberti 1871 Rolling Block Rifle/Carbine
‘Uberti 1874 Sharps Sporting Rifle
‘Uberti 1885 High Wall Rifles
‘Uberti Rolling Block Baby Carbine
‘Uberti Springfield Trapdoor Carbine/Rifle​*‘Drillings, Combination Guns, Double Rifles*

‘A. Zoli Rifle-Shotgun O/U Combo
‘Auguste Francotte Boxlock Double Rifle
‘Auguste Francotte Sidelock Double Rifles
‘Baikal IZH-94 Express
‘Baikal MP94- (IZH-94) O/U
‘Beretta Express SSO O/U Double Rifles
‘Beretta Model 455 SxS Express Rifle
‘Chapuis RGExpress Double Rifle
‘CZ 584 SOLO Combination Gun
‘CZ 589 Stopper O/U Gun
‘Dakota Double Rifle
‘Garbi Express Double Rifle
‘Harrington & Richardson Survivor
‘Harrington & Richardson Synthetic Handi-Rifle/Slug Gun Combo
‘Heym Model 55B O/U Double Rifle
‘Heym Model 55FW O/U Combo Gun
‘Heym Model 88b Side-by-Side Double Rifle
‘Hoenig Rotary Round Action Combination Rifle
‘Hoenig Rotary Round Action Double Rifle
‘Kodiak Mk. IV Double Rifle
‘Kreighoff Teck O/U Combination Gun
‘Kreighoff Trumpf Drilling
‘Krieghoff Drillings
‘Lebeau-Courally Express Rifle 5X5
‘Merkel Boxlock Double Rifles
‘Merkel Drillings
‘Merkel Model 160 Side-by-Side Double Rifles
‘Merkel Over/Under Combination Guns
‘Merkel Over/Under Double Rifles
‘Remington Model SPR94 .410/Rimfire
‘Remington Model SPR94 12 Gauge/Centerfire
‘Rizzini Express 90L Double Rifle
‘Savage 24F O/U Combination Gun
‘Savage 24F-12T Turkey Gun
‘Springfield Inc. M6 Scout Rifle/Shotgun
‘Tikka Model 412s Combination Gun
‘Tikka Model 412S Double Fire​*‘Rimfire Rifles--Autoloaders*

‘AMT Lightning 25/22 Rifle
‘AMT Lightning Small-Game Hunting Rifle II
‘AMT Magnum Hunter Auto Rifle
‘Anschutz 525 Deluxe Auto
‘Armscor Model 20P Auto Rifle
‘Browning Auto .22 Rifles
‘Browning Auto-22 Rifle
‘Browning Auto-22 Grade VI
‘Browning BAR .22 Auto Rifle
‘Browning SA-22 Semi-Auto 22 Rifle
‘Henry U.S. Survival .22
‘Henry U.S. Survival Rifle AR-7
‘Krico Model 260 Auto Rifle
‘Lakefield Arms Model 64B Auto Rifle
‘Marlin Model 60 Self Loading Rifles
‘Marlin Model 60C
‘Marlin Model 60SB
‘Marlin Model 60S-CF
‘Marlin Model 60SN
‘Marlin Model 60ss Self-Loading Rifle
‘Marlin Model 70 Auto-loading Rifles
‘Marlin Model 70 HC Auto
‘Marlin Model 70P Papoose
‘Marlin Model 70PSS
‘Marlin Model 795
‘Marlin Model 795SS
‘Marlin Model 922 Magnum Self-Loading Rifle
‘Marlin Model 990l Self-Loading Rifle
‘Marlin Model 995 Self-Loading Rifle
‘Mossberg 702 Plinkster
‘Norinco Model 22 ATD Rifle
‘Remington 552BDL Speedmaster Rifle
‘Remington Model 522 Viper Autoloading Rifle
‘Remington Model 597 Blaze Camo
‘Remington Model 597 Pink Camo
‘Remington Model 597 Synthetic Scope Combo
‘Ruger 10/22 Autoloading Carbine (w/o folding stock)
‘Ruger 10/22 Compact
‘Ruger 10/22 Sporter
‘Ruger 10/22 Target
‘Survival Arms AR-7 Explorer Rifle
‘Texas Remington Revolving Carbine
‘Thompson/Center R-55 All-Weather
‘Thompson/Center R-55 Benchmark
‘Thompson/Center R-55 Classic
‘Thompson/Center R-55 Rifles
‘Thompson/Center R-55 Sporter
‘Voere Model 2115 Auto Rifle​*‘Rimfire Rifles--Lever & Slide Action*

‘Browning BL-22 Lever-Action Rifle
‘Henry .22 Lever Action Rifles, All Models
‘Henry Golden Boy .17 HMR
‘Henry Golden Boy .22
‘Henry Golden Boy .22 Magnum
‘Henry Golden Boy Deluxe
‘Henry Lever .22 Magnum
‘Henry Lever Action .22
‘Henry Lever Carbine .22
‘Henry Lever Octagon .22
‘Henry Lever Octagon .22 Magnum
‘Henry Lever Youth Model .22
‘Henry Pump Action Octagon .22
‘Henry Pump Action Octagon .22 Magnum
‘Henry Varmint Express .17 HMR
‘Marlin 39TDS Carbine
‘Marlin Model 39A Golden Lever Action
‘Marlin Model 39AS Golden Lever-Action Rifle
‘Mossberg Model 464 Rimfire Lever Action Rifle
‘Norinco EM-321 Pump Rifle
‘Remington 572BDL Fieldmaster Pump Rifle
‘Rossi Model 62 SA Pump Rifle
‘Rossi Model 62 SAC Carbine
‘Rossi Model G2 Gallery Rifle
‘Ruger Model 96 Lever-Action Rifle
‘Taurus Model 62- Pump
‘Taurus Model 72 Pump Rifle
‘Winchester Model 9422 Lever-Action Rifle
‘Winchester Model 9422 Magnum Lever-Action Rifle​*‘Rimfire Rifles--Bolt Actions & Single Shots*

‘Anschutz 1416D/1516D Classic Rifles
‘Anschutz 1418D/1518D Mannlicher Rifles
‘Anschutz 1700 FWT Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Anschutz 1700D Bavarian Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Anschutz 1700D Classic Rifles
‘Anschutz 1700D Custom Rifles
‘Anschutz 1700D Graphite Custom Rifle
‘Anschutz 1702 D H B Classic
‘Anschutz 1713 Silhouette
‘Anschutz Achiever
‘Anschutz Achiever Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Anschutz All other Bolt Action Rimfire Models
‘Anschutz Kadett
‘Anschutz Model 1502 D Classic
‘Anschutz Model 1517 D Classic
‘Anschutz Model 1517 MPR Multi Purpose
‘Anschutz Model 1517 S-BR
‘Anschutz Model 1710 D KL
‘Anschutz Model 1717 Classic
‘Anschutz Model 1717 Silhouette Sporter
‘Anschutz Model G4 MPB
‘Anschutz Model Woodchucker
‘Armscor Model 14P Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Armscor Model 1500 Rifle
‘Beeman/HW 60-J-ST Bolt-Action Rifle
‘BRNO ZKM 452 Deluxe
‘BRNO ZKM-456 Lux Sporter
‘BRNO ZKM-452 Deluxe Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Browning A-Bolt 22 Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Browning A-Bolt Gold Medallion
‘Browning T-Bolt Rimfire Rifles
‘Cabanas Espronceda IV Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Cabanas Leyre Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Cabanas Master Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Cabanas Phaser Rifle
‘Chipmunk Single Shot Rifle
‘Cooper Arms Model 36S Sporter Rifle
‘Cooper Model 57-M Bolt Action Rifle
‘CZ 452 Bolt Action Rifles
‘Dakota 22 Sporter Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Davey Crickett Single Shot Rifle
‘Harrington & Richardson Sportster
‘Harrington & Richardson Sportster 17 Hornady Magnum Rimfire
‘Harrington & Richardson Sportster Compact
‘Henry ‘Mini’ Bolt Action Rifle
‘Henry Acu-Bolt .22
‘Henry Mini Bolt Youth .22
‘Kimber Bolt Action .22 Rifles
‘Krico Model 300 Bolt-Action Rifles
‘Lakefield Arms Mark I Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Lakefield Arms Mark II Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Magtech Model MT Bolt Action Rifle
‘Magtech Model MT-22C Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Marlin Model 15YN ‘Little Buckaroo’
‘Marlin Model 25MN Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Marlin Model 25N Bolt-Action Repeater
‘Marlin Model 880 Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Marlin Model 881 Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Marlin Model 882 Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Marlin Model 883 Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Marlin Model 883SS Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Marlin Model 915 YN ‘Little Buckaroo’
‘Marlin Model 915Y (Compact)
‘Marlin Model 915YS (Compact)
‘Marlin Model 917
‘Marlin Model 917S
‘Marlin Model 917V
‘Marlin Model 917VR
‘Marlin Model 917VS
‘Marlin Model 917VS-CF
‘Marlin Model 917VSF
‘Marlin Model 917VST
‘Marlin Model 917VT
‘Marlin Model 925
‘Marlin Model 925C
‘Marlin Model 925M
‘Marlin Model 925R
‘Marlin Model 925RM
‘Marlin Model 980S
‘Marlin Model 980S-CF
‘Marlin Model 981T
‘Marlin Model 982 Bolt Action Rifle
‘Marlin Model 982VS
‘Marlin Model 982VS-CF
‘Marlin Model 983
‘Marlin Model 983S
‘Marlin Model 983T
‘Marlin Model XT-17 Series Bolt Action Rifles
‘Marlin Model XT-22 Series Bolt Action Rifles
‘Mauser Model 107 Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Mauser Model 201 Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Meacham Low-Wall Rifle
‘Mossberg Model 801/802 Bolt Rifles
‘Mossberg Model 817 Varmint Bolt Action Rifle
‘Navy Arms TU-33/40 Carbine
‘Navy Arms TU-KKW Sniper Trainer
‘Navy Arms TU-KKW Training Rifle
‘New England Firearms Sportster Single Shot Rifles
‘Norinco JW-15 Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Norinco JW-27 Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Remington 40-XR Rimfire Custom Sporter
‘Remington 541-T
‘Remington 541-T HB Bolt-Action
‘Rifle Remington 581-S Sportsman Rifle
‘Remington Model Five
‘Remington Model Five Youth
‘Rossi Matched Pair Single Shot Rifle
‘Ruger 77/17
‘Ruger 77/22
‘Ruger 77/22 Rimfire Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Ruger 77/44
‘Ruger K77/22 Varmint Rifle
‘Savage CUB T Mini Youth
‘Savage Mark I-G Bolt Action
‘Savage Mark II Bolt Action Rifles
‘Savage Model 30 G Stevens Favorite
‘Savage Model 93 Rifles
‘Thompson/Center Hotshot Youth Rifle
‘Ultra Light Arms Model 20 RF Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Winchester Model 52B Sporting Rifle
‘Winchester Wildcat Bolt Action Rifle 22​*‘Competition Rifles--Centerfire & Rimfire*

‘Anschutz 1803D Intermediate Match
‘Anschutz 1808D RT Super Match 54 Target
‘Anschutz 1827B Biathlon Rifle
‘Anschutz 1827BT Fortner Biathlon Rifle
‘Anschutz 1903 Rifles
‘Anschutz 1903D Match Rifle
‘Anschutz 1907 Match Rifle
‘Anschutz 1910 Super Match II
‘Anschutz 1911 Match Rifle
‘Anschutz 1912 Rifles
‘Anschutz 1913 Super Match Rifle
‘Anschutz 54.18MS REP Deluxe Silhouette Rifle
‘Anschutz 54.18MS Silhouette Rifle
‘Anschutz 64 MP R Silhouette Rifle
‘Anschutz 64-MS Left Silhouette
‘Anschutz Super Match 54 Target Model 2007
‘Anschutz Super Match 54 Target Model 2013
‘Beeman/Feinwerkbau 2600 Target Rifle
‘Cooper Arms Model TRP-1 ISU Standard Rifle
‘E.A.A./HW 60 Target Rifle
‘E.A.A./HW 660 Match Rifle
‘E.A.A./Weihrauch HW 60 Target Rifle
‘Ed Brown Model 704, M40A2 Marine Sniper
‘Finnish Lion Standard Target Rifle
‘Krico Model 360 S2 Biathlon Rifle
‘Krico Model 360S Biathlon Rifle
‘Krico Model 400 Match Rifle
‘Krico Model 500 Kricotronic Match Rifle
‘Krico Model 600 Match Rifle
‘Krico Model 600 Sniper Rifle
‘Lakefield Arms Model 90B Target Rifle
‘Lakefield Arms Model 91T Target Rifle
‘Lakefield Arms Model 92S Silhouette Rifle
‘Marlin Model 2000 Target Rifle
‘Mauser Model 86-SR Specialty Rifle
‘McMillan 300 Phoenix Long Range Rifle
‘McMillan Long Range Rifle
‘McMillan M-86 Sniper Rifle
‘McMillan M-89 Sniper Rifle
‘McMillan National Match Rifle
‘Parker-Hale M-85 Sniper Rifle
‘Parker-Hale M-87 Target Rifle
‘Remington 40-X Bolt Action Rifles
‘Remington 40-XB Rangemaster Target Centerfire
‘Remington 40-XBBR KS
‘Remington 40-XC KS National Match Course Rifle
‘Remington 40-XR KS Rimfire Position Rifle
‘Sako TRG-21 Bolt-Action Rifle
‘Sako TRG-22 Bolt Action Rifle
‘Springfield Armory M-1 Garand
‘Steyr-Mannlicher SSG Rifles
‘Steyr-Mannlicher Match SPG-UIT Rifle
‘Steyr-Mannlicher SSG P-I Rifle
‘Steyr-Mannlicher SSG P-II Rifle
‘Steyr-Mannlicher SSG P-III Rifle
‘Steyr-Mannlicher SSG P-IV Rifle
‘Tanner 300 Meter Free Rifle
‘Tanner 50 Meter Free Rifle
‘Tanner Standard UIT Rifle
‘Time Precision 22RF Bench Rifle
‘Wichita Silhouette Rifle​


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 6, 2013)

*‘Shotguns--Autoloaders*

‘American Arms
‘American Arms/Franchi Black Magic 48/AL
‘Benelli Bimillionaire
‘Benelli Black Eagle Competition Auto Shotgun
‘Benelli Cordoba
‘Benelli Executive Series
‘Benelli Legacy Model
‘Benelli M1
‘Benelli M1 Defense
‘Benelli M1 Tactical
‘Benelli M1014 Limited Edition
‘Benelli M2
‘Benelli M2 Field Steady Grip
‘Benelli M2 Practical
‘Benelli M2 Tactical
‘Benelli M2 American Series
‘Benelli M3 Convertible
‘Benelli M4 Models Vinci Steady Grip
‘Benelli Montefeltro Super 90 20-Gauge Shotgun
‘Benelli Montefeltro Super 90 Shotgun
‘Benelli Raffaello Series Shotguns
‘Benelli Sport Model
‘Benelli Super 90 M1 Field Model
‘Benelli Super Black Eagle II Models
‘Benelli Super Black Eagle II Steady Grip
‘Benelli Super Black Eagle Models
‘Benelli Super Black Eagle Shotgun
‘Benelli Super Black Eagle Slug Gun
‘Benelli Super Vinci
‘Benelli Supersport
‘Benelli Two-Gun Sets
‘Benelli Ultralight
‘Benelli Vinci
‘Beretta 390 Field Auto Shotgun
‘Beretta 390 Super Trap, Super Skeet Shotguns
‘Beretta 3901 Citizen
‘Beretta 3901 Rifled Slug Gun
‘Beretta 3901 Statesman
‘Beretta A-303 Auto Shotgun
‘Beretta A400 Series
‘Beretta AL-2 Models
‘Beretta AL-3 Deluxe Trap
‘Beretta AL390 Series
‘Beretta AL391 Teknys Gold
‘Beretta AL391 Teknys Gold Sporting
‘Beretta AL391 Teknys Gold Target
‘Beretta AL391 Urika 2 Camo AP
‘Beretta AL391 Urika 2 Camo Max-4
‘Beretta AL391 Urika 2 Classic
‘Beretta AL391 Urika 2 Gold
‘Beretta AL391 Urika 2 Gold Sporting
‘Beretta AL391 Urika 2 Parallel Target SL
‘Beretta AL391 Urika 2 Sporting
‘Beretta AL391 Urika 2 Synthetic
‘Beretta ES100 Pintail Series
‘Beretta Model 1200 Field
‘Beretta Model 1201F Auto Shotgun
‘Beretta Model 300
‘Beretta Model 301 Series
‘Beretta Model 302 Series
‘Beretta Model 60
‘Beretta Model 61
‘Beretta Model A304 Lark
‘Beretta Model AL391 Series
‘Beretta Model TX4 Storm
‘Beretta Silver Lark
‘Beretta UGB25 Xcel
‘Beretta Vittoria Auto Shotgun
‘Beretta Xtrema2
‘Breda Altair
‘Breda Altair Special
‘Breda Aries 2
‘Breda Astro
‘Breda Astrolux
‘Breda Echo
‘Breda Ermes Series
‘Breda Gold Series
‘Breda Grizzly
‘Breda Mira
‘Breda Standard Series
‘Breda Xanthos
‘Brolin BL-12
‘Brolin SAS-12
‘Browning A-500G Auto Shotgun
‘Browning A-500G Sporting Clays
‘Browning A-500R Auto Shotgun
‘Browning Auto-5 Light 12 and 20
‘Browning Auto-5 Magnum 12
‘Browning Auto-5 Magnum 20
‘Browning Auto-5 Stalker
‘Browning B2000 Series
‘Browning BSA 10 Auto Shotgun
‘Browning BSA 10 Stalker Auto Shotgun
‘Browning Gold Series
‘Browning Maxus Series
‘Charles Daly Field Grade Series
‘Charles Daly Novamatic Series
‘Charles Daly Tactical
‘Churchill Regent
‘Churchill Standard Model
‘Churchill Turkey Automatic Shotgun
‘Churchill Windsor
‘Cosmi Automatic Shotgun
‘CZ 712
‘CZ 720
‘CZ 912
‘Escort Escort Series
‘European American Armory (EAA) Bundra Series
‘Fabarms Ellegi Series
‘Fabarms Lion Series
‘Fabarms Tactical
‘FNH USA Model SLP
‘Franchi 610VS
‘Franchi 612 Series
‘Franchi 620
‘Franchi 712
‘Franchi 720
‘Franchi 912
‘Franchi AL 48
‘Franchi AL 48 Series
‘Franchi Elite
‘Franchi I-12 Inertia Series
‘Franchi Prestige
‘H&K Model 512
‘H&R Manufrance
‘H&R Model 403
‘Hi-Standard 10A
‘Hi-Standard 10B
‘Hi-Standard Semi Automatic Model
‘Hi-Standard Supermatic Series
‘Ithaca Mag-10
‘Ithaca Model 51 Series
‘LaSalle Semi-automatic
‘Ljutic Bi-matic Autoloader
‘Luger Ultra-light Model
‘Marlin SI 12 Series
‘Maverick Model 60 Auto Shotgun
‘Model AL-1
‘Mossberg 1000
‘Mossberg Model 600 Auto Shotgun
‘Mossberg Model 930 All-Purpose Field
‘Mossberg Model 930 Slugster
‘Mossberg Model 930 Turkey
‘Mossberg Model 930 Waterfowl
‘Mossberg Model 935 Magnum Combos
‘Mossberg Model 935 Magnum Flyway Series Waterfowl
‘Mossberg Model 935 Magnum Grand Slam Series Turkey
‘Mossberg Model 935 Magnum Turkey
‘Mossberg Model 935 Magnum Waterfowl
‘New England Firearms Excell Auto Combo
‘New England Firearms Excell Auto Synthetic
‘New England Firearms Excell Auto Turkey
‘New England Firearms Excell Auto Walnut
‘New England Firearms Excell Auto Waterfowl
‘Nighthawk Tactical Semi-auto
‘Ottomanguns Sultan Series
‘Remington 105Ti Series
‘Remington 1100 20-Gauge Deer Gun
‘Remington 1100 LT-20 Auto
‘Remington 1100 LT-20 Tournament Skeet
‘Remington 1100 Special Field
‘Remington 11-48 Series
‘Remington 11-96 Series
‘Remington Model 105 Cti
‘Remington Model 11 Series
‘Remington Model 1100 Classic Trap
‘Remington Model 1100 Competition
‘Remington Model 1100 G3
‘Remington Model 1100 G3
‘Remington Model 1100 Series
‘Remington Model 1100 Shotgun
‘Remington Model 1100 Sporting Series
‘Remington Model 11-87 Sportsman Camo
‘Remington Model 11-87 Sportsman Super Mag Synthetic
‘Remington Model 11-87 Sportsman Super Mag Waterfowl
‘Remington Model 11-87 Sportsman Synthetic
‘Remington Model 11-87 Sportsman Youth
‘Remington Model 11-87 Sportsman Youth Synthetic
‘Remington Model 48 Series
‘Remington Model 58 Series
‘Remington Model 870 Classic Trap
‘Remington Model 878A Automaster
‘Remington Model SP-10 Magnum Satin
‘Remington Model SP-10 Waterfowl
‘Remington Model SPR453
‘Remington Versa-Max Series
‘Savage Model 720
‘Savage Model 726
‘Savage Model 740C Skeet Gun
‘Savage Model 745
‘Savage Model 755 Series
‘Savage Model 775 Series
‘Scattergun Technologies K-9
‘Scattergun Technologies SWAT
‘Scattergun Technologies Urban Sniper Model
‘SKB 1300 Upland
‘SKB 1900
‘SKB 300 Series
‘SKB 900 Series
‘SKS 3000
‘Smith & Wesson Model 1000
‘Smith & Wesson Model 1012 Series
‘Spartan Gun Works SPR453
‘TOZ Model H-170
‘Tri-Star Diana Series
‘Tri-Star Phantom Series
‘Tri-Star Viper Series
‘Tula Arms Plant TOZ 87
‘Verona 401 Series
‘Verona 405 Series
‘Verona 406 Series
‘Verona SX801 Series
‘Weatherby Centurion Series
‘Weatherby Field Grade
‘Weatherby Model 82
‘Weatherby SA-08 Series
‘Weatherby SA-459 TR
‘Weatherby SAS Series
‘Winchester 1500
‘Winchester Model 50
‘Winchester Model 59
‘Winchester Super X1 Series
‘Winchester Super X2 Series
‘Winchester Super X3 Series​*‘Shotguns--Slide Actions*

‘ADCO Diamond Grade
‘ADCO Diamond Series Shotguns
‘ADCO Mariner Model
‘ADCO Sales Inc. Gold Elite Series
‘Armscor M-30 Series
‘Armscor M-5
‘Baikal IZH-81
‘Baikal MP133
‘Benelli Nova Series
‘Benelli Supernova Series
‘Beretta Ariete Standard
‘Beretta Gold Pigeon Pump
‘Beretta Model SL-12
‘Beretta Ruby Pigeon Pump
‘Beretta Silver Pigeon Pump
‘Brolin Field Series
‘Brolin Lawman Model
‘Brolin Slug Special
‘Brolin Slugmaster
‘Brolin Turkey Master
‘Browning BPS Game Gun Deer Special
‘Browning BPS Game Gun Turkey Special
‘Browning BPS Pigeon Grade Pump Shotgun
‘Browning BPS Pump Shotgun
‘Browning BPS Pump Shotgun (Ladies and Youth Model)
‘Browning BPS Series Pump Shotgun
‘Browning BPS Stalker Pump Shotgun
‘Browning Model 12 Limited Edition Series
‘Browning Model 42 Pump Shotgun
‘Century IJ12 Slide Action
‘Century Ultra 87 Slide Action
‘Charles Daly Field Hunter
‘Ducks Unlimited Dinner Guns
‘EAA Model PM2
‘Escort Field Series
‘Fort Worth Firearms GL18
‘H&R Pardner Pump
‘Hi-Standard Flite-King Series
‘Hi-Standard Model 200
‘Interstate Arms Model 981
‘Interstate Arms Model 982T
‘Ithaca Deerslayer II Rifled Shotgun
‘Ithaca Model 87 Deerslayer Shotgun
‘Ithaca Model 87 Deluxe Pump Shotgun
‘Ithaca Model 87 Series Shotguns
‘Ithaca Model 87 Supreme Pump Shotgun
‘Ithaca Model 87 Turkey Gun
‘Magtech Model 586-VR Pump Shotgun
‘Maverick Models 88, 91 Pump Shotguns
‘Mossberg 200 Series Shotgun
‘Mossberg 3000 Pump shotgun
‘Mossberg 535 ATS Series Pump Shotguns
‘Mossberg Field Grade Model 835 Pump Shotgun
‘Mossberg Model 500 All Purpose Field
‘Mossberg Model 500 Bantam
‘Mossberg Model 500 Bantam Combo
‘Mossberg Model 500 Bantam Pump
‘Mossberg Model 500 Camo Pump
‘Mossberg Model 500 Combos
‘Mossberg Model 500 Flyway Series Waterfowl
‘Mossberg Model 500 Grand Slam Series Turkey
‘Mossberg Model 500 Muzzleloader
‘Mossberg Model 500 Muzzleloader Combo
‘Mossberg Model 500 Series Pump Shotguns
‘Mossberg Model 500 Slugster
‘Mossberg Model 500 Sporting Pump
‘Mossberg Model 500 Super Bantam All Purpose Field
‘Mossberg Model 500 Super Bantam Combo
‘Mossberg Model 500 Super Bantam Slug
‘Mossberg Model 500 Super Bantam Turkey
‘Mossberg Model 500 Trophy Slugster
‘Mossberg Model 500 Turkey
‘Mossberg Model 500 Waterfowl
‘Mossberg Model 505 Series Pump Shotguns
‘Mossberg Model 505 Youth All Purpose Field
‘Mossberg Model 535 ATS All Purpose Field
‘Mossberg Model 535 ATS Combos
‘Mossberg Model 535 ATS Slugster
‘Mossberg Model 535 ATS Turkey
‘Mossberg Model 535 ATS Waterfowl
‘Mossberg Model 835 Regal Ulti-Mag Pump
‘Mossberg Model 835 Series Pump Shotguns
‘Mossberg Model 835 Ulti-Mag
‘Mossberg Turkey Model 500 Pump
‘National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) Banquet/Guns of the Year
‘New England Firearms Pardner Pump Combo
‘New England Firearms Pardner Pump Field
‘New England Firearms Pardner Pump Slug Gun
‘New England Firearms Pardner Pump Synthetic
‘New England Firearms Pardner Pump Turkey Gun
‘New England Firearms Pardner Pump Walnut
‘New England Firearms Pardner Pump-Compact Field
‘New England Firearms Pardner Pump-Compact Synthetic
‘New England Firearms Pardner Pump-Compact Walnut
‘Norinco Model 98 Field Series
‘Norinco Model 983
‘Norinco Model 984
‘Norinco Model 985
‘Norinco Model 987
‘Orvis Grand Vazir Series
‘Quail Unlimited Limited Edition Pump Shotguns
‘Remington 870 Express
‘Remington 870 Express Rifle Sighted Deer Gun
‘Remington 870 Express Series Pump Shotguns
‘Remington 870 Express Turkey
‘Remington 870 High Grade Series
‘Remington 870 High Grades
‘Remington 870 Marine Magnum
‘Remington 870 Special Field
‘Remington 870 Special Purpose Deer Gun
‘Remington 870 Special Purpose Synthetic Camo
‘Remington 870 SPS Special Purpose Magnum
‘Remington 870 SPS-BG-Camo Deer/Turkey Shotgun
‘Remington 870 SPS-Deer Shotgun
‘Remington 870 SPS-T Camo Pump Shotgun
‘Remington 870 TC Trap
‘Remington 870 Wingmaster
‘Remington 870 Wingmaster Series
‘Remington 870 Wingmaster Small Gauges
‘Remington Model 11-87 XCS Super Magnum Waterfowl
‘Remington Model 870 Ducks Unlimited Series Dinner Pump Shotguns
‘Remington Model 870 Express
‘Remington Model 870 Express JR.
‘Remington Model 870 Express Shurshot Synthetic Cantilever
‘Remington Model 870 Express Super Magnum
‘Remington Model 870 Express Synthetic
‘Remington Model 870 Express Youth Gun
‘Remington Model 870 Express Youth Synthetic
‘Remington Model 870 SPS Shurshot Synthetic Cantilever
‘Remington Model 870 SPS Shurshot Synthetic Turkey
‘Remington Model 870 SPS Special Purpose Magnum Series Pump Shotguns
‘Remington Model 870 SPS Super Mag Max Gobbler
‘Remington Model 870 XCS Marine Magnum
‘Remington Model 870 XCS Super Magnum
‘Winchester 12 Commercial Riot Gun
‘Winchester 97 Commercial Riot Gun
‘Winchester Model 12 Pump Shotgun
‘Winchester Model 120 Ranger
‘Winchester Model 1200 Series Shotgun
‘Winchester Model 1300 Ranger Pump Gun
‘Winchester Model 1300 Ranger Pump Gun Combo & Deer Gun
‘Winchester Model 1300 Series Shotgun
‘Winchester Model 1300 Slug Hunter Deer Gun
‘Winchester Model 1300 Turkey Gun
‘Winchester Model 1300 Walnut Pump
‘Winchester Model 42 High Grade Shotgun
‘Winchester Speed Pump Defender
‘Winchester SXP Series Pump Shotgun
‘Zoli Pump Action Shotgun​*‘Shotguns--Over/Unders*

‘ADCO Sales Diamond Series Shotguns
‘American Arms/Franchi Falconet 2000 O/U
‘American Arms Lince
‘American Arms Silver I O/U
‘American Arms Silver II Shotgun
‘American Arms Silver Skeet O/U
‘American Arms Silver Sporting O/U
‘American Arms Silver Trap O/U
‘American Arms WS/OU 12, TS/OU 12 Shotguns
‘American Arms WT/OU 10 Shotgun
‘American Arms/Franchi Sporting 2000 O/U
‘Armsport 2700 O/U Goose Gun
‘Armsport 2700 Series O/U
‘Armsport 2900 Tri-Barrel Shotgun
‘AYA Augusta
‘AYA Coral A
‘AYA Coral B
‘AYA Excelsior
‘AYA Model 37 Super
‘AYA Model 77
‘AYA Model 79 Series
‘Baby Bretton Over/Under Shotgun
‘Baikal IZH27
‘Baikal MP310
‘Baikal MP333
‘Baikal MP94
‘Beretta 90 DE LUXE
‘Beretta 682 Gold E Skeet
‘Beretta 682 Gold E Trap
‘Beretta 682 Gold E Trap Bottom Single
‘Beretta 682 Series
‘Beretta 682 Super Sporting O/U
‘Beretta 685 Series
‘Beretta 686 Series
‘Beretta 686 White Onyx
‘Beretta 686 White Onyx Sporting
‘Beretta 687 EELL Classic
‘Beretta 687 EELL Diamond Pigeon
‘Beretta 687 EELL Diamond Pigeon Sporting
‘Beretta 687 series
‘Beretta 687EL Sporting O/U
‘Beretta Alpha Series
‘Beretta America Standard
‘Beretta AS
‘Beretta ASE 90 Competition O/U Shotgun
‘Beretta ASE 90 Gold Skeet
‘Beretta ASE Gold
‘Beretta ASE Series
‘Beretta ASEL
‘Beretta BL Sereis
‘Beretta DT10 Series
‘Beretta DT10 Trident EELL
‘Beretta DT10 Trident L Sporting
‘Beretta DT10 Trident Skeet
‘Beretta DT10 Trident Sporting
‘Beretta DT10 Trident Trap Combo
‘Beretta Europa
‘Beretta Field Shotguns
‘Beretta Gamma Series
‘Beretta Giubileo
‘Beretta Grade Four
‘Beretta Grade One
‘Beretta Grade Three
‘Beretta Grade Two
‘Beretta Milano
‘Beretta Model 686 Ultralight O/U
‘Beretta Model SO5, SO6, SO9 Shotguns
‘Beretta Onyx Hunter Sport O/U Shotgun
‘Beretta Over/Under Field Shotguns
‘Beretta Royal Pigeon
‘Beretta S56 Series
‘Beretta S58 Series
‘Beretta Series 682 Competition Over/Unders
‘Beretta Silver Pigeon II
‘Beretta Silver Pigeon II Sporting
‘Beretta Silver Pigeon III
‘Beretta Silver Pigeon III Sporting
‘Beretta Silver Pigeon IV
‘Beretta Silver Pigeon S
‘Beretta Silver Pigeon V
‘Beretta Silver Snipe
‘Beretta Skeet Set
‘Beretta SO-1
‘Beretta SO-2
‘Beretta SO-3
‘Beretta SO-4
‘Beretta SO5
‘Beretta SO6 EELL
‘Beretta SO-10
‘Beretta SO10 EELL
‘Beretta Sporting Clay Shotguns
‘Beretta SV10 Perennia
‘Beretta Ultralight
‘Beretta Ultralight Deluxe
‘Bertuzzi Zeus
‘Bertuzzi Zeus Series
‘Beschi Boxlock Model
‘Big Bear Arms IJ-39
‘Big Bear Arms Sterling Series
‘Big Bear IJ-27
‘Blaser F3 Series
‘Bosis Challenger Titanium
‘Bosis Laura
‘Bosis Michaelangelo
‘Bosis Wild Series
‘Boss Custom Over/Under Shotguns
‘Boss Merlin
‘Boss Pendragon
‘Breda Pegaso Series
‘Breda Sirio Standard
‘Breda Vega Series
‘Bretton Baby Standard
‘Bretton Sprint Deluxe
‘BRNO 500/501
‘BRNO 502
‘BRNO 801 Series
‘BRNO 802 Series
‘BRNO BS-571
‘BRNO BS-572
‘BRNO ZH-300
‘BRNO ZH-301
‘BRNO ZH-302
‘BRNO ZH-303
‘Browning 325 Sporting Clays
‘Browning 625 Series
‘Browning 725 Series
‘Browning B-25 Series
‘Browning B-26 Series
‘Browning B-27 Series
‘Browning B-125 Custom Shop Series
‘Browning Citori 525 Series
‘Browning Citori GTI Sporting Clays
‘Browning Citori Lightning Series
‘Browning Citori O/U Shotgun
‘Browning Citori O/U Skeet Models
‘Browning Citori O/U Trap Models
‘Browning Citori Plus Trap Combo
‘Browning Citori Plus Trap Gun
‘Browning Cynergy Series
‘Browning Diana Grade
‘Browning Lightning Sporting Clays
‘Browning Micro Citori Lightning
‘Browning Midas Grade
‘Browning Special Sporting Clays
‘Browning Sporter Model
‘Browning ST-100
‘Browning Superlight Citori Over/Under
‘Browning Superlight Citori Series
‘Browning Superlight Feather
‘Browning Superposed Pigeon Grade
‘Browning Superposed Standard
‘BSA Falcon
‘BSA O/U
‘BSA Silver Eagle
‘Cabela’s Volo
‘Caprinus Sweden Model
‘Centurion Over/Under Shotgun
‘Century Arms Arthemis
‘Chapuis Over/Under Shotgun
‘Charles Daly Country Squire Model
‘Charles Daly Deluxe Model
‘Charles Daly Diamond Series
‘Charles Daly Empire Series
‘Charles Daly Field Grade O/U
‘Charles Daly Lux Over/Under
‘Charles Daly Maxi-Mag
‘Charles Daly Model 105
‘Charles Daly Model 106
‘Charles Daly Model 206
‘Charles Daly Over/Under Shotguns, Japanese Manufactured
‘Charles Daly Over/Under Shotguns, Prussian Manufactured
‘Charles Daly Presentation Model
‘Charles Daly Sporting Clays Model
‘Charles Daly Superior Model
‘Charles Daly UL
‘Churchill Imperial Model
‘Churchill Monarch
‘Churchill Premiere Model
‘Churchill Regent Trap and Skeet
‘Churchill Regent V
‘Churchill Sporting Clays
‘Churchill Windsor III
‘Churchill Windsor IV
‘Classic Doubles Model 101 Series
‘Cogswell & Harrison Woodward Type
‘Connecticut Shotgun Company A. Galazan Model
‘Connecticut Shotgun Company A-10 American
‘Connecticut Valley Classics Classic Field Waterfowler
‘Connecticut Valley Classics Classic Sporter O/U
‘Continental Arms Centaure Series
‘Cortona Over/Under Shotguns
‘CZ 581 Solo
‘CZ Canvasback 103D
‘CZ Limited Edition
‘CZ Mallard 104A
‘CZ Redhead Deluxe 103FE
‘CZ Sporting
‘CZ Super Scroll Limited Edition
‘CZ Upland Ultralight
‘CZ Wingshooter
‘Dakin Arms Model 170
‘Darne SB1
‘Darne SB2
‘Darne SB3
‘Depar ATAK
‘Doumoulin Superposed Express
‘Ducks Unlimited Dinner Guns / Guns of the Year, Over/ Under Models
‘Dumoulin Boss Royal Superposed
‘E.A.A, Falcon
‘E.A.A. Scirocco Series
‘E.A.A./Sabatti Falcon-Mon Over/Under
‘E.A.A./Sabatti Sporting Clays Pro-Gold O/U
‘ERA Over/Under
‘Famars di Abbiatico & Salvinelli Aries
‘Famars di Abbiatico & Salvinelli Castrone
‘Famars di Abbiatico & Salvinelli Dove Gun
‘Famars di Abbiatico & Salvinelli Excaliber Series
‘Famars di Abbiatico & Salvinelli Jorema
‘Famars di Abbiatico & Salvinelli Leonardo
‘Famars di Abbiatico & Salvinelli Pegasus
‘Famars di Abbiatico & Salvinelli Posiden
‘Famars di Abbiatico & Salvinelli Quail Gun
‘Famars di Abbiatico & Salvinelli Royal
‘Famars di Abbiatico & Salvinelli Royale
‘Fausti Boutique Series
‘Fausti Caledon Series
‘Fausti Class Series
‘Ferlib Boss Model
‘Finnclassic 512 Series
‘Franchi 2004 Trap
‘Franchi 2005 Combination Trap
‘Franchi Alcione Series
‘Franchi Aristocrat Series
‘Franchi Black Majic
‘Franchi Falconet Series
‘Franchi Instict Series
‘Franchi Model 2003 Trap
‘Franchi Renaissance Series
‘Franchi Sporting 2000
‘Franchi Undergun Model 3000
‘Franchi Veloce Series
‘Galef Golden Snipe
‘Galef Silver Snipe
‘Golden Eagle Model 5000 Series
‘Griffon & Howe Black Ram
‘Griffon & Howe Broadway
‘Griffon & Howe Claremont
‘Griffon & Howe Madison
‘Griffon & Howe Silver Ram
‘Griffon & Howe Superbrite
‘Guerini Apex Series
‘Guerini Challenger Sporting
‘Guerini Ellipse Evo
‘Guerini Ellipse Evolution Sporting
‘Guerini Ellipse Limited
‘Guerini Essex Field
‘Guerini Flyaway
‘Guerini Forum Series
‘Guerini Magnus Series
‘Guerini Maxum Series
‘Guerini Summit Series
‘Guerini Tempio
‘Guerini Woodlander
‘H&R Harrich #1
‘H&R Model 1212
‘H&R Model 1212WF
‘H&R Pinnacle
‘Hatfields Hatfield Model 1 of 100
‘Heym Model 55 F
‘Heym Model 55 SS
‘Heym Model 200
‘Holland & Holland Royal Series
‘Holland & Holland Sporting Model
‘IGA 2000 Series
‘IGA Hunter Series
‘IGA Trap Series
‘IGA Turkey Series
‘IGA Waterfowl Series
‘K.F.C E-2 Trap/Skeet
‘K.F.C. Field Gun
‘Kassnar Grade I O/U Shotgun
‘KDF Condor Khan Arthemis Field/Deluxe
‘Kimber Augusta Series
‘Kimber Marias Series
‘Krieghoff K-80 Four-Barrel Skeet Set
‘Krieghoff K-80 International Skeet
‘Krieghoff K-80 O/U Trap Shotgun
‘Krieghoff K-80 Skeet Shotgun
‘Krieghoff K-80 Sporting Clays O/U
‘Krieghoff K-80/RT Shotguns
‘Krieghoff Model 20 Sporting/Field
‘Krieghoff Model 32 Series
‘Lames Field Model
‘Lames Skeet Model
‘Lames Standard Model
‘Lames California Model
‘Laurona Model 67
‘Laurona Model 82 Series
‘Laurona Model 83 Series
‘Laurona Model 84 Series
‘Laurona Model 85 Series
‘Laurona Model 300 Series
‘Laurona Silhouette 300 Sporting Clays
‘Laurona Silhouette 300 Trap
‘Laurona Super Model Over/Unders
‘Lebeau Baron Series
‘Lebeau Boss Verres
‘Lebeau Boxlock with sideplates
‘Lebeau Sidelock
‘Lebeau Versailles
‘Lippard Custom Over/Under Shotguns
‘Ljutic LM-6 Deluxe O/U Shotgun
‘Longthorne Hesketh Game Gun
‘Longthorne Sporter
‘Marlin Model 90
‘Marocchi Avanza O/U Shotgun
‘Marocchi Conquista Over/Under Shotgun
‘Marocchi Conquista Series
‘Marocchi Model 100
‘Marocchi Model 99
‘Maverick HS-12 Tactical
‘Maverick Hunter Field Model
‘McMillan Over/Under Sidelock
‘Merkel 201 Series
‘Merkel 2016 Series
‘Merkel 2116 EL Sidelock
‘Merkel 303EL Luxus
‘Merkel Model 100
‘Merkel Model 101
‘Merkel Model 101E
‘Merkel Model 200E O/U Shotgun
‘Merkel Model 200E Skeet, Trap Over/Unders
‘Merkel Model 200SC Sporting Clays
‘Merkel Model 203E, 303E Over/Under Shotguns
‘Merkel Model 204E
‘Merkel Model 210
‘Merkel Model 301
‘Merkel Model 302
‘Merkel Model 304E
‘Merkel Model 310E
‘Merkel Model 400
‘Merkel Model 400E
‘Merkel Model 2000 Series
‘Mossberg Onyx Reserve Field
‘Mossberg Onyx Reserve Sporting
‘Mossberg Silver Reserve Field
‘Mossberg Silver Reserve Series
‘Mossberg Silver Reserve Sporting
‘Norinco Type HL12-203
‘Omega Standard Over/Under Model
‘Orvis Field
‘Orvis Knockabout
‘Orvis Premier Grade
‘Orvis SKB Green Mountain Uplander
‘Orvis Sporting Clays
‘Orvis Super Field
‘Orvis Uplander
‘Orvis Waterfowler
‘Pederson Model 1000 Series
‘Pederson Model 1500 Series
‘Perazzi Boxlock Action Hunting
‘Perazzi Competition Series
‘Perazzi Electrocibles
‘Perazzi Granditalia
‘Perazzi Mirage Special Four-Gauge Skeet
‘Perazzi Mirage Special Skeet Over/Under
‘Perazzi Mirage Special Sporting O/U
‘Perazzi MS80
‘Perazzi MT-6
‘Perazzi MX1/MX2
‘Perazzi MX3
‘Perazzi MX4
‘Perazzi MX5
‘Perazzi MX6
‘Perazzi MX7 Over/Under Shotguns
‘Perazzi MX8/20 Over/Under Shotgun
‘Perazzi MX8/MX8 Special Trap, Skeet
‘Perazzi MX9 Single Over/Under Shotguns
‘Perazzi MX10
‘Perazzi MX11
‘Perazzi MX12 Hunting Over/Under
‘Perazzi MX14
‘Perazzi MX16
‘Perazzi MX20 Hunting Over/Under
‘Perazzi MX28, MX410 Game O/U Shotguns
‘Perazzi MX2000
‘Perazzi MX2005
‘Perazzi MX2008
‘Perazzi Sidelock Action Hunting
‘Perazzi Sporting Classic O/U
‘Perugini Maestro Series
‘Perugini Michelangelo
‘Perugini Nova Boss
‘Pietro Zanoletti Model 2000 Field O/U
‘Piotti Boss Over/Under Shotgun
‘Pointer Italian Model
‘Pointer Turkish Model
‘Remington 396 Series
‘Remington 3200 Series
‘Remington Model 32 Series
‘Remington Model 300 Ideal
‘Remington Model 332 Series
‘Remington Model SPR310
‘Remington Model SPR310N
‘Remington Model SPR310S
‘Remington Peerless Over/Under Shotgun
‘Remington Premier Field
‘Remington Premier Ruffed Grouse
‘Remington Premier Series
‘Remington Premier STS Competition
‘Remington Premier Upland
‘Richland Arms Model 41
‘Richland Arms Model 747
‘Richland Arms Model 757
‘Richland Arms Model 787
‘Richland Arms Model 808
‘Richland Arms Model 810
‘Richland Arms Model 828
‘Rigby 401 Sidelock
‘Rota Model 650
‘Rota Model 72 Series
‘Royal American Model 100
‘Ruger Red Label O/U Shotgun
‘Ruger Sporting Clays O/U Shotgun
‘Ruger Woodside Shotgun
‘Rutten Model RM 100
‘Rutten Model RM285
‘S.I.A.C.E. Evolution
‘S.I.A.C.E. Model 66C
‘S.I.A.C.E.600T Lusso EL
‘San Marco 10-Ga. O/U Shotgun
‘San Marco 12-Ga. Wildflower Shotgun
‘San Marco Field Special O/U Shotgun
‘Sauer Model 66 Series
‘Savage Model 242
‘Savage Model 420/430
‘Sig Sauer Aurora Series
‘Sig Sauer SA-3
‘Sig Sauer SA-5
‘Silma Model 70 Series
‘SKB Model 85 Series
‘SKB Model 500 Series
‘SKB Model 505 Deluxe Over/Under Shotgun
‘SKB Model 505 Series
‘SKB Model 600 Series
‘SKB Model 605 Series
‘SKB Model 680 Series
‘SKB Model 685 Over/Under Shotgun
‘SKB Model 685 Series
‘SKB Model 700 Series
‘SKB Model 785 Series
‘SKB Model 800 Series
‘SKB Model 880 Series
‘SKB Model 885 Over/Under Trap, Skeet, Sporting Clays
‘SKB Model 885 Series
‘SKB Model 5600 Series
‘SKB Model 5700 Series
‘SKB Model 5800 Series
‘SKB Model GC-7 Series
‘Spartan SPR310/320
‘Stevens Model 240
‘Stevens Model 512
‘Stoeger/IGA Condor I O/U Shotgun
‘Stoeger/IGA ERA 2000 Over/Under Shotgun
‘Techni-Mec Model 610 Over/Under
‘Tikka Model 412S Field Grade Over/Under
‘Traditions 350 Series Traditions Classic Field Series
‘Traditions Classic Upland Series
‘Traditions Gold Wing Series
‘Traditions Real 16 Series
‘Tri Star Model 330 Series
‘Tri-Star Hunter EX
‘Tri-Star Model 300
‘Tri-Star Model 333 Series
‘Tri-Star Setter Model
‘Tri-Star Silver Series
‘Tri-Star Sporting Model
‘TULA 120
‘TULA 200
‘TULA TOZ34
‘Universal 7112
‘Universal 7312
‘Universal 7412
‘Universal 7712
‘Universal 7812
‘Universal 7912
‘Verona 501 Series
‘Verona 680 Series
‘Verona 702 Series
‘Verona LX692 Series
‘Verona LX980 Series
‘Weatherby Athena Grade IV O/U Shotguns
‘Weatherby Athena Grade V Classic Field O/U
‘Weatherby Athena Series
‘Weatherby Classic Field Models
‘Weatherby II, III Classic Field O/Us
‘Weatherby Orion II Classic Sporting Clays O/U
‘Weatherby Orion II series
‘Weatherby Orion II Sporting Clays O/U
‘Weatherby Orion III Series
‘Weatherby Orion O/U Shotguns
‘Winchester Model 91
‘Winchester Model 96
‘Winchester Model 99
‘Winchester Model 101 All Models and Grades
‘Winchester Model 1001 O/U Shotgun
‘Winchester Model 1001 Series
‘Winchester Model 1001 Sporting Clays O/U
‘Winchester Model G5500
‘Winchester Model G6500
‘Winchester Select Series
‘Zoli Condor
‘Zoli Deluxe Model
‘Zoli Dove
‘Zoli Field Special
‘Zoli Pigeon Model
‘Zoli Silver Snipe
‘Zoli Snipe
‘Zoli Special Model
‘Zoli Target Series
‘Zoli Texas
‘Zoli Z Series
‘Zoli Z-90 Series
‘Zoli Z-Sport Series​


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 6, 2013)

*‘Shotguns--Side by Sides*

‘Armas Azor Sidelock Model
‘ADCO Sales Diamond Series Shotguns
‘American Arms Brittany Shotgun
‘American Arms Derby Side-by-Side
‘American Arms Gentry Double Shotgun
‘American Arms Grulla #2 Double Shotgun
‘American Arms TS/SS 10 Double Shotgun
‘American Arms TS/SS 12 Side-by-Side
‘American Arms WS/SS 10
‘Arizaga Model 31 Double Shotgun
‘Armes de Chasse Sidelock and Boxlock Shotguns
‘Armsport 1050 Series Double Shotguns
‘Arrieta Sidelock Double Shotguns
‘Auguste Francotte Boxlock Shotgun
‘Auguste Francotte Sidelock Shotgun
‘AYA Boxlock Shotguns
‘AYA Sidelock Double Shotguns
‘Baikal IZH-43 Series Shotguns
‘Baikal MP210 Series Shotguns
‘Baikal MP213 Series Shotguns
‘Baikal MP220 Series Shotguns
‘Baker Gun Sidelock Models
‘Baltimore Arms Co. Style 1
‘Baltimore Arms Co. Style 2
‘Bayard Boxlock and Sidelock Model Shotguns
‘Beretta 450 series Shotguns
‘Beretta 451 Series Shotguns
‘Beretta 452 Series Shotguns
‘Beretta 470 Series Shotguns
‘Beretta Custom Grade Shotguns
‘Beretta Francia Standard
‘Beretta Imperiale Montecarlo
‘Beretta Model 452 Sidelock Shotgun
‘Beretta Omega Standard
‘Beretta Side-by-Side Field Shotguns
‘Beretta Verona/Bergamo
‘Bertuzzi Ariete Hammer Gun
‘Bertuzzi Model Orione
‘Bertuzzi Venere Series Shotguns
‘Beschi Sidelock and Boxlock Models
‘Bill Hanus Birdgun Doubles
‘Bosis Country SxS
‘Bosis Hammer Gun
‘Bosis Queen Sidelock
‘Boss Robertson SxS
‘Boss SxS
‘Boswell Boxlock Model
‘Boswell Feartherweight Monarch Grade
‘Boswell Merlin Sidelock
‘Boswell Sidelock Model
‘Breda Andromeda Special
‘BRNO ZP Series Shotguns
‘Brown SxS Shotgun
‘Browning B-SS
‘Browning B-SS Belgian/ Japanese Prototype
‘Browning B-SS Sidelock
‘Browning B-SS Sporter
‘Bruchet Model A
‘Bruchet Model B
‘BSA Classic
‘BSA Royal
‘Cabela’s ATA Grade II Custom
‘Cabela’s Hemingway Model
‘Casartelli Sidelock Model
‘Century Coach SxS
‘Chapuis RGP Series Shotguns
‘Chapuis RP Series Shotguns
‘Chapuis Side-by-Side Shotgun
‘Chapuis UGP Round Design SxS
‘Charles Daly 1974 Wildlife Commemorative
‘Charles Daly Classic Coach Gun
‘Charles Daly Diamond SxS
‘Charles Daly Empire SxS
‘Charles Daly Model 306
‘Charles Daly Model 500
‘Charles Daly Model Dss Double
‘Charles Daly Superior SxS
‘Churchill Continental Series Shotguns
‘Churchill Crown Model
‘Churchill Field Model
‘Churchill Hercules Model
‘Churchill Imperial Model
‘Churchill Premiere Series Shotguns
‘Churchill Regal Model
‘Churchill Royal Model
‘Churchill Windsor Series Shotguns
‘Cimarron Coach Guns
‘Classic Doubles Model 201
‘Classic Clot 1878 Hammer Shotgun
‘Cogswell & Harrison Sidelock and Boxlock Shotguns
‘Colt 1883 Hammerless
‘Colt SxS Shotgun
‘Connecticut Shotgun Co. Model 21
‘Connecticut Shotgun Co. RBL Series
‘Continental Arms Centaure
‘Crescent SxS Model
‘Crucelegui Hermanos Model 150 Double
‘CZ Amarillo
‘CZ Bobwhite
‘CZ Competition
‘CZ Deluxe
‘CZ Durango
‘CZ Grouse
‘CZ Hammer Models
‘CZ Partridge
‘CZ Ringneck
‘CZ Ringneck Target
‘Dakin Model 100
‘Dakin Model 147
‘Dakin Model 160
‘Dakin Model 215
‘Dakota American Legend
‘Dakota Classic Grade
‘Dakota Classic Grade II
‘Dakota Classic Grade III
‘Dakota Premier Grade
‘Dan Arms Deluxe Field Model
‘Dan Arms Field Model
‘Darne Sliding Breech Series Shotguns
‘Davidson Arms Model 63B
‘Davidson Arms Model 69SL
‘Davidson Arms Model 73 Stagecoach
‘Dumoulin Continental Model
‘Dumoulin Etendard Model
‘Dumoulin Europa Model
‘Dumoulin Liege Model
‘E.A.A. SABA
‘E.A.A./Sabatti Saba-Mon Double Shotgun
‘E.M.F. Model 1878 SxS
‘E.M.F. Stagecoach SxS Model
‘ERA Quail SxS
‘ERA Riot SxS
‘ERA SxS
‘Famars Boxlock Models
‘Famars Castore
‘Famars Sidelock Models
‘Fausti Caledon
‘Fausti Class
‘Fausti Class Round Body
‘Fausti DEA Series Shotguns
‘Ferlib Mignon Hammer Model
‘Ferlib Model F VII Double Shotgun
‘FN Anson SxS Standard Grade
‘FN New Anson SxS Standard Grade
‘FN Sidelock Standard Grade
‘Fox Higher Grade Models (A-F)
‘Fox Sterlingworth Series
‘Franchi Airone
‘Franchi Astore Series
‘Franchi Destino
‘Franchi Highlander
‘Franchi Sidelock Double Barrel
‘Francotte Boxlock Shotgun
‘Francotte Jubilee Model
‘Francotte Sidelock Shotgun
‘Galef Silver Hawk SxS
‘Galef Zabala SxS
‘Garbi Model 100
‘Garbi Model 101 Side-by-Side
‘Garbi Model 103A, B Side-by-Side
‘Garbi Model 200 Side-by-Side
‘Gastinne Model 105
‘Gastinne Model 202
‘Gastinne Model 353
‘Gastinne Model 98
‘Gib 10 Gauge Magnum
‘Gil Alhambra
‘Gil Diamond
‘Gil Laga
‘Gil Olimpia
‘Greener Sidelock SxS Shotguns
‘Griffin & Howe Britte
‘Griffin & Howe Continental Sidelock
‘Griffin & Howe Round Body Game Gun
‘Griffin & Howe Traditional Game Gun
‘Grulla 217 Series
‘Grulla 219 Series
‘Grulla Consort
‘Grulla Model 209 Holland
‘Grulla Model 215
‘Grulla Model 216 Series
‘Grulla Number 1
‘Grulla Royal
‘Grulla Super MH
‘Grulla Supreme
‘Grulla Windsor
‘H&R Anson & Deeley SxS
‘H&R Model 404
‘H&R Small Bore SxS hammer Gun
‘Hatfield Uplander Shotgun
‘Henry Atkin Boxlock Model
‘Henry Atkin Sidelock Model
‘Holland & Holland Cavalier Boxlock
‘Holland & Holland Dominion Game Gun
‘Holland & Holland Northwood Boxlock
‘Holland & Holland Round Action Sidelock
‘Holland & Holland Round Action Sidelock Paradox
‘Holland & Holland Royal Hammerless Ejector Sidelock
‘Holland & Holland Sidelock Shotguns
‘Holloway premier Sidelock SxS Model
‘Hopkins & Allen Boxlock and Sidelock Models
‘Huglu SxS Shotguns
‘Husqvarna SxS Shotguns
‘IGA Deluxe Model
‘IGA Turkey Series Model
‘Interstate Arms Model 99 Coach Gun
‘Ithaca Classic Doubles Series Shotguns
‘Ithaca Hammerless Series
‘Iver Johnson Hammerless Model Shotguns
‘Jeffery Boxlock Shotguns
‘Jeffery Sidelock Shotguns
‘K.B.I Grade II SxS
‘Khan Coach Gun
‘Kimber Valier Series
‘Krieghoff Essencia Boxlock
‘Krieghoff Essencia Sidelock
‘Lanber Imperial Sidelock
‘Laurona Boxlock Models
‘Laurona Sidelock Models
‘Lefever Grade A Field Model
‘Lefever Grade A Skeet Model
‘Lefever New
‘Lefever Model
‘Lefever Nitro Special
‘Lefever Sideplate Models
‘Leforgeron Boxlock Ejector
‘Leforgeron Sidelock Ejector
‘Liberty Coach Gun Series
‘MacNaughton Sidelock Model
‘Malin Boxlock Model
‘Malin Sidelock Model
‘Masquelier Boxlock Model
‘Masquelier Sidelock Model
‘Medwell SxS Sidelock
‘Merkel Model 8, 47E Side-by-Side Shotguns
‘Merkel Model 47LSC Sporting Clays Double
‘Merkel Model 47S, 147S Side-by-Sides
‘Merkel Model 76E
‘Merkel Model 122E
‘Merkel Model 126E
‘Merkel Model 280 Series
‘Merkel Model 360 Series
‘Merkel Model 447SL
‘Merkel Model 1620 Series
‘Merkel Model 1622 Series
‘Mossberg Onyx Reserve Sporting
‘Mossberg Silver Reserve Field
‘Navy Arms Model 100
‘Navy Arms Model 150
‘Orvis Custom Uplander
‘Orvis Field Grade
‘Orvis Fine Grade
‘Orvis Rounded Action
‘Orvis Waterfowler
‘Parker Fluid Steel Barrel Models (All Grades)
‘Parker Reproductions Side-by-Side
‘Pederson Model 200
‘Pederson Model 2500
‘Perazzi DHO Models
‘Perugini Ausonia
‘Perugini Classic Model
‘Perugini Liberty
‘Perugini Regina Model
‘Perugini Romagna Gun
‘Piotti Hammer Gun
‘Piotti King Extra Side-by-Side
‘Piotti King No. 1 Side-by-Side Piotti Lunik Side-by-Side
‘Piotti Monaco Series
‘Piotti Monte Carlo
‘Piotti Piuma Side-by-Side
‘Piotti Westlake
‘Precision Sports Model 600 Series Doubles
‘Premier Italian made SxS Shotguns
‘Premier Spanish made SxS Shotguns
‘Purdy Best Quality Game Gun
‘Remington Model 1900 Hammerless
‘Remington Model SPR210
‘Remington Model SPR220
‘Remington Model SPR220 Cowboy
‘Remington Premier SxS
‘Richland Arms Co. Italian made SxS Models
‘Richland Arms Co. Spanish made SxS Models
‘Rigby Boxlock Shotgun
‘Rigby Hammer Shotgun
‘Rizzini Boxlock Side-by-Side
‘Rizzini Sidelock Side-by-Side
‘Rossi Overlund
‘Rossi Squire
‘Rota Model 105
‘Rota Model 106
‘Rota Model 411 Series
‘Royal American Model 600 Boxlock
‘Royal American Model 800 Sidelock
‘Ruger Gold Label
‘SAE Model 209E
‘SAE Model 210S
‘SAE Model 340X
‘Sarasqueta Mammerless Sidelock
‘Sarasqueta Model 3 Boxlock
‘Sauer Boxlock Model Shotguns
‘Sauer Sidelock Model Shotguns
‘Savage Fox Model FA-1
‘Savage Model 550
‘Scott Blenheim
‘Scott Bowood
‘Scott Chatsworth
‘Scott Kinmount
‘SIACE Italian made SxS Shotguns
‘SKB Model 100
‘SKB Model 150
‘SKB Model 200
‘SKB Model 280
‘SKB Model 300
‘SKB Model 385
‘SKB Model 400
‘SKB Model 480
‘SKB Model 485
‘Smith & Wesson Elite Gold Series Grade I
‘Smith & Wesson Elite Silver Grade I
‘Smith, L.C. Boxlock Hammerless Shotguns
‘Smith, L.C. Sidelock Hammerless Shotguns
‘Spartan SPR Series Shotguns
‘Stevens Model 311/315 Series
‘Stoeger/IGA Uplander Side-by-Side Shotgun
‘Taylor’s SxS Model
‘Tri-Star Model 311
‘Tri-Star Model 411 Series
‘Ugartechea 10-Ga. Magnum Shotgun
‘Universal Double Wing SxS
‘Vouzelaud Model 315 Series
‘Walther Model WSF
‘Walther Model WSFD
‘Weatherby Atheana
‘Weatherby D’Italia Series
‘Weatherby Orion
‘Westley Richards Best Quality Sidelock
‘Westley Richards Boxlock Shotguns
‘Westley Richards Connaught Model
‘Westley Richards Hand Detachable Lock Model
‘William Douglas Boxlock
‘Winchester Model 21
‘Winchester Model 24
‘Zoli Alley Cleaner
‘Zoli Classic
‘Zoli Falcon II
‘Zoli Model Quail Special
‘Zoli Pheasant
‘Zoli Silver Hawk
‘Zoli Silver Snipe​*‘Shotguns--Bolt Actions & Single Shots*

‘ADCC Diamond Folding Model
‘American Arms Single-Shot
‘ARMSCOR 301A
‘Armsport Single Barrel Shotgun
‘Baikal MP18
‘Beretta 471 EL Silver Hawk
‘Beretta 471 Silver Hawk
‘Beretta Beta Single Barrel
‘Beretta MKII Trap
‘Beretta Model 412
‘Beretta Model FS
‘Beretta TR-1
‘Beretta TR-1 Trap
‘Beretta Vandalia Special Trap
‘Browning BT-99 Competition Trap Special
‘Browning BT-99 Plus Micro
‘Browning BT-99 Plus Trap Gun
‘Browning Micro Recoilless Trap Shotgun
‘Browning Recoilless Trap Shotgun
‘Crescent Single Shot Models
‘CZ Cottontail
‘Desert Industries Big Twenty Shotgun
‘Fefever Long Range Field
‘Frigon FS-4
‘Frigon FT-1
‘Frigon FT-C
‘Gibbs Midland Stalker
‘Greener General Purpose GP MKI/MKII
‘H&R Survivor
‘H&R Tracker Slug Model
‘Harrington & Richardson N.W.T.F. Turkey Mag
‘Harrington & Richardson Pardner
‘Harrington & Richardson Pardner Compact
‘Harrington & Richardson Pardner Compact Turkey Gun
‘Harrington & Richardson Pardner Screw-In Choke
‘Harrington & Richardson Pardner Turkey Gun
‘Harrington & Richardson Pardner Turkey Gun Camo
‘Harrington & Richardson Pardner Waterfowl
‘Harrington & Richardson Tamer
‘Harrington & Richardson Tamer 20
‘Harrington & Richardson Topper Classic Youth Shotgun
‘Harrington & Richardson Topper Deluxe Classic
‘Harrington & Richardson Topper Deluxe Model 098
‘Harrington & Richardson Topper Junior
‘Harrington & Richardson Topper Model 098
‘Harrington & Richardson Topper Trap Gun
‘Harrington & Richardson Tracker II Slug Gun
‘Harrington & Richardson Ultra Slug Hunter
‘Harrington & Richardson Ultra Slug Hunter Compact
‘Harrington & Richardson Ultra Slug Hunter Deluxe
‘Harrington & Richardson Ultra Slug Hunter Thumbhole Stock
‘Harrington & Richardson Ultra-Lite Slug Hunter
‘Hi-Standard 514 Model
‘Holland & Holland Single Barrel Trap
‘IGA Reuna Model
‘IGA Single Barrel Classic
‘Ithaca Model 66
‘Ithaca Single Barrel Trap
‘Iver Johnson Champion Series
‘Iver Johnson Commemorative Series Single Shot Shotgun
‘Iver Johnson Excel
‘Krieghoff K-80 Single Barrel Trap Gun
‘Krieghoff KS-5 Special
‘Krieghoff KS-5 Trap Gun
‘Lefever Trap Gun
‘Ljutic LTX Super Deluxe Mono Gun
‘Ljutic Mono Gun Single Barrel
‘Ljutic Recoilless Space Gun Shotgun
‘Marlin Model 55 Goose Gun Bolt Action
‘Marlin Model 60 Single Shot
‘Marocchi Model 2000
‘Mossberg Models G-4, 70, 73, 73B
‘Mossberg Models 75 Series
‘Mossberg Models 80, 83, 83B, 83D
‘Mossberg 173 Series
‘Mossberg Model 183 Series
‘Mossberg Model 185 Series
‘Mossberg Model 190 Series
‘Mossberg Model 195 Series
‘Mossberg Model 385 Series
‘Mossberg Model 390 Series
‘Mossberg Model 395 Series
‘Mossberg Model 595 Series
‘Mossberg Model 695 Series
‘New England Firearms N.W.T.F. Shotgun
‘New England Firearms Standard Pardner
‘New England Firearms Survival Gun
‘New England Firearms Tracker Slug Gun
‘New England Firearms Turkey and Goose Gun
‘Parker Single Barrel Trap Models
‘Perazzi TM1 Special Single Trap
‘Remington 90-T Super Single Shotgun
‘Remington Model No. 9
‘Remington Model 310 Skeet
‘Remington Model No. 3
‘Rossi Circuit Judge Lever Action Shotgun
‘Rossi Circuit Judge Shotgun
‘Ruger Single Barrel Trap
‘S.W.D. Terminator
‘Savage Kimel Kamper Single Shot
‘Savage Model 210F Slug Warrior
‘Savage Model 212 Slug Gun
‘Savage Model 220 Series
‘Savage Model 220 Slug Gun
‘SEITZ Single Barrel Trap
‘SKB Century II Trap
‘SKB Century Trap
‘SKB Model 505 Trap
‘SKB Model 605 Trap
‘Smith, L.C. Single Barrel Trap Models
‘Snake Charmer II Shotgun
‘Stoeger/IGA Reuna Single Barrel Shotgun
‘Tangfolio Model RSG-16
‘Tangfolio Blockcard Model
‘Tangfolio Model DSG
‘Tangfolio Model RSG-12 Series
‘Tangfolio Model RSG-20
‘Tangfolio RSG-Tactical
‘Taurus Circuit Judge Shotgun
‘Thompson/Center Encore Shotgun
‘Thompson/Center Pro Hunter Turkey Shotgun
‘Thompson/Center TCR ’87 Hunter Shotgun
‘Universal Firearms Model 7212 Single Barrel Trap
‘Winchester Model 36 Single Shot
‘Winchester Model 37 Single Shot
‘Winchester Model 41 Bolt Action
‘Winchester Model 9410 Series
‘Zoli Apache Model
‘Zoli Diano Series
‘Zoli Loner Series’.​*SEC. 4. PENALTIES.*

Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘or (q) of section 922’ and inserting ‘(q), (r), (v), (w), or (aa) of section 922’.
*SEC. 5. BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR TRANSFERS OF GRANDFATHERED SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.*

(a) In General- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is amended--
(1) by repealing subsection (s);
(2) by redesignating subsection (t) as subsection (s);
(3) in subsection (s), as redesignated--
(A) in paragraph (3)(C)(ii), by striking ‘(as defined in subsection (s)(8))’; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
‘(7) In this subsection, the term ‘chief law enforcement officer’ means the chief of police, the sheriff, or an equivalent officer or the designee of any such individual.’; and​(4) by inserting after subsection (s), as redesignated, the following:
‘(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 90 days after the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.
‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a temporary transfer of possession for the purpose of participating in target shooting in a licensed target facility or established range if--
‘(A) the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon is, at all times, kept within the premises of the target facility or range; and
‘(B) the transferee is not known to be prohibited from possessing or receiving a grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon.
‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the transfer of a firearm if--
‘(A) the transfer is a bona fide gift between an individual and a spouse, parent, child, sibling, grandparent, or grandchild of the individual; or
‘(B) the transfer occurs by operation of law, or because of the death of another person for whom the unlicensed transferor is an executor or administrator of an estate or a trustee of a trust created in a will.
‘(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘transfer’--
‘(A) shall include a sale, gift, or loan; and
‘(B) does not include temporary custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee.
‘(5)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.
‘(B) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph--
‘(i) shall include a provision setting a maximum fee that may be charged by licensees for services provided in accordance with paragraph (1); and
‘(ii) shall not include any provision imposing recordkeeping requirements on any unlicensed transferor or requiring licensees to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1).’.​(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments-
(1) SECTION 922- Section 922(y)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘, (g)(5)(B), and (s)(3)(B)(v)(II)’ and inserting ‘and (g)(5)(B)’.
(2) SECTION 925A- Section 925A of title 18, United States Code, is amended, in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ‘subsection (s) or (t) of section 922’ and inserting ‘section 922(s)’.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
*SEC. 6. USE OF BYRNE GRANTS FOR BUY-BACK PROGRAMS FOR SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.*

Section 501(a)(1) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3751(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(H) Compensation for surrendered semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices, as those terms are defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code, under buy-back programs for semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.’.​*SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.*

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 6, 2013)

*More usurption of rights as assumed by many states:*

S 147 IS

113th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 147
To establish minimum standards for States that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 24 (legislative day, January 3), 2013
Mrs. BOXER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To establish minimum standards for States that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.
_ Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,_
*SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.*

This Act may be cited as the ‘Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2013’.
*SEC. 2. CONCEALED FIREARMS PERMITS.*

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:
*‘Sec. 926D. Concealed firearms permits*​​‘(a) In General- Each State that allows residents of the State to carry concealed firearms shall--​‘(1) establish a process to issue permits to residents of the State to carry concealed firearms; and​‘(2) require that each resident of the State seeking to carry a concealed firearm in the State obtain a permit through the process established under paragraph (1).​‘(b) Requirements- In establishing a process to issue permits to carry concealed firearms under subsection (a), a State shall--​‘(1) ensure that a local law enforcement agency participates in the process; and​‘(2) at a minimum, require that an applicant for a permit to carry a concealed firearm--​‘(A) be a legal resident of the United States;​‘(B) be not less than 21 years of age;​‘(C) demonstrate good cause for requesting a concealed firearm permit; and​‘(D) demonstrate that the applicant is worthy of the public trust to carry a concealed firearm in public.​‘(c) Law Enforcement Agency Report- If a State establishes a process under subsection (a) that allows for an agency other than a law enforcement agency to issue permits to carry concealed firearms, the process shall require that--​‘(1) a local law enforcement agency submit to the agency responsible for issuing permits a written report that describes whether the applicant meets the standards of the State to carry a concealed firearm; and​‘(2) the agency responsible for issuing permits maintain a report submitted under paragraph (1) in the file of the applicant.​‘(d) Definition- In this section, the term ‘local law enforcement agency’ means a law enforcement agency of the unit of local government with jurisdiction of the area in which the applicant for a permit to carry a concealed firearm resides.​‘(e) Compliance- Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this section, each State described in subsection (a) shall be in compliance with this section.’.​(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:​‘926D. Concealed firearms permits.’.​


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Feb 6, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:​*‘Sec. 926D. Concealed firearms permits*
> ‘(a) In General- *Each State that allows residents of the State to carry concealed firearms shall*--
> ‘(1) establish a process to issue permits to residents of the State to carry concealed firearms; and
> ‘(2) require that each resident of the State seeking to carry a concealed firearm in the State obtain a permit through the process established under paragraph (1).
> ...


To which I reply:


----------



## JBS (Feb 6, 2013)

Let's make sure we also pass a law that forces people to demonstrate "*good cause"* for exercising other *Constitutionally guaranteed rights*, such as;


Life
Liberty
Pursuit of Happiness
Right to freedom of expression
Right to a trial by jury (except where that citizen has been declared to not have this right by some random DOJ official hand picked by the POTUS)
Right to freedom of religion
etc.
Clearly if you want to exercise your rights you must have some perfectly valid reason for wanting that. All we need is a stamped, sealed, notarized form in triplicate, a 29 page questionnaire, a $200 filing fee, a legal filing at a Federal Courthouse, a medical waiver, a published statement of intent, and a 120 day waiting/cool -down period during which we lose all your paperwork and ask you to start all over while fining you for double parking downstairs.​


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 6, 2013)

You know there's a great way for states to flip the bird at the feds about that last one, right?

Become a Constitutional Carry state.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 6, 2013)

Just when I thought Connecticut couldn't get any dumber when it came to gun laws:

http://www.theday.com/article/20130129/NWS05/301319779/1006/zip06&town=Westbrook&template=zip06art 

Based on the above analysis, I have introduced a controversial bill that would *prohibit the purchase, sale, or possession of any gun magazine or clip in Connecticut. Shooters would thereby be limited to one bullet before having to reload.* It doesn't take 10 bullets to bring down a deer! My bill makes an exemption for law enforcement and military personnel and gun clubs where the magazines would be registered with the State Police and maintained solely on the club premises under secure conditions.


----------



## JBS (Feb 6, 2013)

Holy crap! LOL!

I genuinely laughed out loud at that.


----------



## 0699 (Feb 6, 2013)

JBS said:


> Holy crap! LOL!
> 
> I genuinely laughed out loud at that.


 
Not me.  Scares the hell out of me.


----------



## compforce (Feb 6, 2013)

> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr437
> *H.R. 437: Assault Weapons Ban of 2013*
> Introduced:
> Jan 29, 2013 (113th Congress, 2013–2015)
> ...


 
Political grandstanding without a hope in hell of passing (or even getting out of committee)


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 6, 2013)

1% is still enough to be screaming about it.


----------



## pardus (Feb 7, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> 1% is still enough to be screaming about it.


 
Absolutely!


----------



## Ex3 (Feb 7, 2013)

Casimir said:


> http://www.westernjournalism.com/new-yorkers-revolt-at-gun-ban-meeting/
> 
> I was actually kinda happy to see this...this wasn't Tx, or Az, or some other gun-toting red state. this was NY. I think we are gonna see a lot more of this to come, and probably a lot stronger response.
> 
> ...


Buffalo or pretty much any place north of the City (which means most of the state) is actually quite conservative.


----------



## JBS (Feb 7, 2013)

TH15 said:


>


Actually a really great statement after the first few seconds or so, when he gets going.  Excellent vid, thank you!


----------



## DasBoot (Feb 7, 2013)

Ex3 said:


> Buffalo or pretty much any place north of the City (which means most of the state) is actually quite conservative.


My cousin and great-uncle are big into the whole "seceding from Albany and NYC" movement. My dad says upstate New Yorkers are the rednecks of the north lol


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 11, 2013)

For you Pennsylvania folk, I just got this email from Rep. Metcalfe re HB 357.



> February 11, 2013
> *NEWS ADVISORY*​​*Metcalfe to Bring HB 357 in*​*Defense of Right to Bear Arms*​*on Live PCN Call-In Program*​​​*WHAT: PA House State Government Committee Majority Chairman Representative Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler)*, sponsor of the *Right to Bear Arms Protection Act (House Bill 357)*, will face off against State Sen. Larry Farnese (D-Philadelphia) on the topic of Pennsylvania gun laws.
> 
> Viewers are invited to participate in*Pennsylvania Cable Network’s Live Call-In Program* by dialing toll-free *1-877-726-5001*.
> ...


----------



## pardus (Feb 11, 2013)

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2521184




> a press conference on gun safety in Philadelphia, Vice President Joe Biden said that any reports that suggest that he was trying to take weapons away from gun owners was a “bunch of malarkey.”
> "I know that's a word that you've never heard before, although it's now in the dictionary," Biden boasted.
> 
> Biden said that it was important for the media to dissuade the American public from the idea that the Obama administration was prepared to do something unconstitutional on guns.
> ...




These hypocritical pricks have no shame or honor.
This is nothing _but_ an attempt to take away our rights as free people.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Feb 12, 2013)

If the VP is "counting on" the "legitimate news media" to do anything right, he might have another thing coming.  I read that as, "please spin this so it doesn't look like we're the bad guys".  
Talk about malarkey...


----------



## policemedic (Feb 12, 2013)

pardus said:


> http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2521184
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'm very insulted I wasn't invited.


----------



## Rangermom (Feb 14, 2013)

http://mynortheastoutdoors.com/oak-harbor-council-2nd-amendment/

*OAK HARBOR, WA – CITY COUNCIL STANDS UP FOR 2ND AMENDMENT*

WOW… this is crazy and great all in the same sense. Thanks to Dave Norris for the share !
_
An Oak Harbor City Council Member is accused of overstepping his authority when he asked a man with a concealed weapons permit to surrender his gun saying it was “not needed” at the public meeting._

_Yes, I have a concealed carry permit and I am carrying at this moment, I would protect any person with my life.​_​Lucas Yonkman went to the meeting to listen to a discussion about the city’s gun ban in public parks. He ended up testifying, urging people to support the 2nd amendment.

Watch what happened above. The councilman’s concern about the veteran’s concealed weapon begins about two minutes into the video.
A portion of the Oak Harbor City Council meeting from January 15 was posted below.


----------



## JBS (Feb 14, 2013)

All I can say is, in this day and age, my personal reading of the American people- specifically the "pro-gun" crowd, I'll characterize it like this:

Any attempt to seize firearms in this country, just imagine several hundred thousand Christopher Dorners- except unlike Dorner, no personal death wish and no desire to hurt innocents. I don't mean to trivialize Dorner's murderous rampage. He was scum, he was a murderer and I'm glad he's gone. My point is that ample consideration should be given to just how many resources were allocated to Dorner- _someone with only relatively modest training_ (as far as we know) and an unstable psychological state. A thousand Chris Dorners would be devastating. Ten thousand would cripple us. And I genuinely believe that if there were any attempt at seizing guns, this is exactly what the government would spawn; perhaps worse.

I genuinely hope for the sake of the tranquility of my country-_ now and for the foreseeable future-_ that _*no*_ elected buffoon takes it upon himself to attempt strip away liberties that have been purchased by the bloodshed of generations of patriots.


----------



## Frank S. (Feb 14, 2013)

JBS said:


> Any attempt to seize firearms in this country, just imagine several hundred thousand Christopher Dorners- except unlike Dorner, no personal death wish and no desire to hurt innocents. I don't mean to trivialize Dorner's murderous rampage.


 
I don't think Dorner needed to be referenced in this thread.  I see the point you are trying to make but:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/02/toward-a-black-jesse-james/273162/
Extract:
[...]Four days before her death, Monica Quan had news for her team. Quan, an assistant coach at Cal State Fullerton, held up her hand to show off an engagement ring. The players screamed and huddled around her for a closer look, head coach Marcia Foster recalled. Quan was as happy as her basketball players, and later said she wished she had recorded the moment. She loved to have pictures taken with her friends. She wanted a big wedding, and her fiance, Keith Lawrence, a public safety officer at USC, was trying to work extra hours to make it possible.... 
The couple was talking about who would be in the wedding party. They had yet to pick a date and a location when they were found Feb. 3, shortly after the Super Bowl, shot to death in their car in the parking structure of their Irvine condominium complex. They had multiple gunshot wounds. There were no signs of a robbery, and investigators ruled out a murder-suicide. The next day, Quan's father got a call from a close friend of the family. 
Randal Quan, a former captain with the Los Angeles Police Department, and Wayne Caffey, a detective with the Southeast Division, had known one another for almost 25 years. Caffey recalled their conversation. "We lost her," Quan said. "She's gone." The two men were overwhelmed by the senselessness of the slayings. We don't know anything, Quan said; we don't know what happened. He would later learn that his daughter and her fiance were probably killed by a former LAPD officer who had been fired in 2009; Randal Quan had represented Christopher Jordan Dorner at his termination hearing. What was once incomprehensible -- the deaths of these two young people -- was now considered a revenge killing. The reasons were spelled out in an 11,000-word post police found on a Facebook page that they believe belonged to Dorner, 33, who is now a fugitive.  "I never had the opportunity to have a family of my own," Dorner supposedly wrote. "I'm terminating yours." [...]

And I don't want to sidetrack the thread. I think some thought should be put into what Dorner really was, a malcontent with guns and some skills. But a fucking malcontent is all.


----------



## JBS (Feb 14, 2013)

The page you linked to talks about how there have been some who have tried to "redeem" Christopher Dorner. The title of the article even references Jesse James, echoing the tendency for some to create folk heroes out of public enemies.

At _*no*_ time- on any level- have I ever looked on this guy or commented on him as anything other than a virus that needed to be wiped out. If you saw my previous posts, I've stated I thought he was being not only empathized with (by some) but also hyped a little by the media into more than he actually was. One CNN reporter made the statement that Dorner was "taking the fight to the LAPD". I thought that was asinine. I even commented on how his manifesto showed that he was delusional.

I brought him up in this thread because he's totally relevant. How? It's pretty obvious: he brought hundreds of square miles of California to a complete standstill, and literally took the focus of hundreds of LEO's for days. There's a concrete lesson in that. I can look at that situation and recognize that when someone is pushed past the point where they no longer feel their wrongs can ever see redress, the amount of disruption to society they can create is enormous. Attempting to take guns away from citizens by force, if it ever happened, would create thousands of people just as profoundly disgruntled as Dorner, past the point where they felt their concerns could ever be redressed. We can't talk about gun control without considering the consequences of attempting to disarm the public. This country won't be like others that were quietly accepting. Our people are different.


----------



## Frank S. (Feb 14, 2013)

JBS, I understood your disclaimers. *"I don't mean to trivialize Dorner's murderous rampage. He was scum, he was a murderer and I'm glad he's gone."*
There are other points flowing from the Dorner situation which I'll try to PM.


----------



## Casimir (Feb 14, 2013)

In other news, Missouri introduced a bill that, if passed, would call for the destruction or surrender of assault weapons.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 14, 2013)

Casimir said:


> In other news, Missouri introduced a bill that, if passed, would call for the destruction or surrender of assault weapons.


 
That is fucking stupid.


----------



## Hillclimb (Feb 14, 2013)

Rangermom said:


>


 
Good find. That's disgusting that the council member tried to have him disarmed, when he was trying to raise points on firearms safety/education for the youth. Even more that he didn't feel safe to be in the same chambers as a combat disabled veteran.


----------



## 0699 (Feb 15, 2013)

VA House and Senate passed a bill (awaiting signature by the governor) that would make CC permit holders names non-releasable information, preventing newspapers or other busy bodies from releasing names as happened up in NY.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 15, 2013)

I cant believe that Colorado is this stupid. I hope Magpul sends a strong message and is already scouting the location of their new headquarters in Wyoming or Montana. Tell Colorado lawmakers to screw their lame ass amendment. I hope Magpul takes their $85+ million out of the state economy. Perhaps legislators can make up the difference in marijuana sales.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...mmo-magazine-maker-threatens-leave-state-over



> Colorado's largest and most profitable manufacturer of high-capacity ammunition magazines has vowed to leave the state if lawmakers pass a measure banning the devices — a move officials with the company say could cost hundreds of jobs and upward of $85 million in potential spending this year.
> Magpul's threat has Democratic lawmakers scrambling to strike a balance that remains true to their goal of limiting the number of rounds a magazine can hold without frightening off businesses.
> "If we're able to stay in Colorado and manufacture a product, but law-abiding citizens of the state were unable to purchase the product, customers around the state and the nation would boycott us for remaining here," said Doug Smith, Magpul's chief operating officer. "Staying here would hurt our business."
> House Bill 1224 bans individuals from possessing high-capacity ammunition magazines of more than 15 rounds — an amendment earlier in the week raised this number from 10 rounds — but allows manufacturers to stay in Colorado and produce the devices.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 15, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I cant believe that Colorado is this stupid. I hope Magpul sends a strong message and is already scouting the location of their new headquarters in Wyoming or Montana. Tell Colorado lawmakers to screw their lame ass amendment. I hope Magpul takes their $85+ million out of the state economy. Perhaps legislators can make up the difference in marijuana sales.
> http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...mmo-magazine-maker-threatens-leave-state-over


 

Texas would be a better option for Magpul than Wyoming or Montana (from a logistical and taxes standpoint). But I am glad to see many of these companies standing up to the lawmakers. Larue and Olympic arms have both made policies to not sell any goods to any NY government offices or personnel (i.e. no LEO's can buy their products).


----------



## Karoshi (Feb 15, 2013)

So I wonder how much this "act for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety" is going to cost me during my next gun purchase? Anyone have a rough estimate of how much the "direct and indirect" costs incurred would be during a background investigation? Looks like I may need to save my purchases for when I visit my sister at FE Warren.




			
				COLORADO HOUSE BILL 13-1228 said:
			
		

> First Regular Session
> Sixty-ninth General Assembly
> STATE OF COLORADO
> INTRODUCED
> ...


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 15, 2013)

0699 said:


> VA House and Senate passed a bill (awaiting signature by the governor) that would make CC permit holders names non-releasable information, preventing newspapers or other busy bodies from releasing names as happened up in NY.


 
That is one step in the right direction.

The problem is the U.S doesn't have enough warriors in government.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 15, 2013)

JAB said:


> Texas would be a better option for Magpul than Wyoming or Montana (from a logistical and taxes standpoint). But I am glad to see many of these companies standing up to the lawmakers. Larue and Olympic arms have both made policies to not sell any goods to any NY government offices or personnel (i.e. no LEO's can buy their products).


 
I'm rather unimpressed by Larue's stance; I'd be more inclined to respect it if they applied it to federal LE and .mil as well.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 16, 2013)

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ernments-With-Strict-Gun-Laws-No-Guns-For-You



> *Six gun companies have announced plans to stop selling any of their products to any government agency in states that severely limit the rights of private gun ownership.*
> 
> Disappointed with New York State lawmakers and other jurisdictions around the country who have passed strict gun control legislation, the companies—composed of firearm manufacturers, gunsmiths, and sporting goods retailers—have announced these policies in the past week.
> Their various statements emphasize that such laws create a class of government employees with rights and and a class of citizens without rights. Thus, they refuse to aid the enforcement of such inequality.


----------



## Casimir (Feb 17, 2013)

So glad to see this. Hopefully the gov't, state and federal, will start to realize that consumer power is nothing to trifle with. Especially if larger companies like S&W, Glock or Sig would bring their power to bear on the problem, even just a little.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 17, 2013)

It doesnt sound like Magpul is screwing around. This from their Facebook Page.
https://www.facebook.com/magpul


> We're hearing some rumors that the Gov and the Dem caucus think we are bluffing. Just to clarify for them, then...we're not a political company. We dont play political games. We've made our position very clear, very publicly. We would not survive lying to our customer base, nor would we ever consider it. If you pass this, we will leave, and you will own it. We've already got plans in place to get PMAG manufacturing moved rapidly, and the rest of the company will follow. We will make sure to at least have a small remain-behind operation through the 2014 elections so that we can remind folks why we are gone.


----------



## pardus (Feb 17, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> It doesnt sound like Magpul is screwing around. This from their Facebook Page.
> https://www.facebook.com/magpul


 
That Magpul Facebook post has 13,000 likes.

Fucking A Magpul, you rock!


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 17, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ernments-With-Strict-Gun-Laws-No-Guns-For-You
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 7880


 
That is how you fucking do it! The power of people and companies who stand up for the U.S Constitution.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 17, 2013)

This is starting to feel like the ESOS Boycott all over again. West Fork Armory is on board with the NYS boycott with California thrown in and soon to be Colorado.
https://www.facebook.com/WestForkArmory


> EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY! All New York Government and official purchases from New York Law Enforcement agencies within that state are cancelled. All future sales will be suspended and firearm servicing is halted until your current bans further restricting law abiding citizens is lifted.
> This includes all sales of West Fork Armory WF-15 rifles, all magazines, optics, night vision, thermal optics, ammunition, or anything else we sale or manufacture for that matter. California you’re already on the list, and Colorado your borderline on the list. We suggest all other manufacturers and dealers do the same. Let this be heard and spread the word. Share it!


----------



## Casimir (Feb 17, 2013)

If CTD would sack up and stop price raping people I may start buying from them again. Buddy of mine went to a gun show here in Bell county today, said bare bones DPMS sportical 5.56 were selling for 2995! some dude was walking around with what looked like an AR10 all decked out with rails and the whole nine yards bragging he spent 6 GRAND on the thing. Fuckin idiot.

Quantico tactical had S&W M&P10's in stock last week for 1600. They're not the cheapest during normal times, but I gotta hand it to them, they've stayed honest and haven't gouged anyone. They've got my business from now on.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 18, 2013)

*Colo. House passes gun-control measures*


http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Colo-House-passes-gun-control-measures-4287534.php

DENVER (AP) — Limits on the size of ammunition magazines and universal background checks passed the Colorado House on Monday, during a second day of emotional debates that has drawn attention from the White House as lawmakers try to address recent mass shootings


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 18, 2013)

Good lord:


----------



## JBS (Feb 18, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> *Colo. House passes gun-control measures*


"The proposed ammunition restrictions limit magazines to* 15 rounds for firearms*, and eight for shotguns. Three Democrats joined all Republicans voting no on the bill, but the proposal passed 34-31."


Go Dems!


----------



## Yoshi (Feb 18, 2013)

JBS said:


> "The proposed ammunition restrictions limit magazines to* 15 rounds for firearms*, and eight for shotguns. Three Democrats joined all Republicans voting no on the bill, but the proposal passed 34-31."
> 
> 
> Go Dems!



I am not sure if everyone is familiar with 10-22 magazines but this one comes to mind.
http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=708700

Is this possible with an AR variant? If so, it is a great workaround for the people of Colorado. I imagine it would be a very front heavy weapon though. Enjoy Dknob!


----------



## Dame (Feb 18, 2013)

Unfortunately the magazine count bill is just one of four that are out there. There are also:
House Bill 1229 requires background checks for all gun transactions; 
House Bill 1226 involves concealed carry permits on campuses; 
House Bill 1228 institutes a fee for gun buyers to cover the cost of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to perform background checks.


----------



## TH15 (Feb 18, 2013)

Unbelievable. It's been saddening to see the turn this country has taken in the last several years. This kind of nonsense is the result simple-minded, feeble human beings and beneath the dignity of a free people to engage in. I'm tired of hearing about things that Americans "can't do" or "have to do" because of the government.


----------



## Casimir (Feb 19, 2013)

Representative gov't is dying. This is a great example. It was obvious the popular opinion on Co's magazine bill was against it, but they voted for it anyway.


----------



## Casimir (Feb 19, 2013)

ThunderHorse said:


> Good lord:


 
One of the problems I have with a lot of these bills is this political speak about rushing bills through. What the hell ever happened to considering public opinion? I understand that if you try and get _everyone's_ opinion nothing would get done, but jamming all this legislation down people's throat's is a sure way to ensure corruption. That's not 'good of the people' right there, that's 'good for us (the politician)'

I especially like (being sarcastic) at the end of the video, and how a lot of other states are now calling for, outright destruction and surrender of grandfathered weapons. What I'm starting to suspect is that the Fed machine is realizing that gun control on the federal level will never happen and they're coercing the states behind closed doors to accomplish shit like this within their home territories with threats of reduced funding or whatever have you. Not unlike what they do with disaster aid if Senator (A) doesn't agree to vote a certain way on bill (Y).

I've had this discussion with folks over and over again, but it never ceases to make me shake my head and wonder what could POSSIBLY be going through their minds. Can they not see how much they are alienating a massive amount of the American public. The _normal_ American public, which has not quite reached the depraved level they think it has, and the media would like us to think it has, yet?

They are drawing that line in the sand it and it's becoming clearer every single day with every single piece of 'law' that these fools are passing in their huddles without consent of the governed.


----------



## JBS (Feb 19, 2013)

*FACT:* The higher the gun ownership rate per capita, the lower the rate of violent crime, per US Census Bureau.


States with highest* >gun ownership<* rates and *>Violent Crime Rates By State<* (where violent crime is defined as " murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault")


*STATES IN ORDER OF HIGHEST GUN OWNERSHIP PER CAPITA*

*1, Kentucky *
*Population*:4,314,113
RANK: *40 th* Most Dangerous State

* 2, Utah*
*Population*:2,784,572
RANK: *45 th* Most Dangerous State

* 3, Montana*
*Population*:974,989
RANK: *41 st* Most Dangerous State

* 4, Wyoming*
*Population*:544,270
RANK: *43 rd* Most Dangerous State

* 5, Alaska*
*Population*:698,473
RANK: *06 th* Most Dangerous State

* 6, West Virginia*
*Population*:1,819,777
RANK: *39 th* Most Dangerous State

* 7, South Dakota*
*Population*:812,383
RANK: *46 th* Most Dangerous State

* 8, North Dakota*
*Population*:646,844
RANK: *49 th* Most Dangerous State

*9, Arkansas*
*Population*:2,889,450
RANK: *11 th* Most Dangerous State

* 10, Alabama*
*Population*:4,708,708
RANK: *23 rd* Most Dangerous State

*11, Tennessee*
*Population*: 6,296,254
RANK: *02 nd* Most Dangerous State

* 12, Oklahoma*
*Population*: 3,687,050
RANK: *17 th* Most Dangerous State

* 13, Idaho*
*Population*: 1,545,801
RANK: *42 nd* Most Dangerous State

* 14, Colorado*
*Population*: 5,024,748
RANK: *25 th* Most Dangerous State

* 15, Missouri*
*Population*: 5,987,580
RANK: *12 th* Most Dangerous State

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/06/28/states-with-the-most-guns.html


----------



## Casimir (Feb 19, 2013)

How dare you use facts and statistics in an argument like this


----------



## JBS (Feb 19, 2013)

What's more if you look at the nations with the_ highest gun ownership rates per capita_, compare these high gun ownership nations with their "_Intentional Homicide_" rates.

The higher the gun ownership, the lower the intentional homicide rates, with only a few exceptions:

*Top 20 Highest Nations - Gun Ownership, In Descending Order*

United States     4.8 intentional homicides per 100,000 inhabitants
Yemen        4.2
*Switzerland    0.7* 
Finland         2.2
Serbia    1.2
Cyprus     1.7
*Saudi Arabia    1.0   * 
Iraq         2.0
Uruguay      5.9
*Sweden* *1.0 * 
*Norway 0.6* 
*France      1.1*
Canada     1.6
*Austria     0.6*
*Germany         0.8*
*Iceland      0.3*
*Oman        0.7*
*Bahrain     0.6*
Kuwait     2.2
Macedonia    1.9
www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2012.xls


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 19, 2013)

Take rape out of the equation and those numbers go way down in AK.  Reason I say that is because Natives are by and far a bunch of family buggering fucks, and it's proven repeatedly in the court system.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 19, 2013)

Tennessee is the second most dangerous state in the entire US?


----------



## Casimir (Feb 19, 2013)

Are you guys following this asinine crap out of Co now? Apparently their rep salazar said along the lines that women should use rape whistles and call boxes instead of being armed with guns because they may accidentally shoot someone who may or not be trying to rape them because they may not be able to tell the difference.

Or how about this from the University of Colorado?


> This is the list of rape prevention tips given to female students
> Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
> Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
> Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
> ...


http://topconservativenews.com/2013...-insults-women-with-gun-free-rape-prevention/


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 19, 2013)

"hate"


----------



## JBS (Feb 19, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Tennessee is the second most dangerous state in the entire US?


Surprised me as well. I did a double take.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 19, 2013)

JBS said:


> Surprised me as well. I did a double take.


 
Unless New Jersey, Washington D.C., Illinois, California, Michigan and like five other states are all tied for first, I just don't see how TN can be #2.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 19, 2013)

Casimir said:


> Are you guys following this asinine crap out of Co now? Apparently their rep salazar said along the lines that women should use rape whistles and call boxes instead of being armed with guns because they may accidentally shoot someone who may or not be trying to rape them because they may not be able to tell the difference.
> 
> Or how about this from the University of Colorado?
> 
> http://topconservativenews.com/2013...-insults-women-with-gun-free-rape-prevention/


 
Yes and the fucking politicians who are mostly sheep and not warriors should SHUT YOUR FUCKING CAVE. Yeah blow a rape whistle and see what happens. Because when you're getting assaulted or raped the first thing you're going to remember is "where o where is my rape whistle". I mean fucking sakes. You know what the problem is? Most of these fucking tools have never been in a fistfight and/or watch too much TV where everything is wrapped up nicely in 30 minutes or the movies where the bad guy always loses because of the quick thinking by the helpless female victim. No fucking common sense. Just like the fucking jackass in the NY Senate that said "well you should just reload" yeah ok bro I'll remember that too (well I would but the common person may not...)

:wall:


----------



## JBS (Feb 19, 2013)

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html


Marauder06 said:


> Unless New Jersey, Washington D.C., Illinois, California, Michigan and like five other states are all tied for first, I just don't see how TN can be #2.


It does seem radically counter-intuitive. I like to think I have always felt safer in TN than my trips to NY.

The stats are from 2006, US Census Bureau. I have seen online discussions and other articles on the topic, mostly consisting of pissed-off Tennesseeans contesting the conclusions.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 19, 2013)

Count me in that number too, Tennessee is my state of legal residence.

And I didn't have to have a "special, only good in this state" gun permit when I lived there, either.


----------



## JBS (Feb 19, 2013)

My wife was just offered a job there, a promotion there (TN) literally today,  and she was going on about the salary and the step up in responsibility, etc.  The first thing I did was mention the rankings there, lol.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 19, 2013)

I wonder what Joe Salazar would do if he was getting raped?


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 19, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Unless New Jersey, Washington D.C., Illinois, California, Michigan and like five other states are all tied for first, I just don't see how TN can be #2.


 
I lived in Tennessee for a long time (well, for me it was a long time) and never felt like it was unsafe. If it's a good job, she should consider taking it, especially if it's in/near Nashville or Knoxville. Maybe not-so-much Memphis 

All I can say is, the Attorney General of the United States never needed to come to the town I lived in while I lived in Tennessee, and *announce a new anti-violence initiative*. Nor were there *mass murders of children* at a school literally down the road from the one my daughter goes to. And the city I went to work in every day wasn't rated one of the *top five most dangerous places in the ENTIRE US*.

Good thing I now live in a state with such "tough" gun control laws, I feel safer already! I must have got out of that dangerous, gun-ridden Tennessee just in time!


----------



## Casimir (Feb 19, 2013)

Chop you bring up a good point...We need these liberal fuckwads to come from outside of their gilded walls protected by the likes of people like us and spend some time in reality. Put them amongst criminals for a while. Sit them down in front of some dirty violent m'fers and let these people tell them how they raped and tortured some 14 year old girl just because they felt like it or how they burned down their grandmother's house because she didn't put walnuts in their favorite fuckin cookie, or any other number of atrocities that people commit simply because that's what they do.

If that doesn't convince them of the propensity for true depravity among people then turn them loose in gen pop for a night and give them a fucking rape whistle and let them blow till their hearts content. After a while they'll be wishing it was the whistle they were blowing. 'Nuff said.


----------



## Casimir (Feb 19, 2013)

sorry about my venomous rant, I am pissed.


----------



## Dame (Feb 19, 2013)

Not to piss you off further but I think going home to live in CA again just became a no-go for me. These are the people they're electing? Don't want that level of stupidity even standing close to me.

*Bill would force gun owners to buy liability insurance*

http://news.yahoo.com/video/bill-force-gun-owners-buy-072114185.html


----------



## Casimir (Feb 19, 2013)

Ya, I remember earlier in this thread I posited that would be something I wouldn't be opposed to discussing, but the more I thought about it, the more and more holes I saw in my own logic. Not to mention if something like that were left up to lawmakers it would be utterly and thoroughly abused. Such as in washington where they proposed letting law enforcement 'inspect' your home.

EDIT: I have insurance on my own weapons, but not necessarily because 'they are gonna haul off and shoot someone on their own' nor is it for someone else's protection. They're an investment and I want them and me protected as such. They're also locked in a safe 90% of the time unless they're on my person. I don't think it's a bad idea, but it shouldn't be something that the man can make you do if you don't want.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 19, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> a bunch of family buggering fucks


 
I am so stealing that.


----------



## JBS (Feb 20, 2013)

Casimir said:


> Ya, I remember earlier in this thread I posited that would be something I wouldn't be opposed to discussing, but the more I thought about it, the more and more holes I saw in my own logic. Not to mention if something like that were left up to lawmakers it would be utterly and thoroughly abused. Such as in washington where they proposed letting law enforcement 'inspect' your home.
> 
> EDIT: I have insurance on my own weapons, but not necessarily because 'they are gonna haul off and shoot someone on their own' nor is it for someone else's protection. They're an investment and I want them and me protected as such. They're also locked in a safe 90% of the time unless they're on my person. I don't think it's a bad idea, but it shouldn't be something that the man can make you do if you don't want.


That's what they did with the health care mandate.

For the first time in history, it is not possible to be a law abiding citizen unless you buy a good/service/product; in the case of Obamacare, it's health insurance.

This is the precedent created by Obamacare. It is now possible for lawmakers to *COMPEL* people by force of law to *buy* things in order to just be law abiding citizens. And, no, it's not the same as mandatory car insurance because many people- particularly in urban areas- don't own or operate motor vehicles and just use subways and bicycles. We also have a choice not to drive, or to car pool, etc.

In 2013, it's health insurance.  In 2014, in some states it will be "gun insurance", mandatory to exercise a Constitutional right, and in 2015?  By 2020?   The slow slide.


----------



## compforce (Feb 20, 2013)

It's getting mighty chilly in hell...

Roseanne Barr’s Surprising Pro-Gun Solution to Preventing Rape


> arm the women of the world-send guns and ammo everywhere-train them to make clean headshots. #*howtopreventrape*


 
The blaze isn't one of my normal sources, but this caught my eye.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 20, 2013)

This from back in December.  Seems Ro is pro gun LOL.  I still cant stand her however.
http://twitchy.com/2012/12/20/rosea...un-control-campaign-for-dem-fundraising-only/


----------



## Dame (Feb 20, 2013)

Booyah!



> *Nevada Bill Would Allow Campus Concealed Carry*
> 
> *CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) --* A Nevada Assemblywoman is trying to make it legal for concealed carry permit holders to carry their firearms on the state's college campuses.
> Republican Las Vegas Assemblywoman Michele Fiore introduced AB 143 during floor session Monday. The bill is also sponsored by 16 Assembly members and six senators.
> ...


http://www.8newsnow.com/story/21234991/nevada-bill-would-allow-campus-concealed-carry


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 20, 2013)

Finally someone is doing it right!. Not like any of these pussies who are proposing shitty gun control laws. Because as we all know more laws makes us safer from the criminals


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 20, 2013)

West Fork Armory isnt forkin' around. Today's Facebook post and press release.
https://www.facebook.com/WestForkArmory



> We have begun to hear rumors and have received phone calls and emails asking if we have “Recanted” our statement regarding canceling and banning sales to States that have limited their citizens the same rights as their law enforcement officers and government officials. WE HAVE NOT!
> We stand by our decision to suspend all sales to Law Enforcement and government agencies in the following states: New York, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii and Maryland.
> There has been a lot of outrage that government is allowed to be exempt from the laws that they themselves are creating. This is a collective attempt on the part of manufacturers to say, “This is wrong and we will not stand for it!”
> We are against the rampant banning that is going on, and will do what we can to help protect the people and their rights. We support our Law Enforcement, Troops and Border Security Officers 100%! Thank you for protecting the public and putting your lives on the line.


----------



## Yoshi (Feb 20, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> West Fork Armory isnt forkin' around. Today's Facebook post and press release.
> https://www.facebook.com/WestForkArmory



I had no clue that these guys are so close to me. Road trip!


----------



## Dame (Feb 20, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> Finally someone is doing it right!. Not like any of these pussies who are proposing shitty gun control laws. Because as we all know more laws makes us safer from the criminals


She is indeed doing it right. While Rhonda Fields in Colorado is giving testimony that contains out-and-out lies (30 round mags used in Sandy Hook), mispronunciations (weapontry?), and blatant ignorance ("clip, magazine, whatever!"), Michele Fiore is organizing gun training classes for Nevada legislators so they can learn about what it is they are legislating. Most of those attending are Democrats. She is particularly devoted to educating anyone who has never handled a gun before and is keeping the classes private in order to protect legislators worried about public opinion of their time at the range.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/cal...nv-lawmakers-attend-invitation-only-nra-event


----------



## Casimir (Feb 20, 2013)

30 round mags at Sandy Hook? LIES! Everyone knows he had a 400 billet zipper-clip:-/


----------



## Worldweaver (Feb 21, 2013)

http://redflagnews.com/headlines/di...iving-or-transporting-a-firearm-or-ammunition

Don't know how much truth there is to this, I thought I'd put it out there. I know there may be at least a few people on here that could be impacted.


----------



## Casimir (Feb 21, 2013)

. I've seen articles all over the place about this and seen a lot of people on FB that claim to have received such letters. It's frightening to say the least if people are being deemed incompetent without some sort of exhaustive due process.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 21, 2013)

Worldweaver said:


> http://redflagnews.com/headlines/di...iving-or-transporting-a-firearm-or-ammunition
> 
> Don't know how much truth there is to this, I thought I'd put it out there. I know there may be at least a few people on here that could be impacted.


 
That is fucked up.  If there's any truth to it, I'll be talking to my Doc's and lawyer because it's not long before this shit flows up here.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 21, 2013)

I got my NRA membership in the mail today


----------



## Jettie (Feb 21, 2013)

Well, there may be some purpose in restricting gun ownership:
*Florida Woman Shot by Oven While Cooking Waffles*

Aalaya Walker was visiting a friend in St. Petersburg Monday when they decided they wanted some late-night waffles, The Tampa Bay Times reported. So Walker began preheating the oven — unaware that her friend, JJ Sandy, 25, was storing a magazine from his .45-caliber Glock 21 in the oven.
The magazine exploded about 9 p.m. ET, spraying casing fragments at high speed and striking Walker. She managed to pick some of the fragments out of her leg and chest and then took a bus to the hospital, where she was treated and released.


----------



## Hillclimb (Feb 21, 2013)

Jettie said:


> Well, there may be some purpose in restricting gun ownership:
> *Florida Woman Shot by Oven While Cooking Waffles*
> 
> Aalaya Walker was visiting a friend in St. Petersburg Monday when they decided they wanted some late-night waffles, The Tampa Bay Times reported. So Walker began preheating the oven — unaware that her friend, JJ Sandy, 25, was storing a magazine from his .45-caliber Glock 21 in the oven.
> The magazine exploded about 9 p.m. ET, spraying casing fragments at high speed and striking Walker. She managed to pick some of the fragments out of her leg and chest and then took a bus to the hospital, where she was treated and released.


 
We just need to restrict stupid or teach people how easy a waffle iron is to use. There wasn't even a gun involved in that incident, and they still managed to get shot.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 21, 2013)

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Malloy-defends-release-of-gun-control-ideas-4298767.php


HARTFORD -- Legislative leaders were generally polite on Thursday after Gov. Dannel P. Malloy offered his multi-point proposals to tighten Connecticut's gun laws.
They said at least some of Malloy's ideas are bound to become part of legislation that will reach the House and Senate by mid-March.
And the governor admitted his role in enacting legislation is limited to signing or vetoing whatever the General Assembly presents to him.


Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Malloy-defends-release-of-gun-control-ideas-4298767.php#ixzz2LbJPu6N2​


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 22, 2013)

Hey, let's make it so people have to pay to exercise a right protected by the constitution!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/us/in-gun-debate-a-bigger-role-seen-for-insurers.html?hp&_r=0


----------



## AWP (Feb 22, 2013)

Some good news to come out of Florida for a change.

http://jacksonville.com/news/2013-0...-stand-your-ground-good-law-no-changes-needed



> TALLAHASSEE | Florida's "stand your ground" law works and should not be overturned, but the standards for neighborhood watch groups should be looked at by the Legislature, a state task force concluded Friday.
> 
> The 44-page report released by Gov. Rick Scott's office said people have a right to feel safe and secure in Florida and have a fundamental right to stand their ground and defend themselves from attack. Most of the recommendations had already been made public.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 26, 2013)

This was just posted on the Magpul Facebook Page. Colorado residents heads up!
https://www.facebook.com/magpul



> We are proud to announce that within a matter of days we will be going live with a new program. Due to a bill currently moving through the Colorado legislature, there is the possibility that Colorado residents' ability to purchase standard capacity magazines will soon be infringed. Before that happens, and Magpul is forced to leave the state in order to keep to our principles, we will be doing our best to get standard capacity PMAGs into the hands of any Colorado resident that wants them.
> 
> Verified Colorado residents will be able to purchase up to ten (10) standard capacity AR/M4 magazines directly from Magpul, and will be given immediate flat-rate $5 shipping, bypassing our current order queue.
> 
> ...


----------



## Andraste (Feb 27, 2013)

Meanwhile in Arkansas:

In the last election the Repulicans took over the State of Arkansas' House and Senate.

They just passed a law preventing release of the CC names and zip codes.  Too bad an editor STUPIDLY decided to print the list anyway.  It's a two page list of excuses==> http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article/91084/my-learning-curve-gwen-moritz-editors-note

She claims she didn't break the law...I'm not sure about that.  It was quickly signed by the Lt. Gov:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/02/23/Concealed-carry-law-signed-in-Arkansas/UPI-74761361658685/

Arkansas Business used to be a good online newspaper that was solid on business news and devoid of drama.  Reading the editor's reasons for publishing the names makes it clear that AR Business is now just one of the many online "news" outlets that have lost their credibility IMHO. 

In other news:  They on their way to passing a bill allowing CC on college campuses (but campuses can opt out if they want). http://news.yahoo.com/arkansas-senate-passes-bill-concealed-guns-college-campuses-073816678.html

Not sure if they are working on an open carry bill this session.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 27, 2013)

Hope they get sued for doing that like the paper in NYS.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 28, 2013)

Surprised that this isn't here already.

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=de9c34512e9d7ef5ec0f8c0be886840e

Transcripts for today's hearing are not yet available, but the link provided above has a webcast recording.

Most of the media attention is focused on the circus created by the first three speakers, as usual.

*Senator Graham from South Carolina hammers the hell out of people though... it's actually pretty awesome.*


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 28, 2013)

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/gun-control-markup-delayed-88232.html?hp=r2
Assault weapons proposal delayed until next week. 


> The postponement also allows more time for bipartisan negotiations between Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to reach a deal to expand background checks for all gun purchases. Those talks have stalled over Coburn’s objections to permanent record keeping of gun purchases becoming a part of background checks.
> Feinstein said she was determined to push ahead on her assault weapons bill, although some Democrats from red states have expressed concerns over the legislation. The National Rifle Association and gun-owner groups are also strongly opposed to the proposal, which could reach the Senate floor next month.
> “It is a life mission’s for me,” Feinstein said.
> Leahy also vowed to stay in session next week as long as needed.
> ...


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 1, 2013)

What about the children?????????????????????
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-issues-pardons-17-minor-offenses-223346342--politics.html



> President Barack Obama on Friday issued pardons for 17 people, largely for minor offenses. Larry Wayne Thornton of Forsyth, Ga., sentenced to four years of probation for possession of an unregistered firearm and possession of a firearm without a serial number.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 2, 2013)

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/28/o...icas-top-pro-gun-media-outlets/#ixzz2MLIq1ncf

When you can't silence the public's voice?

Buy it.


----------



## JBS (Mar 2, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/28/o...icas-top-pro-gun-media-outlets/#ixzz2MLIq1ncf
> 
> When you can't silence the public's voice?
> 
> Buy it.


This article touches on the one reason I have such an incredible amount of hate for Liberals. This is the one thing they consistently do that is unforgivable: silencing the voice of dissent. Liberals, if your ideas are so great, why is it you will never allow those ideas to speak for themselves; to compete openly in the "marketplace of ideas", on the airwaves, print, and television? Instead, Liberal Leftists want opposition pulled off the air and put out of business. This is why the Obama FCC czar went on record stating that he wanted the government to forcibly remove some conservatives from their privately run media positions and forcibly replace them with Liberal speakers. He flatly stated that The Fairness Doctrine doesn't go far enough and even offered up some racist undertones, suggesting that some white people in media should be selectively replaced by minorities.

If you want to compare ideas, you can be treated and seen as an equal. If you want to control who speaks and for how long, and what is said, and you want to silence the voice of people you don't agree with, you should be viewed as an ideological enemy, no matter what political affiliation you might want to hide behind.  And moderate Liberals should cut the radicals out of your organizations like the cancer they are.


----------



## Grimfury160 (Mar 3, 2013)

And another reason not to live in NY State:
*"No. 1: New York*
And the winner for the worst state for taxes is . . . the Empire State. It's the worst state in the country when it comes to individual income taxes, likely due to its high top marginal tax rate of 8.82%. It ranks 45th for both unemployment insurance taxes and property taxes, and 38th for sales taxes. (It also has the highest tobacco taxes in the country -- $4.35 per pack of cigarettes.) Its best score was 23rd for corporate tax rates. http://money.msn.com/taxes/c_galleryregular.aspx?cp-documentid=250574718"


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 3, 2013)

I cant believe this happened in Beaver County PA. This is where we cling to our guns and religion in desperation, dammit!
I think they need to up this chick's Prozac or something.  All of these "false alarms" and seeing evil where there is none at all is going to get old and eventually "wolf!" is going to be cried so often that eventually a true threat is going to go unnoticed.

However, the fact that there is a 19 year old in High School, in the guidance counselor's office is an entirely different can of worms that speaks volumes to the issues in Beaver County. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rd-fresh-prince-song-sparks-schools-lockdown/



> According to the The Times of Beaver, Pa., the receptionist on Thursday called 19-year-old Travis Clawson, a student at Ambridge Area High School, to remind him of an appointment and heard Clawson’s voice mail greeting, his own rendition of the theme to the 1990s hit show starring Will Smith. She thought she heard the words “shooting people outside of the school,” The Times reported, though the actual words of the song are, “And all shooting some b-ball outside of the school.”
> The receptionist called the police, who put all Beaver County schools on lockdown while they looked for Clawson, who, it turned out, was in his guidance counselor’s office. Police took him into custody. He said he was just imitating the show’s theme song, which features Will Smith rapping the words written by Quincy Jones, and The Times reported, the district attorney said authorities listened closely to the phone greeting and decided Clawson was right. He was released.


----------



## Grimfury160 (Mar 3, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I cant believe this happened in Beaver County PA. This is where we cling to our guns and religion in desperation, dammit!
> I think they need to up this chick's Prozac or something. All of these "false alarms" and seeing evil where there is none at all is going to get old and eventually "wolf!" is going to be cried so often that eventually a true threat is going to go unnoticed.
> 
> However, the fact that there is a 19 year old in High School, in the guidance counselor's office is an entirely different can of worms that speaks volumes to the issues in Beaver County.
> ...


 
That is ridiculous!
PA refuses to change its gun laws, what's the housing market down there and do you want a neighbor?


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Mar 3, 2013)

LWRC International has announced that they will be pulling out of MD if more gun control legislation is passed. Makes me even more proud to be an owner of their M6A2. 


> Testimony in Opposition of Maryland Senate Bill 281
> 
> 3/1/2013
> 
> ...



Show them some love!
https://www.facebook.com/lwrci


----------



## Grimfury160 (Mar 3, 2013)

> Wade Haponski, a Remington Arms employee for 13 years, pulled out his cellphone displaying a picture of his 3-year-old son.
> “First of all, it’s the Bill of Rights, not the bill of needs,” he said. “And secondly, I’m the fourth generation of my family to work at Remington, and I want my little son to do the same.”
> Haponski stood with more than 50 Remington employees surrounded by thousands of others protesting the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act. They gathered Thursday in front of the State Office Building in Albany, many clothed in camouflage and sporting National Rifle Association hats.
> Their message was unified: Repeal the SAFE Act.
> ...


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 3, 2013)

Grimfury160 said:


> That is ridiculous!
> PA refuses to change its gun laws, what's the housing market down there and do you want a neighbor?


http://www.howardhanna.com/real_estate/Pittsburgh/property/proplist.asp?MapStatus=MAPONLY

Honestly Id stay out of Allegheny County(where I live) cause its stoopid here but the surrounding counties are nice.  Butler or Washington counties are nice if you want to be in the general direction of Pittsburgh.  Bring your guns, Big Gulps and Styrofoam and come on down.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 4, 2013)

Combo posting new intel and good shit.


----------



## Casimir (Mar 4, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> Combo posting new intel and good shit.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 8006


 
so according to that flyer, almost everyone on this board is a potential terrorist?:-/

BTW, Keith Morgan is a fuckin BOSS


----------



## surgicalcric (Mar 4, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> post...


 
What an asshat...

Just like the majority of the left, he wanted to have an emotionally charged argument rather than a fact based debate.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 5, 2013)

Casimir said:


> *so according to that flyer, almost everyone on this board is a potential terrorist?*:-/
> 
> BTW, Keith Morgan is a fuckin BOSS


 
Yes. This is something that was handed out to surplus shops and gun shops in the area.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 5, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> Yes. This is something that was handed out to surplus shops and gun shops in the area.


I would hope those people used the notices for kindling.
In other news that you wont see on the national scene, concealed carry wins in Missouri!
http://www.kctv5.com/story/21485914/bank-employloyee-with-ccw-shoots-would-be-robber-in-jaw



> Michael Stephen Oliva, 34, of Liberty, was charged with attempted bank robbery on Monday by the U.S. Attorney's Office. Oliva allegedly was carrying a realistic-looking fake plastic gun when he tried to rob the bank about 1:30 p.m. Friday.
> Oliva was arrested after a chase in which speeds exceeded 100 mph. According to court records, a bleeding Oliva asked, "You guys going to let me die?" when he finally pulled over on Interstate 435 in Kansas City.
> A bank employee told the FBI that she saw Oliva enter the bank before he pulled on a black mask. Oliva allegedly pulled out the replica gun and demanded all of the bank's money.
> According to court records, the first bank employee dropped to the floor and began screaming for a second employee to come help. Oliva pointed a gun at the woman, who then tossed a plastic trash can in his direction.
> ...


----------



## Yoshi (Mar 5, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Michael Stephen Oliva, 34, of Liberty, was charged with attempted bank robbery on Monday by the U.S. Attorney's Office. Oliva allegedly was carrying a realistic-looking fake plastic gun when he tried to rob the bank about 1:30 p.m. Friday.
> Oliva was arrested after a chase in which speeds exceeded 100 mph. According to court records, a bleeding Oliva asked, "You guys going to let me die?" when he finally pulled over on Interstate 435 in Kansas City.
> A bank employee told the FBI that she saw Oliva enter the bank before he pulled on a black mask. Oliva allegedly pulled out the replica gun and demanded all of the bank's money.
> According to court records, the first bank employee dropped to the floor and began screaming for a second employee to come help. Oliva pointed a gun at the woman, who then tossed a plastic trash can in his direction.
> ...


 
It is going to suck if the shooter gets in trouble. I hope the bank will pay for court fees if in fact the shooter gets sued civilly.


----------



## AWP (Mar 5, 2013)

Yoshi said:


> It is going to suck if the shooter gets in trouble. I hope the bank will pay for court fees if in fact the shooter gets sued civilly.


 
Assuming the shooter doesn't lose his job over that.


----------



## Yoshi (Mar 5, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Assuming the shooter doesn't lose his job over that.


 
Yea..I cannot imagine the bank condones taking out robbers, hit the distress button and comply. If he would have hit a bystander this situation would be all over the news. I am not too sure of the laws in Missouri as far as concealed carry goes, however, I feel like the weapon should never have left his person like the report implies. Defending yourself or others is a noble/brave/stupid thing depending on the situation but it sure does come with consequences whether it is justified or not.


----------



## AWP (Mar 5, 2013)

Yoshi said:


> Yea..I cannot imagine the bank condones taking out robbers, hit the distress button and comply. If he would have hit a bystander this situation would be all over the news. I am not too sure of the laws in Missouri as far as concealed carry goes, however, I feel like the weapon should never have left his person like the report implies. Defending yourself or others is a noble/brave/stupid thing depending on the situation but it sure does come with consequences whether it is justified or not.


 
Exactly. In this litigious day and age, the second you pull your piece you truly become judged by 12 or carried by 6. I'd say the odds of a clean shoot in a public place and no one trying to sue you are pretty low.


----------



## Yoshi (Mar 5, 2013)

This reminds me of something that every CHL holder/firearm owner should have on their mind, legal representation. Like Freefalling stated in the post above the chances of being sued civilly, even after being cleared judicially, are pretty high (I am currently looking for the exact statistics).

I am a member of a program called Texas Law Shield that provides legal representation if and when you need it for a monthly/annual fee. I am not trying to get them business by boasting how wonderful the service is. Having some type of representation set up before any type of incident happens should just be common sense. There are a few programs out there that provide their services at a modest amount who will stay with you from the date of the incident all the way to your Grand Jury and trial, and some will stay with you if you are civilly sued, without any extra fees.

Doing research on this subject and reading some of the horror stories, like Joe Horn, of honest men and women just trying to protect their property and or themselves has opened my eyes to the major costs involved, monetarily or otherwise.


----------



## JBS (Mar 5, 2013)

If everyone was a Joe Horn, we'd have half the crime we have now.

And as for banks, a family member of mine has banks as clients.  Do you know how many bank robberies occur every week in this country?  Most people don't because the banks keep it quiet.  And, although the average take in an armed bank robbery is supposedly very low (I've been told less than $2K per instance) it is a frequent occurance and it endangers the life of everyone in the branch at the time of robbery.   I am all for arming everyone at the bank and keeping a well trained guard w/multi hit armor and a 300 Blackout at every location.  Unfortunately nobody asked for my opinion on that.  I just think it would be great if we could just make crime more painful to commit.


----------



## Casimir (Mar 6, 2013)

This had absolutely livid. Those of you who have me on FB probably saw my rage 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...pist-because-statistics-are-not-on-your-side/

Those of you in Co ought to consult with an attorney to inquire whether their admission that they are attempting to pass a law that knowingly endangers public safety in favor of another's feelings is a violation of their oath of office or violates some statute regarding public endangerment.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 6, 2013)

Rapists should be shot anyway just as a matter of good form.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 6, 2013)

Interesting concept, don't know the truth to it but it makes sense due to prioritiziation.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 7, 2013)

Freefalling, did you vote for her? 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ger-management-courses-for-ammunition-buyers/



> A Florida legislator wants anyone trying to buy ammunition to complete an anger management program first, in what critics say is the latest example of local lawmakers reaching for constitutionally-dubious solutions to the problem of gun violence.
> The bill filed Saturday by state Sen. Audrey Gibson, D-Jacksonville, would require a three-day waiting period for the sale of any firearm and the sale of ammunition to anyone who has not completed anger management courses. The proposal would require ammo buyers to take the anger management courses every 10 years.
> “This is not about guns," Gibson said. "This is about ammunition and not only for the safety of the general community, but also for the safety of law enforcement.”
> Gibson said she’s concerned with citizens stockpiling ammunition, potentially creating dangerous situations should those individuals ever come in contact with law enforcement agencies or criminals.
> “It’s about getting people to think, really, about how much ammunition they need,” Gibson said. “It’s a step, I think, in a safer direction. It’s about getting people to think before they buy.”


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 7, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Freefalling, did you vote for her?
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ger-management-courses-for-ammunition-buyers/


 
There are lots of things I do when I get angry, buying ammo is not one of them.


----------



## AWP (Mar 7, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Freefalling, did you vote for her?
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ger-management-courses-for-ammunition-buyers/


 
I don't know the lady, but I made some assumptions about her based upon the text, and the text alone, in your post.

I made a mistake when it came to the college she attended. Beyond that, my assumptions were correct.

And no, I did not vote for her because I do not live in her county.


----------



## AWP (Mar 7, 2013)

And if anyone wants to see the nature of FL politics...check out the District 9 borders...

http://www.flsenate.gov/Senators/s09/District#district


----------



## JBS (Mar 7, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> Interesting concept, don't know the truth to it but it makes sense due to prioritiziation.


This is why 556 ammo in the CONUS is $1 a round or more.


----------



## Yoshi (Mar 7, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> And if anyone wants to see the nature of FL politics...check out the District 9 borders...
> 
> http://www.flsenate.gov/Senators/s09/District#district


 
Reminds me of a picture I saw once, looked like a really ugly dragon.


----------



## JBS (Mar 7, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Freefalling, did you vote for her?
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ger-management-courses-for-ammunition-buyers/


Wow!

What an airhead.


----------



## Worldweaver (Mar 7, 2013)

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4373761&newclip

Not that I think an exemption for Military members should be made, but I'm glad to hear Senator Feinstein explain about how PTSD is a new phenomenon out of the Iraq war.


----------



## surgicalcric (Mar 7, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> There are lots of things I do when I get angry, buying ammo is not one of them.


 

I dryfire at a pic of Mullah Omar.


----------



## surgicalcric (Mar 7, 2013)

Worldweaver said:


> http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4373761&newclip
> 
> Not that I think an exemption for Military members should be made, but I'm glad to hear Senator Feinstein explain about how PTSD is a new phenomenon out of the Iraq war.


 
I dont believe an exception is necessary since the 2A covers the weapons DIFI is attempting to ban, "for the children."

However, if serving and retired LEOs are to be exempt then hell yes military members should be as well.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Mar 7, 2013)

Just found this little gem...


----------



## surgicalcric (Mar 7, 2013)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Just found this little gem...


 
That is awesome.  I wish I could like your post more...


----------



## Casimir (Mar 8, 2013)

Feinstein insults the very definition of what logic is. People like her and these other 'leaders' have been around since this country's inception, the frightening difference is how many of them are actually in a position to make policy and law.

I don't remember if it was referenced through SS or something I read while searching but there is a suggestion going through DHS that people who ascribe to any kind of conspiracy theory, believe that Agenda 21 is legit, own more than several hundred rounds of ammunition, more than 7 days worth of food, any type of 'survival' gear, or belong to 'survivalist groups' be on watchlists and under surveillance for "extremist activities". It was even suggested that members and supporters of the Tea Party and groups similar be reported as potential national security threats. This was separate from the FBI flyer that someone posted on here further up. I read it in an article somewhere. Might've been linked through Pulse on my phone, I'll try and find a link and share.

Totally fed up with the fact that being a critical thinker and criticizing the infraction of my rights and personal business is more and more considered a 'national security' threat.


----------



## Casimir (Mar 8, 2013)

This isn't the same source I read, but it is basically the same info:

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/ridiculous-dhs-list-you-might-be-domestic-ter

That's an old article too, the one I read was posted recently.


----------



## Hillclimb (Mar 8, 2013)

Casimir said:


> ..own more than hundred rounds of ammunition, more than 7 days worth of food, any type of 'survival' gear, or belong to 'survivalist groups' be on watchlists and under surveillance for "extremist activities".



Guess all of my friends and I(and probably 98% of SS)are extremists and on a watchlist because we like to eat, camp, and shoot. 

Doesn't seem like it takes much these days to be put on a watch list.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 8, 2013)

This is nice.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/us/south-dakota-gun-law-classrooms.html?_r=1&



> Gov. Dennis Daugaard of South Dakota on Friday signed into law a bill that would allow teachers to carry guns in the classroom. While some other states have provisions in their gun laws that make it possible for teachers to be armed, South Dakota is believed to be the first state to pass a law that specifically allows teachers to carry firearms.
> 
> Supporters say that the measure signed by Mr. Daugaard, a Republican, is important in a rural state like South Dakota, where some schools are many miles away from emergency responders.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 9, 2013)

> MONTROSE, Pa. –  ​Commissioners in a rural Pennsylvania county have passed a resolution saying any new laws restricting gun rights won't apply there.​​Read more:​​http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/01/pennsylvania-county-new-gun-laws-wont-apply-here/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz2N6DyNxux​


 
Now we need this from all the other counties and the Republic of Philadelphia.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 9, 2013)

Casimir said:


> Feinstein insults the very definition of what logic is. People like her and these other 'leaders' have been around since this country's inception, the frightening difference is how many of them are actually in a position to make policy and law.
> 
> I don't remember if it was referenced through SS or something I read while searching but there is a suggestion going through DHS that people who ascribe to any kind of conspiracy theory, believe that Agenda 21 is legit, own more than several hundred rounds of ammunition, *more than 7 days worth of food, any type of 'survival' gear,* or belong to 'survivalist groups' be on watchlists and under surveillance for "extremist activities". It was even suggested that members and supporters of the Tea Party and groups similar be reported as potential national security threats. This was separate from the FBI flyer that someone posted on here further up. I read it in an article somewhere. Might've been linked through Pulse on my phone, I'll try and find a link and share.
> 
> Totally fed up with the fact that being a critical thinker and criticizing the infraction of my rights and personal business is more and more considered a 'national security' threat.


 
Know the best part?

What's *bolded* is part of the publicly distributed FEMA guidelines for households.


HEY YOU REALLY SHOULD HAVE A GO-KIT JUST IN CASE, SINCE WE CAN'T ACTUALLY UNFUCK A SITUATION

OH YEAH, IF YOU FOLLOW OUR INSTRUCTIONS YOU ARE AN EXTREMIST AND ARE SUBJECT TO SURVIELLANCE, ARREST, NO-FLY LISTS, AND ANY OTHER ACTIONS DEEMED NECESSARY BY DHS


----------



## pardus (Mar 9, 2013)

It's unfucking believable what is going on in this country at the moment. How is all this anti gun, anti freedom legislation/proposals not being viewed as unconstitutional, unlawful or downright treasonous?

The liberals are attacking the very foundations this country was built on and the majority of the country is cool with that.

I'm fucking pissed that I spent a lot of my life, money and effort coming to this country just in time to see it dismantle itself.

This MUST be fixed!


----------



## policemedic (Mar 9, 2013)

pardus said:


> It's unfucking believable what is going on in this country at the moment. How is all this anti gun, anti freedom legislation/proposals not being viewed as unconstitutional, unlawful or downright treasonous?


 
What's funny is that I'd have a lot more respect for the liberal anti-gun folks if they would just be honest.  We know you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, so just be honest about it and make your attempt the proper way.  There is a constitutional pathway for amending the Constitution; follow it and be forthright.  

Of course, they'd never succeed in repealing the 2nd Amendment.  And that's why they attempt to achieve their goals through subverting constitutional principles, obfuscating the issue, and fear mongering.


----------



## Casimir (Mar 10, 2013)

I think it's very telling how the leftist media is now attacking Colion Noir as an NRA puppet even though he's been making his videos independently for some time now. Also quite ironic how Russell Simmons is speaking out for gun control while simultaneously signing 'artists' that are known for violence in their lyrics.

Watched a vid on MSNBC of a white journalist going on and on about what the 'black community' thinks of gun control and gun violence. It was rather funny in an ironic sort of way how they had a dude who was whiter than my ass talking about what the black community thinks. FWIW there are a lot of black people, men and women, in my immediate circles (military mostly) that come from a lot of different backgrounds ranging from inner city gang pasts to upscale and well educated that think the whole main stream media and leftist gun control is a joke and actually quite damaging to their community as a whole and are extremely pissed and insulted to be used as fodder for their agenda.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 10, 2013)

Join the NRA or Gun Owners of America. 

The laws that are in certain state committees are scaring the fuck out of me.


----------



## Atlas (Mar 10, 2013)

Sen. Feinstein at it again.  I didn't realize it was legal to hunt human beings with large capacity mags.  Kicking myself for only having a Colt 1911.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 10, 2013)

I was at Cabela's in WV today.  The ammo shelves were practically bare.  Ive never seen anything like it.


----------



## Sdiver (Mar 10, 2013)

Atlas said:


> Sen. Feinstein at it again. I didn't realize it was legal to hunt human beings with large capacity mags. Kicking myself for only having a Colt 1911.


 
YES !!!!!!
I still have my recipe for Soylent Green jerky.
Yum Yum Yummmmmm


----------



## pardus (Mar 11, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I was at Cabela's in WV today. The ammo shelves were practically bare. Ive never seen anything like it.


 
I was at my local gun store, the owner was laughing about the people that were waiting for ammo prices to come down. According to him they never will... 



Sdiver said:


> YES !!!!!!
> I still have my recipe for Soylent Green jerky.
> Yum Yum Yummmmmm


 
Please remove videos or pics when quoting a post.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 11, 2013)

We dropped $0.66 a round for a whopping 180 rounds of 7.62. Could have picked up another 540 in a spam can but no funding to support it. Was hard enough to find 7.62x51/.308 period anyway.  Note to self: Always bring Daughter with when ammo shopping at gun auctions, she got 20 rounds free from the vendor "I ain't got any .22 but this'll work, teach her to shoot"


----------



## pardus (Mar 11, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> We dropped $0.66 a round for a whopping 180 rounds of 7.62. Could have picked up another 540 in a spam can but no funding to support it. Was hard enough to find 7.62x51/.308 period anyway. Note to self: Always bring Daughter with when ammo shopping at gun auctions, she got 20 rounds free from the vendor "I ain't got any .22 but this'll work, teach her to shoot"


 
I just paid about $0.95 for some 7.62x51. 

I think reloading is going to be in my future.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 11, 2013)

Yeah, I don't remember if I have a set of dies or not, but I do believe I will be setting the press up.


----------



## JBS (Mar 11, 2013)

Recently, I bought 2,400 rounds of Lake City 62gr. SS109- which is all I ever buy right now- from a Marine at a really decent price.  I asked him why he was selling when everyone else seemed to be stockpiling.   It was just a casual question.  He replied that he already had more than 30K rounds stashed away for a rainy day.  It's all Lake just like the stuff I was buying from him.  He said he was friends with a guy who works at the Lake City plant, and that the general belief there among employees is that for the next 3 years more than 90% of everything they produce is going to the Federal Government, and another 8% to 10% is going to Law Enforcement.  1 or 2% will trickle into the private sector.

I have no idea if that is true, but these are the kinds of rumors/scuttlebutt I am running into concerning ammo.


----------



## Totentanz (Mar 11, 2013)

I'm how does that stack up against pre-freakout production numbers?


----------



## JBS (Mar 11, 2013)

I didn't ask,  but it was implied that more ammo was going to the government than before.   Even though I have no idea if it's 100% accurate, I do know the .gov ordered tons of ammo of all calibers, and I know it should be in manufacturers' best interest to ramp up production yet still no ammo is hitting the market.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 12, 2013)

Looks like Magpul is not only industry Colorado stands to lose.
http://www.sofmag.com/outdoor-channel-end-production-colorado


> An executive producer and host for the Outdoor Channel, Michael Bane, notified the Senate Republican Caucus that if the package of Democrat proposed gun bills passes, the OC will be moving all production out of Colorado. They currently have four series in production including the OC’s most popular show Gun Stories.
> In an email addressed to Senator Steve King (R-Grand Junction), Bane wrote: “This morning I met with my three producers, and we made the decision that if these anti-gun bills become law, we will be moving all of our production out of Colorado. We have already cancelled a scheduled filming session for late this month.”
> To read Mr. Bane’s complete letter, click here. To learn more about Mr. Bane, click here.
> “These radical bills demonstrate that penalizing law-abiding gun owners harms not only Colorado hunters, but it also damages the economy,” said Senator King. “If these bills pass, Colorado will become known as an unfriendly state toward sportsmen and will force other producers across the country to consider other states.”
> Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman (R-Colorado Springs) added, “The Democrats are taking their marching orders from extreme liberal New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and are ignoring the people who voted for them. He has promised to “pay” for their support of his agenda in the coming elections. He (Bloomberg) has now become the de-facto head of the Democrat party and the de-facto Governor of Colorado. This is a sad day for our state, and could be a very sad day for the Constitution.”


----------



## Kunoichii (Mar 12, 2013)

pardus said:


> It's unfucking believable what is going on in this country at the moment. How is all this anti gun, anti freedom legislation/proposals not being viewed as unconstitutional, unlawful or downright treasonous?
> 
> The liberals are attacking the very foundations this country was built on and the majority of the country is cool with that.
> 
> ...


 
What is most irritating to me is I feel there are a lot of people talking, and not enough doing. I look at our strategies in Afghanistan, and it feels like that is what is happening here. They have infiltrated our society, turned the minds of desperate people away from what this country is, and have reached the highest levels of our government. They only way to stop them is to take it back. Get ourselves and those who believe in what this country was founded on back inside the political side of things and change it.


----------



## Casimir (Mar 12, 2013)

Kunoichii said:


> What is most irritating to me is I feel there are a lot of people talking, and not enough doing. I look at our strategies in Afghanistan, and it feels like that is what is happening here. They have infiltrated our society, turned the minds of desperate people away from what this country is, and have reached the highest levels of our government. They only way to stop them is to take it back. Get ourselves and those who believe in what this country was founded on back inside the political side of things and change it.



Would love to. any suggestions? Doubt many of us has the capitol to go toe to toe with all these freakin groups. Not impossible, I want to get involved locally when I ets, but federally? Gonna be long and expensive battle playing their way. I'm all ears.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 12, 2013)

Casimir said:


> Would love to. any suggestions? Doubt many of us has the capitol to go toe to toe with all these freakin groups. Not impossible, I want to get involved locally when I ets, but federally? Gonna be long and expensive battle playing their way. I'm all ears.


 
Write your elected officials. 24/7/365. Vote with your choice and your money. PARTICIPATE.


----------



## Casimir (Mar 12, 2013)

Of course, that's a no brainer, or at least should be. But is that enough? Politicians lately have been making it more and more clear they give two shits. We need new people in office IMO. That's why I say I want to get involved, locally, in my community at first. Am I the best dude for the job? Don't know yet, but I don't want to sit on the sidelines and keep writing letters and getting automated responses. Voting? Obviously, but we need to do more.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 12, 2013)

Casimir said:


> Of course, that's a no brainer, or at least should be. But is that enough? Politicians lately have been making it more and more clear they give two shits. We need new people in office IMO. That's why I say I want to get involved, locally, in my community at first. Am I the best dude for the job? Don't know yet, but I don't want to sit on the sidelines and keep writing letters and getting automated responses. Voting? Obviously, but we need to do more.


 
No it is not. Going off topic as this is about gun control everyone who can vote should. When the voter turnout is 40% nationally there is a severe problem.

You are on the right track. State locally. Get others involved. I am sure there are veterans groups who do this type of work.


----------



## Hillclimb (Mar 12, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> Write your elected officials. 24/7/365. Vote with your choice and your money. PARTICIPATE.


Shawshank redemption style. Amplify his strategy for desired effects.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 12, 2013)

Hillclimb said:


> Shawshank redemption style. Amplify his strategy for desired effects.


 
I am missing this?


----------



## Casimir (Mar 12, 2013)

You're right about off topic, my bad. But yes, 40% is a travesty.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Mar 12, 2013)

Hillclimb said:


> Shawshank redemption style. Amplify his strategy for desired effects.


 


Marine0311 said:


> I am missing this?


 
In the movie, Andy Dufrane (Tim Robbins) wanted books for the library in the prison, so he wrote a letter every day requesting them.  Once he started to get the books, he began writing 2 letters a day.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 12, 2013)

Bringing this thread back to center:

U.S/Gun Control Discussion.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 16, 2013)

How about that gun control discussion.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...source=govtrack/email_update&utm_medium=email


*S. 150: Assault Weapons Ban of 2013*

Progress
*Introduced* *Jan 24, 2013*
*Referred to Committee* *Jan 24, 2013*
*Reported by Committee* *Mar 14, 2013*
Passed Senate ...
Passed House ...
Signed by the President 
...


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Mar 16, 2013)

Great link, Ranger Psych .  
It's still early for me and I misread your post, didn't notice the bold w/dates and took it to mean it had also already passed the senate, house & prez.  
Here's a screen shot from the site that reflects the same info RP has above.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 19, 2013)

*Gov. John Hickenlooper To Sign Gun Control Measures Wednesday*


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...do-gun-control-bills-wednesday_n_2903514.html


DENVER — Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper will sign legislation Wednesday that sets limits on ammunition magazines and expands background checks for firearms, marking a Democratic victory in a state where gun ownership is a treasured right and Second Amendment debate has played out in the wake of two mass shootings.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 19, 2013)

The worst thing about bans on the state level is that it emboldens the traitorous, seditious pencil-necked oxygen thieving bastards in Washington.


----------



## AWP (Mar 19, 2013)

It is rare, very rare, when I will argue for political partisanship.

I hope in the next election or two the Democrats are forced out of power in Colorado and the state is dominated by the Republican party for the next 2-3 decades. For the next 20-30 years I hope the fastest way to lose an election in Colorado is be a registered Democrat.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 19, 2013)

A lot of political analysts are saying that the current version of the bill (Which was just referred up from committee to the Senate floor) doesn't have enough votes to pass in it's current incarnation.  So either the bill is going to need to be drastically neutered in order to pass Senate (In which case it'd need to be further changed in order to pass the Republican-held house), or killed entirely.  I'd call this a good thing.


----------



## reed11b (Mar 19, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> It is rare, very rare, when I will argue for political partisanship.
> 
> I hope in the next election or two the Democrats are forced out of power in Colorado and the state is dominated by the Republican party for the next 2-3 decades. For the next 20-30 years I hope the fastest way to lose an election in Colorado is be a registered Democrat.


The Demo-can'ts anti-2A stances on the local level will widely reduce the political traction gained from the perception that the Repugnants are responsible for the sequester. Either way it is the voter that keeps getting screwed.
Reed


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 19, 2013)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/19/reid-shoots-down-feinstein-gun-ban-bill/

Good news.


----------



## Queeg (Mar 19, 2013)

You like apples Feinstein? How do you like _them_ apples?!! I agree with one commenter though that this is all theatre and Reid is playing bon cop-bad cop, so keep the heat on gents.


----------



## Rangermom (Mar 20, 2013)

Currently speechless.
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarne...ided-over-facebook-photo-of-childs-rifle.html


----------



## JBS (Mar 20, 2013)

Rangermom said:


> Currently speechless.
> http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarne...ided-over-facebook-photo-of-childs-rifle.html


 
So here is the pic of the kid, posted on Facebook, that resulted in allegations of child abuse and ultimately culminated in a Police "raid".

It really goes to show that there are people in this nation that instantly equate a black gun with evil.


----------



## AWP (Mar 20, 2013)

To be fair, was it an AR that caused the issue or the child holding ANY firearm and issue? While I think the whole thing is stupid, I have to wonder how much traction the story would have if he were holding a revolver, Glock, bolt-action rifle, shotgun with wood stock....anything other than an AR.

The fact is that "guns" are a problem in the eyes of some, but an AR these days will draw the mass media outlets.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 20, 2013)

I can look at that gun and tell it's a .22, and I expect most gun enthusiasts could, as well. There is nothing in this picture that would warrant the police raiding someone's house and trampling all over their rights in the process.

I think I have a picture of my daughter behind the stick of an AH-6... I wonder if someone's going to raid my house and want to see the paperwork for my Little Bird 


This isn't the pic I was thinking of, but it's close.  I guess this helo could be for "sporting and hunting" purposes, and wouldn't be considered an "evil assault helo" because it's not all dressed up with scary-looking accouterments.

I read this story elsewhere, I believe it said you can't get arrested for making a false claim of child abuse?




> But the person who reported the false allegations of abuse cannot be held liable, she noted.
> “You can’t be prosecuted for making an allegation of child abuse –even if it’s false,” she said.


----------



## JBS (Mar 20, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I can look at that gun and tell it's a .22, and I expect most gun enthusiasts could, as well. There is nothing in this picture that would warrant the police raiding someone's house and trampling all over their rights in the process.
> 
> I think I have a picture of my daughter behind the stick of an AH-6... I wonder if someone's going to raid my house and want to see the paperwork for my Little Bird
> 
> I read this story elsewhere, I believe it said you can't get arrested for making a false claim of child abuse?


And I can see that. On some level, that makes sense. You don't want to discourage the reporting of abuse, after all. Child abuse is a very serious problem, and if anything, people need absolutely no friction for reporting it, since I think people tend to be non-confrontational and tend to avoid friction.

But why didn't the law enforcement officer just take one look at the pic and say it's a non-issue? "I'm sorry ma'am, but this is not only NOT against the law, it's perfectly fine, and in fact more parents should familiarize their children with weapons so they respect them."


----------



## AWP (Mar 21, 2013)

Mass shootings have accounted for 547 dead!

(since 1983)

Plus other interesting bits of knowledge about mass shootings.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...shootings-since-1983-182605303--politics.html

Though this statement made me grind my teeth:


> So the CRS study did not include Army Maj. Nidal Hasan’s rampage at Fort Hood, which killed 13 and wounded 40 more, because it has been described as a terrorist attack.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 21, 2013)

Colorado passes new firearms laws and the same day the prison official is killed in front of his home.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/texas...ay-tie-to-Colo-prison-chief-death-4369483.php

I thought laws were supposed to work?


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 21, 2013)

Just two days after Senate Democrats in Washington, D.C., dropped the assault weapons ban from gun legislation to be introduced in April, Vice President Joseph Biden was in New York City, joining Mayor Michael Bloomberg and three Newtown families to urge lawmakers to think about Sandy Hook Elementary.
"For all those who say we shouldn't or couldn't ban high-capacity magazines, I just ask the one question. Think about Newtown," said the vice president. "Think about how many of these children or teachers may be alive today had [Adam Lanza] had to reload three times as many times as he did."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-asks-lawmakers-newtown-assault-weapons-ban/story?id=18784660


----------



## mac21 (Mar 21, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> "Think about how many of these children or teachers may be alive today had [Adam Lanza] had to reload three times as many times as he did."


 
How long do they think it takes to change magazines? I've seen a video where Biden says something about taking 2 to 2 1/2 minutes to reload, but do they all think that?


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 21, 2013)

mac21 said:


> How long do they think it takes to change magazines? I've seen a video where Biden says something about taking 2 to 2 1/2 minutes to reload, but do they all think that?


 
Yes they really do. I have actually talked to people on both parties from liberal to conservative who think this.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 21, 2013)

NRA sues over New York gun control

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/21/us/new-york-nra-lawsuit/


*CNN)* -- The National Rifle Association's New York state affiliate filed a federal lawsuit Thursday in Buffalo contesting the constitutionality of the SAFE Act, the sweeping gun-control bill Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law in January, the group announced in a press release


----------



## pardus (Mar 22, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> NRA sues over New York gun control
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/21/us/new-york-nra-lawsuit/
> 
> ...


 
Fuck yeah! This is exactly why I paid the money to become a life member of the NRA!

Ive been told that the NY gun industry is formulating a lawsuit separately as well.


----------



## Worldweaver (Mar 22, 2013)

pardus said:


> Fuck yeah! This is exactly why I paid the money to become a life member of the NRA!
> 
> Ive been told that the NY gun industry is formulating a lawsuit separately as well.


 
http://www.theithacajournal.com/art...ciation-file-gun-lawsuit-today?nclick_check=1
"The lawsuit is the second against the NY-SAFE Act, which is considered the toughest gun-control law in the nation. The group filed a notice of claim Jan. 29 in state Supreme Court in Albany that it intended to sue, calling the law unconstitutional."​


----------



## Crusader74 (Mar 22, 2013)

This guy is a fucking CLOWN! wasting Police time and making a statement by carrying an AR down a street ...arsehole!

100% behind the LEO.







 

Same guy..still a DICKHEAD


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 22, 2013)

I always laugh at these videos. Most of the time it is some teenager with a few criminal justice courses with a videotape trying to troll the police. I am all about flexing your rights I really am. However if you have a videotape walking around it is my view you have the intent to  cause a situation, have the police react and try (and fail) to troll the police. This makes gun owners such as myself look bad (sorta).


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 22, 2013)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.


----------



## Crusader74 (Mar 22, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> "The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.


 
As long as you're not trolling the Police and scaring the general populace half to death just to make a statement ...


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 22, 2013)

Irish said:


> As long as you're not trolling the Police and scaring the general populace half to death just to make a statement ...


 
Yes pretty much. I am all about rights and freedoms in relations to firearms. I don't agree with, and I'm going to steal what the cop said, about walking down the street with a video cam just to prove a point. I don't see it.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 22, 2013)

This happens more frequently than you'd think.  I've yet to have it happen with a long gun, but we run into it from time to time (activists, not open carry folks generally).


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 24, 2013)

Saw this on FaceCrap and thought it was appropriate for the discussion and perhaps someone should send it to Ol' Uncle Joe.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 25, 2013)

yeah, as dknob was saying,  its dead.... those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it.


----------



## JBS (Mar 25, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Mass shootings have accounted for 547 dead!
> 
> (*since 1983*)
> [snip]
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...shootings-since-1983-182605303--politics.html


So, the statistics bear out that a rough average of 18 people per year die in mass shootings.   And that's adults and children combined.   Much of the current gun control knee-jerk reaction we are seeing is pretending to be concerned for "the children".    All this, despite the fact that you literally *3 times* as likely to die from a lightning strike as you are to be shot and killed in a "mass shooting".

Just to get some perspective:

*Lighting* kills 54 people per year, triple the number killed in mass shootings. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml
*Choking* kills 74 children per year, quadruple the number of people killed in mass shootings. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/02/pediatricians_warn_about_food-.html
About 1,550 children die from cancer every year. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Sites-Types/childhood
 
Despite this, Bloomberg has taken it upon himself to personally go after gun rights with a $12 million advertising campaign.  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/24/bloomberg-gun-control-ads/2014931/

Don't you think the wealthy could focus their resources on issues that are killing massive numbers of children rather than gun control?  The numbers of children killed in "mass shootings" is roughly comparable to the number of children that have choked to death on Lego blocks.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 26, 2013)

Irish said:


> This guy is a fucking CLOWN! wasting Police time and making a statement by carrying an AR down a street ...arsehole!


 
Agreed 100%


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 26, 2013)

policemedic said:


> This happens more frequently than you'd think. I've yet to have it happen with a long gun, but we run into it from time to time (activists, not open carry folks generally).


 
Really? What is your approach?


----------



## policemedic (Mar 26, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> Really? What is your approach?


 
Open carry without a license is legal in PA, with two exceptions. If you get into a car, it's considered concealed and that triggers a need for a license. The other exception is if you find yourself inside the Republic of Philadelphia. Philly has one gun law at the state level that applies only in Philly, and it requires that anyone who carries a gun--openly or concealed--must have a license unless they are exempt from licensing e.g. police and such.

My PD covers three counties, so my approach differs depending on whether I'm in Philly or not. Outside the city, I do absolutely nothing. Open carry is legal, so absent unrelated criminal conduct I just put these people on my SA radar and drive on. Occasionally, I'll have a conversation with them if they're carrying something interesting.

Inside Philly, you get detained and asked to provide a license. The license is verified and you're on your way. 99% of the time I don't bother disarming anyone (if I do, it has everything to do with the person's conduct and attitude, not simply the fact that they have a gun). I'm generally firm but polite, and explain why they're being checked out. I normally don't have a problem; the activists seem to be able to tell who is switched on with this stuff.

I should note that my approach is different if I'm investigating something other than open carry. It's pretty easy to spot the people who are just exercising their rights.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 27, 2013)

An article from March 8th 2013:

*School confiscates third-grader’s cupcakes topped with toy soldiers*

http://news.yahoo.com/school-confisc...215018982.html

In the latest incident of anti-gun hysteria to erupt in a school setting, officials at an elementary school in small-town Michigan impounded a third-grader boy’s batch of 30 homemade birthday cupcakes because they were adorned with green plastic figurines representing World War Two soldiers.

The school principal branded the military-themed cupcakes “insensitive” in light of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, reports Fox News Radio.

“It disgusted me,” Casey Fountain, the boy’s father, told Fox News. “It’s vile they lump true American heroes with psychopathic killers.”

Fountain explained that his wife had made the cupcakes. His son, Hunter, helped decorate them. The following morning, Fountain’s wife brought the taboo treats to the school’s front office, where the secretary reportedly remarked favorably on their appearance.

“About 15 minutes later the school called my wife and told her they couldn’t serve the cupcakes because the soldiers had guns,” Fountain told Fox News. “My wife told them to remove the soldiers and serve the cupcakes anyway — and I believe she may have used more colorful language.”

“We’re just taking political correctness too far,” the angry father added.

In a statement to local media, Schall Elementary School principal Susan Wright Susan Wright doubled down on her school’s bold stand against little green men that represent American soldiers.


----------



## Gypsy (Mar 27, 2013)

This shit just keeps getting more stupid by the minute.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 27, 2013)

Lee vows to filibuster gun-control legislation

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/56062103-90/gun-lee-senators-control.html.csp


Washington • Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, is joining with fellow tea party senators in a pledge to block any gun-control legislation.
Lee — along with Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas — is sending a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., that warns the trio will filibuster gun-control measures expected to be brought to the Senate floor after a two-week hiatus.


----------



## AWP (Apr 1, 2013)

First Magpul, now another company is leaving Colorado,

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/1364797845s61x5s15jve



> Fort Collins, Colorado, April 1, 2013 -HiViz Shooting Systems (a division of North Pass Ltd.), announces plans to relocate operations out of the state of Colorado due to recent changes in Colorado state gun control legislation. HiViz President and CEO, Phillip Howe, states that talks are currently under way with officials of a neighboring state regarding the move.


----------



## RackMaster (Apr 1, 2013)

Something to bring the mood up in here. ;)


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 1, 2013)

Speaking of guns, I got a phone call from my local PD telling me that my permit is good to go and I can come by tomorrow and pick it up.  It only took SEVEN months and FOUR attempts at fingerprinting.

I'm going to be soooo pissed if this was an April Fool joke.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 1, 2013)

Legislators in Connecticut Agree on Broad New Gun Laws

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/n...r-reaching-gun-control.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0


HARTFORD — More than three months after the massacre of 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., state legislative leaders announced on Monday that they had agreed on what they called the most far-reaching gun-legislation package in the country.


:wall::wall:


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 1, 2013)

Nelson, Georgia Family Protection Ordinance Approved, Would Make Gun Ownership Mandatory For Some

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/nelson-georgia-family-protection-ordinance_n_2995657.html


NELSON, Ga. — The city council in a small north Georgia town voted Monday night to make gun ownership mandatory – unless you object.
Council members in Nelson, a city of about 1,300 residents that's located 50 miles north of Atlanta, voted unanimously to approve the Family Protection Ordinance. The measure requires every head of household to own a gun and ammunition to "provide for the emergency management of the city" and to "provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 1, 2013)

Among the other efforts to broaden gun rights that have surfaced since the Newtown killings:
_ Earlier Monday, lawmakers in Oklahoma scuttled a bill that would have allowed public school districts to decide whether to let teachers be armed.
_ Spring City, Utah, passed an ordinance this year recommending that residents keep firearms, softening an initial proposal that aimed to require it.
_ Residents of tiny Byron, Maine, rejected a proposal last month that would have required a gun in every home. Even some who initially supported the measure said it should have recommended gun ownership instead of requiring it, and worried that the proposal had made the community a laughingstock. Selectmen of another Maine town, Sabbatus, threw out a similar measure. The state's attorney general said state law prevents municipalities from passing their own firearms laws anyway.
_ Lawmakers in about two dozen states have considered making it easier for school employees or volunteers to carry guns on campus. South Dakota passed such a measure last month. Individual communities from New Jersey to Colorado have voted to allow administrators or teachers to carry guns in school.


----------



## AWP (Apr 1, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> Legislators in Connecticut Agree on Broad New Gun Laws
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/n...r-reaching-gun-control.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0


 
To piggyback on this story:



> The newly banned weapons could no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut, and those legally owned already would have to be registered with the state, just like the high-capacity magazines.
> 
> "No gun owner will lose their gun," said House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero Jr., a Norwalk Republican. "No gun owner will lose their magazines."


 
Does Google Translate work for Cafero and Judas? They have some things in common.

http://news.yahoo.com/conn-reaches-deal-tough-gun-laws-newtown-221504941.html


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 2, 2013)

This is what I was talking about earlier; Malloy was all about "we will never confiscate weapons from law-abiding citizens."  Well guess what... with a stroke of a pen you're now no longer "law abiding" and it's game on... and pretty soon it will be a FELONY to simply possess a 30-round magazine???  Something that is Class IX to the military can get you tossed in jail and ruin your life forever.  WTF.


----------



## AWP (Apr 2, 2013)

IDPA just cancelled a regional championship thanks to Colorado.

http://www.idpa.com/blog/post/2013/...Canceled-In-Wake-Of-New-Gun-Control-Laws.aspx

The article also mentions that Ruger did the same with a competition it was sponsoring.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 2, 2013)




----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Apr 2, 2013)

Just thought I'd throw this out there, even though it technically isn't a gun.

From:
http://tucson.backpage.com/SportsEquipForSale/3500-rpg-7-3x-warhead/22132419

Make sure you read it all... I wonder if the black helo's are inbound.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 2, 2013)

.”Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined”
~Patrick Henry


----------



## Yoshi (Apr 3, 2013)

This is for all the current and wanna-be/gonna-be Texans out there. An overview of proposed firearm legislation in the 83rd Legislature of Texas.

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs197/1103406220341/archive/1112960627845.html

Some of these proposals are pretty interesting. Open Carry for CHL holders? Yes please! Also, I had no idea that hotels in Texas can legally hide the 30.06 notice in their policies!


----------



## Dame (Apr 3, 2013)

LimaOscarSierraTango said:


> Just thought I'd throw this out there, even though it technically isn't a gun.
> 
> From:
> http://tucson.backpage.com/SportsEquipForSale/3500-rpg-7-3x-warhead/22132419
> ...


 
Holy crap. I soooo want to buy this for Pardus. It'll be more fun than a tactical kilt.


----------



## Dame (Apr 3, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> IDPA just cancelled a regional championship thanks to Colorado.
> 
> http://www.idpa.com/blog/post/2013/...Canceled-In-Wake-Of-New-Gun-Control-Laws.aspx
> 
> The article also mentions that Ruger did the same with a competition it was sponsoring.


Also from Colorado:


> *Colorado Group Recalling Anti-2nd Amendment *​
> *State Senate President Morse*​
> _Colorado Springs, CO, April 3, 2013_--*Colorado grassroots group begins recall of State Senate President for attacks against Constitution and Bill of Rights.* The group has the Colorado Secretary of States' approval to begin gathering signatures for the recall of Colorado State Senate President John Morse (D.) for his stand and leadership against the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and his attack on the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens.
> 
> ...


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 3, 2013)

CT just passed the firearms bill and the Gov will sign it Thursday

:wall:


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Apr 3, 2013)

Not directed at you brother.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 3, 2013)

LimaOscarSierraTango said:


> Not directed at you brother.


 
I feel your pain with your hate. I don't even know what to say.

I did give a gift of a Gift Membership for One Year to the NRA for a Marine bro who I served with. Another NRA member to fight the fight.


----------



## AWP (Apr 4, 2013)

Last week I received an email from Ranier Arms that 18" barrels were back in stock. I was shopping for one before all of this nonsense started but never bought one because "I can buy it next month." Anyway, they emailed that they were back in stock and I picked one up; an hour later they were gone. Still no upper receivers in stock.

One plus, and another reason I jumped on it, is they listed for 280 and sold for 250. They currently have 16" barrels in stock, White Oak, etc. for anyone looking.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 5, 2013)

CT Gov signed the gun laws into effect yesterday. :wall:


----------



## Dame (Apr 5, 2013)

Stag Arms might follow Magpul's lead.
http://ctmirror.com/story/19256/oklahoma-latest-state-woo-connecticut-gun-makers


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 5, 2013)

Dame said:


> Stag Arms might follow Magpul's lead.
> http://ctmirror.com/story/19256/oklahoma-latest-state-woo-connecticut-gun-makers


 
I don't see that. The story is 3 weeks ago.

With the ban just signed into law they should move out!


----------



## AWP (Apr 7, 2013)

Charles Krauthammer offered an interesting position, one that left his fellow panelists on Fox speechless. I don't agree with it 100%, but I think he's on to something.

http://news.yahoo.com/did-charles-krauthammer-obama-shocked-fox-panel-silence-194415584.html



> Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer seemed to render his fellow Fox News panelists momentarily speechless after he said President Barack Obama has lost the main gun control battle and "all he wants now is the money."
> 
> Krauthammer made the comment during Fox News' "Special Report" after National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg said Obama likely won't even get a vote on the majority of new gun control measures he wants.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 7, 2013)

I signed up a Marine bro for a one year gift membership ($35.00).  My mom did give a donation to Gun Owners of America.

With guns and anything other that comes down the pipeline more Americans need to be involved in fighting for their Constitutional rights.

I'm getting sucked into another gun debate in my college class :wall:


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Apr 7, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Charles Krauthammer offered an interesting position, one that left his fellow panelists on Fox speechless. I don't agree with it 100%, but I think he's on to something.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/did-charles-krauthammer-obama-shocked-fox-panel-silence-194415584.html


 
When this all started, I figured a good way to increase tax revenue was to create another gun grab scare (only because he knows he won't be able to get rid of the 2nd Amendment).  The amount of gun sales when he got elected was pretty insane.  Make an actual threat to guns, and there will be a lot more tax revenue coming in.  It won't amount to what was lost when the housing bubble burst or cover new costs of Obamacare, but it will help minimize some of the damage.

It would be interesting to see the numbers.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 7, 2013)

Wait, what?  The President is LOSING the gun control debate??  Not from my foxhole.  If I continue to live in this gun-hating state, I'm going to have to shell out $35, pass YET ANOTHER background check, and wait G0d-knows-how-long to get a "certificate" that allows me to buy a rifle or shotgun.  If I want to buy ammo?  Yeah, that's another $35, another background check, and another wait.  Pistols?  You guys remember how long it took me to get a simple PERMIT TO CARRY in this state?  Carry, as in, "to be allowed to carry my legal gun from the place I'm legally allowed to keep it (my house) to the place I'm legally allowed to use it."  That's on top of how incredibly expensive the permitting process is here.  Additionally, mere possession of a standard M4 mag, which is Class IX disposable in most units, and consequently most veterans probably possess in abundance, is now or is about to be a FELONY here for everyone who doesn't get grandfathered in.  Let that sink in.  A FELONY for an empty mag that you forgot to take out of your ruck before you tossed it into the trunk of your car, or stuck it in the Tuffbox in your basement.  EVERYTHING is going to have to be registered, including "high capacity" magazines.

Connecticut laws are not national, but ultimately all politics are local.  This is how it starts.  I hope you all enjoyed your guns and your rights while you had them.


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Apr 7, 2013)

To be fair, Sir.  You have always been able to transport the firearm to the range or wherever.  The permit allows you to carry it on your person now.

About the gun control debate, it is now more at the local level, where the President just needs to support what is being done in some States.  Once a decent group of States enact stricter controls, then he can bring it back to the National level, or to be more precise, bring it back to the forefront.


----------



## AWP (Apr 7, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Wait, what? The President is LOSING the gun control debate??


 
Now I think he is. As part of a long game I'm not so sure. States like CT or CO will pass their laws and this dialogue will enter the public's consciousness. After the next one-off killing to gain national attention someone will trot out statistics to show that CT and CO are "safer" than they were before and a nother chorus of mindless Hollywood drones will parrot their talking points to an adoring media.

Like it or not, this a war that started before most/ all of us were born. This fight is like the Hundred Years War where periods of calm aren't because a side won, but because it had larger problems elsewhere and couldn't take up the fight. As the emotion dies down and things return to "normal", little speeches allow the embers to glow...


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 7, 2013)

LimaOscarSierraTango said:


> To be fair, Sir. *You have always been able to transport the firearm to the range or wherever*. The permit allows you to carry it on your person now.
> 
> About the gun control debate, it is now more at the local level, where the President just needs to support what is being done in some States. Once a decent group of States enact stricter controls, then he can bring it back to the National level, or to be more precise, bring it back to the forefront.


 
Not in Connecticut, brother.  Yeah I could transport it to the range if I wanted to... if I wanted to get arrested and have it confiscated that is.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 8, 2013)

Every veteran who isn't fighting this fight should.


----------



## policemedic (Apr 8, 2013)

More than 15,000 police officers support gun rights in recent PoliceOne survey.

This survey may be encouraging to some. My profession has its share of morons and elitists, but it's always been my belief that the majority of us understand what our oath means. This is an important document because it reflects the views of those who actually go out to enforce the law and keep the peace. Supervisory ranks are represented, but the majority of responses come from road dogs. It draws a red line between the troops and groups of politically appointed police chiefs.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 8, 2013)

*Gun legislation’s prospects improve*




Prospects for a bipartisan deal to expand federal background checks for gun purchases are improving with the emergence of fresh Republican support, according to top Senate aides.
The possibility that after weeks of stalled negotiations senators might be on the cusp of a breakthrough comes as President Obama and his top surrogates will begin on Monday their most aggressive push yet to rally Americans around his gun-control agenda.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ea516e-9f92-11e2-9c03-6952ff305f35_story.html


----------



## policemedic (Apr 9, 2013)

Fucking Toomey (R-PA) seems to be defecting.  He's getting a bunch of calls tomorrow.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 9, 2013)

I have to make another round of calls or e-mails during this week. 3 of my state reps voted for some gun laws. 2 won't get my vote but the 1 will because he's a vet who has done alot for the veterans community (always an exception to every rule). I need to contact my Congressman and Senator.

I did give a gift of a Gift Membership for One Year to the NRA for a Marine bro who I served with. Another NRA member to fight the fight.


----------



## Yoshi (Apr 9, 2013)

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/lone-star-stabbing-184840929.html
Stabbing at a Texas College, 14 injured. I hope that everyone injured makes a speedy recovery. I posted this here because it shows that you do not need a firearm to hurt people. All the attention that is being given to the Assault Weapon ban, and things like it, needs to be diverted to the true issues which have been discussed thoroughly throughout this thread.


----------



## dknob (Apr 9, 2013)

Your point is moot considering 14 people were wounded. And not 14 people were shot and killed. Just saying


----------



## Yoshi (Apr 9, 2013)

My point is that people were hurt by another person on a school campus without the use of a firearm. Therefore, the AWB is clearly a side step to the real issue of the individual and why people do what they do. Is there any reason why you think my point is debatable?


----------



## AWP (Apr 9, 2013)

dknob said:


> Your point is moot considering 14 people were wounded. And not 14 people were shot and killed. Just saying


 
 So, people wounded as a result of another's actions don't matter, only the dead "have a vote?" That's the way your comment reads. Just saying.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 9, 2013)

dknob said:


> Your point is moot considering 14 people were wounded. And not 14 people were shot and killed. Just saying


and one student was quoted as saying he wished he could have had a gun, which is another battle going on in the state at this moment.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 9, 2013)

I would allow fireramrs on campus if you are qualed to do so by the State.


----------



## pardus (Apr 9, 2013)

dknob not everyone who is shot, dies either Brother...


----------



## dknob (Apr 10, 2013)

Just stating the obvious. 14 people will get to home and see their families at the end of the day.. or week.. or however long it takes to get discharged.

We can't stop violence. That's in our nature. 

No not everybody who gets shot gets wounded. But lets all agree that a gun in that man's hand rather then a knife would have resulted in most likely at least 10 deaths.


----------



## dknob (Apr 10, 2013)

SOWT said:


> and one student was quoted as saying he wished he could have had a gun, which is another battle going on in the state at this moment.


I wish he did have a gun! 

I also wish the students beat that man to death on the sidewalk before the police showed up. But life is imperfect.

I'm not anti-gun. I'm just again stating the obvious of the difference between a knife attack and a gun attack. Hopefully it'll come out that that fat POS tried to get a gun but was maybe denied.


----------



## Rabid Badger (Apr 10, 2013)

dknob said:


> I wish he did have a gun!
> 
> I also wish the students beat that man to death on the sidewalk before the police showed up. But life is imperfect.
> 
> I'm not anti-gun. I'm just again stating the obvious of the difference between a knife attack and a gun attack. Hopefully it'll come out that that fat POS tried to get a gun but was maybe denied.


 
or that if only 1 person had a gun, there'd be one dead bad guy, 1 injured student, and everyone goes home happy. 2 sides, always 2 sides....

Agree with your "denied" statement, although that wouldn't make the MSM if he had.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 10, 2013)

We must do more to push back on these laws. Vote these people out of office to start.


----------



## JBS (Apr 10, 2013)

dknob said:


> Your point is moot considering 14 people were wounded. And not 14 people were shot and killed. Just saying


China's a gun free society and every 6 months someone goes apeshit and slashes or hammers or knifes or screwdrivers 10 or 20 toddlers to death.

We've managed to kill and maim each other for 20,000 years. Every time they pull a Peat Bog man mummy out of some Northern European archaeological site, or a neolithic skeleton out of a rock quarry somewhere, or a skull from a Pre-Colonial American holy site, the bones are riddled with arrowheads, broken spear tips or blunt force trauma fractures. Is it easier mechanically and psychologically to shoot rather than these other methods? Probably. But the problem isn't going away if we ban guns.

The trend would likely follow that of gun-free Britain (violent crime capital of Europe) and gun free Australia ; gun deaths would eventually go down but rape and assault and every other violent crime would triple or quadruple as the people are left unable to defend themselves.


----------



## AWP (Apr 10, 2013)

The problem with being "civilized" is that we tend to forget our animalistic nature. We're different from the men and women of a thousand or 2,000 or 10,000 years ago...but not that much.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 10, 2013)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-maryland-as-omalley-pushes-tougher-gun-laws/


One of the world’s biggest gun makers is threatening to move its Maryland manufacturing plant – along with roughly 400 jobs – as Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley pushes one of the most ambitious gun-control agendas in the country

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/27/gun-maker-beretta-considers-leaving-maryland-as-omalley-pushes-tougher-gun-laws/#ixzz2Q23YQHjl​


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 10, 2013)

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Sweeping restrictions on gun ownership passed the Maryland General Assembly on Thursday, including a ban on new purchases of assault weapons, a 10-bullet limit on magazines and requirements that handgun buyers undergo fingerprinting and target training

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/us/tighter-gun-rules-pass-the-maryland-legislature.html


----------



## JBS (Apr 10, 2013)

Freefalling In some ways, I'd say we're worse. The capacity for violence is there, and when we add technology to the mix, the wolves among us can do greater harm than ever. The solution isn't stripping weapons and making more sheep; it's making more sheepdogs.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 10, 2013)

JBS said:


> In some ways, I'd say we're worse. The capacity for violence is there, and when we add technology to the mix, the wolves among us can do greater harm than ever. The solution isn't stripping weapons and making more sheep; it's making more sheepdogs.


 
Do you mean sheepdogs meaning more police?


----------



## JBS (Apr 10, 2013)

I mean absolutely more police,  but also an educated and safely armed population for the myriad number of times when Law Enforcement cannot possibly respond in time to save lives.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 10, 2013)

JBS said:


> I mean absolutely more police, but also an educated and safely armed population for the myriad number of times when Law Enforcement cannot possibly respond in time to save lives.


 
I then agree. Police are awesome however the people must be educated and armed to repel attackers.


----------



## pardus (Apr 10, 2013)

If more people were armed and responsible, we wouldn't need more police.


----------



## pardus (Apr 10, 2013)

JBS said:


> The trend would likely follow that of gun-free Britain (violent crime capital of Europe) and gun free Australia ; gun deaths would eventually go down but rape and assault and every other violent crime would triple or quadruple as the people are left unable to defend themselves.


 
I had a lady walk up to me the other day and say something along the lines of, guns are bad, look at Britian, their gun crime is down, unlike the USA.

I said, "yes, you are correct, gun crime is down, however, as a result of the gun ban, violence in general has increased so much that the UK is one of the most violent countries in the world." I explained that the violent crime was in the form of knife, blunt object and hand/foot violence. She was truly shocked by this, not realizing that this was possible, but then understood the logic of it.


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Apr 10, 2013)

dknob said:


> But lets all agree that a gun in that man's hand rather then a knife would have resulted in most likely at least 10 deaths.


 
I have to disagree with you on this.  There is no way of knowing how things would have turned out if a gun was involved.  Let's not start playing the "what if..." game.


----------



## 0699 (Apr 10, 2013)

JBS said:


> Freefalling In some ways, I'd say we're worse. The capacity for violence is there, and when we add technology to the mix, the wolves among us can do greater harm than ever. The solution isn't stripping weapons and making more sheep; it's making more *sheepdogs*.


 
I fucking HATE this term...  IME most of the people that use it are fucking wannabe self-appointed guardians of justice...


----------



## Totentanz (Apr 10, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> The problem with being "civilized" is that we tend to forget our animalistic nature. We're different from the men and women of a thousand or 2,000 or 10,000 years ago...but not that much.


 
IMO, _Lord of the Flies_ was way closer to current reality than most people would like to admit.  It would probably only take one solid national crisis that significantly threatens the majority's standard of living, and we'd throw out a lot of those "civilized" values at a shocking rate...


----------



## dknob (Apr 10, 2013)

JBS said:


> Freefalling In some ways, I'd say we're worse. The capacity for violence is there, and when we add technology to the mix, the wolves among us can do greater harm than ever. The solution isn't stripping weapons and making more sheep; it's making more sheepdogs.


You don't create a sheepdog by giving a sheep a gun. You just have an armed sheep. Still a sheep. Nor do we need anymore sheep dogs. 
We need more wolf hounds.


----------



## 8654Maine (Apr 10, 2013)

Agree w Totentaz.  All it takes is one breakdown in our societal mores, i.e. electricity, food, etc, and we'll see how "civilized" people behave.


----------



## pardus (Apr 10, 2013)

Totentanz said:


> IMO, _Lord of the Flies_ was way closer to current reality than most people would like to admit. It would probably only take one solid national crisis that significantly threatens the majority's standard of living, and we'd throw out a lot of those "civilized" values at a shocking rate...


 


8654Maine said:


> Agree w Totentaz. All it takes is one breakdown in our societal mores, i.e. electricity, food, etc, and we'll see how "civilized" people behave.


 
We have already seen it though it was suppressed by the media/govt.

Hurricane Sandy in NYC, there were roving gangs who raided police stations and fire stations. Gangs that would wait until the police and army would leave an area after distributing food/supplies and simply walk into people's houses and take the supplies. People were begging the army and police to stay, but they only stayed during daylight hours.

The police and army were fired upon by these gangs as well.

Bloomberg the POS, ordered that all military personal were not allowed to be armed during this time.

People pulled guns to get gas while they were queuing at gas stations.

Hurricane Sandy showed me very clearly that society is broken. Make no mistake everyone, people are ready _now,_ to throw away all rules/laws/morals that hold society together. Be prepared!


----------



## Totentanz (Apr 10, 2013)

I was speaking more to a national shift that would last for several years... at present time, as your anecdotes demonstrate, it's at a local level and easily suppressed and therefore quickly forgotten so we can all go back to pretending we're better than that.  But all of this (and it's actually recent events like the one you described) is exactly what has lead me to the belief that civilization will quickly degenerate in a very widespread and permanent manner given a larger and more lasting crisis.

Though I think both levels demonstrate that civilized values are a product of prolonged luxury and stability and this "progress" is not as permanently ingrained as many of the enlightened would like to believe.

Hypothetically, what would actually happen if NK actually did manage to strike the US?  With a nuke?  With sustained attacks?  It's a hypothetical, but would we actually maintain our values throughout a conflict given a REAL threat to our homeland?

Admittedly, this kind of strays from the original topic, but I think the human behavior governs both topics in a very similar manner.


----------



## JBS (Apr 10, 2013)

0699 said:


> I fucking HATE this term... IME most of the people that use it are fucking wannabe self-appointed guardians of justice...





dknob said:


> You don't create a sheepdog by giving a sheep a gun. You just have an armed sheep. Still a sheep. Nor do we need anymore sheep dogs.
> We need more wolf hounds.


 
Sheepdogs, bloodhounds, wolf hounds, whatever the various terms are, all I'm saying is every week we see stories of men and women who defend themselves with legally owned, legally operated weapons. Is a disabled 70 year old man foiling an assault and armed robbery suddenly a "sheepdog" because he is armed? Of course not. And yes, there are those who see themselves as a vigilante type. But that stereotypical 70 year old man that we read about so frequently in the papers- repelling an assault by would-be thugs- would be nothing but a mere victim, another statistic (a helpless sheep) if he wasn't armed.


----------



## Yoshi (Apr 10, 2013)

pardus said:


> We have already seen it though it was suppressed by the media/govt./Entire Post


It is extremely unfortunate this was suppressed by the media, I had no clue it was that bad. On the other hand, during the tsunami and earthquake in Japan the talk of the town was how "civilized" their populace was being with no major reports of looting. While I don't think the Japanese culture is superior to ours, there are definitely a few principles that are no longer the mortar to our society, chiefly Honor.

Here is an interesting article about the worldwide response to Japan's reaction and how some of it is misguided.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-the-earthquake-and-tsunami-has-inspired-all-


----------



## AWP (Apr 10, 2013)

This might be the high water mark of the current gun control fight. At least until the next sensationalist event.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/congress-gun-laws/index.html?hpt=hp_t1



> In a potential breakthrough on new gun laws, a Republican and Democratic senator plan to announce a compromise Wednesday on expanding background checks of firearms purchasers, sources told CNN.


----------



## JBS (Apr 10, 2013)

I am concerned that universal background checks could lead to a kind of gun registry.


----------



## pardus (Apr 10, 2013)

JBS said:


> I am concerned that universal background checks could lead to a kind of gun registry.


 
Which sets things up for confiscation. Ive lived through it before...


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 10, 2013)

pardus said:


> Which sets things up for confiscation. Ive lived through it before...


Yep.

You can not will/give a gift without registering the transfer.

Confiscation is the goal, some here refuse to acknowledge that, but in their hearts know it to be true.


----------



## policemedic (Apr 10, 2013)

> Senator Toomey,
> 
> Recently, PoliceOne.com conducted a survey of more than 15,000 of my colleagues in law enforcement.  While supervisory ranks are represented, the majority of responses came from patrol officers and deputies-the people at the pointy end of the stick.  These are the people who truly know best regarding the potential effects of gun control legislation on violent crime.
> 
> ...


 
I'm sure my elected representative will give this letter due consideration....


----------



## Dame (Apr 10, 2013)

policemedic said:


> > _Love and Kisses,_
> > _PoliceMedic_
> 
> 
> I'm sure my elected representative will give this letter due consideration....


You didn't.


----------



## policemedic (Apr 10, 2013)

Dame said:


> You didn't.


 
My integrity is known far and wide; it is unassailable and unquestioned.

As is my sarcasm...


----------



## JBS (Apr 10, 2013)

policemedic said:


> I'm sure my elected representative will give this letter due consideration....


That is an awesome letter.


----------



## 8654Maine (Apr 10, 2013)

Great letter, PM.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 10, 2013)

policemedic said:


> I'm sure my elected representative will give this letter due consideration....


 
Well done!  You are now my official rebuttal writer ;)

With your permission, I'd like to remove the identifying information from your letter and post it on my Facebook page in the future.


----------



## AWP (Apr 10, 2013)

To follow up on the original story:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/congress-gun-laws/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



> "This is a Congress that is captive *of the extremists* and there is no clearer proof of that than this," Cuomo said on the "Capitol Pressroom" radio show, adding that the compromise meant "we are not talking about a significant package of gun control anymore."


 
Remember all of the talk so many months ago about being labeled an "extremist" by our government? See, it isn't official obviously or a matter of policy, but it is clear that some of our elected officials buy into the belief that some of us are "extremists." While I won't say the sky is falling, I think we're slowly losing our sunshine.

Then we have:



> A new national survey showed that 86% of Americans support some expansion of background checks.
> 
> At the same time, the CNN/ORC International poll released Wednesday also showed a majority of respondents fear that increased background checks would lead to a federal registry of gun owners that could allow the government to take away legally owned weapons.


 
What the fuck, America? Seriously, you jackasses?

Chicken #1:  We need better henhouse security!
Chicken #2: We should hire a guard.
Chicken #1: What about a fox?
#2: He's hired, I just hope he doesn't eat us.

Stay classy, America.


----------



## policemedic (Apr 10, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Well done!  You are now my official rebuttal writer ;)
> 
> With your permission, I'd like to remove the identifying information from your letter and post it on my Facebook page in the future.



Go for it.


----------



## JBS (Apr 11, 2013)

Senator Warns of Coming Gun Registry:




 

This Administration is really fond of governing by regulation.  This fight is far from over.  It's just getting started.

Here's the key text:




> One of the provisions *we expect* to see in the bill based on what we saw in the Judiciary Committee- on which I sit- *would allow the Attorney General of the United States (Eric Holder) to promulgate regulations that could lead to a national registry system for guns*. "


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 11, 2013)

Republicans just ensured a Democrat run Senate in 2015.

I can't believe how stupid they are, unless the really want a Socialist Government, and theses actions are taken to keep the Democrats in power.

We need a viable 3rd Party.


----------



## RackMaster (Apr 11, 2013)

It's no different up here, even thought we have more than two parties; the top three split the popular vote.  I think the highest amount was around 30% and with 61% voter turn out; the math doesn't add up.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 11, 2013)

I am against a national database for firearms.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 14, 2013)

The bipartisan deal on expanded background checks for gun buyers appeared Sunday to garner more Republican support, but Capitol Hill leaders could not say whether the overall gun-control bill will have enough votes as the full debate begins this week.
The legislation will need 60 votes to pass in the chamber, which means it will need Republican support for Senate Democrats facing re-election in gun-friendly districts.
"It's an open question as to whether or not we have the votes,” Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey told CNN’s “State of the Union.” “I think it's going to be close."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...to-say-if-gun-control-bill-has-votes-to-pass/


----------



## AWP (Apr 15, 2013)

For all of you NASCAR fans out there...I'll keep my rant to myself. Most of you know my thoughts on the organization.

http://news.yahoo.com/espn-sources-two-nascar-drivers-175819684.html



> ESPN said that sources confirmed to the outlet that two drivers have been advised by their PR people not to conduct interviews in the Texas Motor Speedway media center in order to avoid the NRA logo from appearing behind them.


 


> But Murphy isn't the only one making controversial statements. NASCAR spokesman David Higdon is sharing that honor. On Friday, Higdon released a statement seemingly bowing to pressure from critics.
> "The NRA's sponsorship of the event at Texas Motor Speedway fit within existing parameters that NASCAR affords tracks in securing partnerships," Higdon said. "However, this situation has made it clear that we need to take a closer look at our approval process moving forward, as current circumstances need to be factored in when making decisions."


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 15, 2013)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Apr 16, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself."


 
I love this quote, but President Washington didn't say it.

http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/spurious-quotations


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 16, 2013)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> I love this quote, but President Washington didn't say it.
> 
> http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/spurious-quotations


 
_"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."_

I do like this one also.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 16, 2013)

Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
Locking up firearms can cost lives during a life-threatening situation.
Guns are the "great equalizer" for women. As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.
Law-abiding gun owners are a good form of crime control. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[9]
 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Owners_of_America


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 17, 2013)

*1,000*


----------



## AWP (Apr 17, 2013)

Not much of a shock.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...gh-capacity-magazine-135811961--politics.html



> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, an NRA supporter, announced on Wednesday morning he will vote for bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines being offered as amendments one month after pulling those bans from a package of overall gun-reform legislation.
> 
> "I will vote for [Sen.] Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban," Reid announced on the Senate floor as the chamber prepared to begin voting later Wednesday on gun legislation amendments.
> 
> The Nevada Democrat, who noted Wednesday that he has a B rating from the NRA and who has voted against past assault weapon bans, said his opinion has evolved and he no longer understands why assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are necessary.


----------



## surgicalcric (Apr 17, 2013)

Harry Reid said:
			
		

> The Nevada Democrat, who noted Wednesday that he has a B rating from the NRA and who has voted against past assault weapon bans, said his opinion has evolved and *he* no longer understands why assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are necessary.


 
They are to keep you shit heads from running amuck with the rest of the Bill Of Rights.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 17, 2013)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has rejected a bipartisan effort to expand federal background checks to more firearms buyers in a crucial showdown over gun control.
Wednesday's vote was a jarring blow to the drive to curb firearms sparked by December's massacre of children and staff at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. President Barack Obama made broadened background checks the centerpiece of his gun control proposals.
The roll call was also a victory for the National Rifle Association, which opposed the plan as an ineffective infringement on gun rights.
The proposal would have required background checks for all transactions at gun shows and online. Currently they must occur for sales handled by licensed gun dealers.
The system is designed to keep criminals and people with mental problems from getting guns


http://bigstory.ap.org/article/senate-rejects-expanded-gun-background-checks


----------



## Dame (Apr 17, 2013)

Which is why it was a switch for Reid. No lose situation. He knew it didn't have the votes to pass but could be seen as supporting it.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Apr 17, 2013)

I guess this is why no one from the Obama administration could attend Baroness Thatchers funeral today, have to get that last push in to disarm your peasants and what!  She wasn't exactly a fan of socialism either which may irk them somewhat.

Good news though.


----------



## pardus (Apr 17, 2013)

> "This was a pretty shameful day for Washington," said Obama


 
Be thankful the Senate stopped you being a traitor.


----------



## pardus (Apr 17, 2013)




----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 18, 2013)

He's really having quite the cry over it. Poor baby.


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 18, 2013)

This is a good thing, fellas, but remember that this is just one part that was shot down. S.150 (Feinstein's grand AWB) is still on the senate docket and hasn't hit the floor yet. Keep your eyes peeled because THAT will be the one to watch.

By the way, govtrack.us (And thomas.loc.gov) is a great site if you want to see what's happening in congress.


----------



## 8654Maine (Apr 18, 2013)

Yup, the fight is far from over.  One skirmish at a time, folks.
Now, how 'bout them gun and ammo prices?


----------



## policemedic (Apr 19, 2013)

8654Maine said:


> Yup, the fight is far from over. One skirmish at a time, folks.
> Now, how 'bout them gun and ammo prices?


 
Hell, I'd pay the price if I could find ammo or components.


----------



## AWP (Apr 19, 2013)

policemedic said:


> Hell, I'd pay the price if I could find ammo or components.


 
Depending on the components you're looking for, Ranier Arms currently has a slightly better selection and stock than Bravo Company.


----------



## policemedic (Apr 19, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Depending on the components you're looking for, Ranier Arms currently has a slightly better selection and stock than Bravo Company.



I meant reloading components.  I should have been more specific.  Rainier is a good company, though.


----------



## Confederate Son (Apr 20, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> For all of you NASCAR fans out there...I'll keep my rant to myself. Most of you know my thoughts on the organization.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/espn-sources-two-nascar-drivers-175819684.html



Nothing like being half a step away from stepping on your own crank. The only thing most NASCAR fans are a bigger fan of besides beer..is guns. I don't see many of them boycoting but it's a pretty sharp slap to the face considering how Sponsor friendly and driven NASCAR is. It's pretty disappointing i.m.o.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 23, 2013)

I can't wrap my head around the liberal sheep idea that "guns R bad":wall:


----------



## Blizzard (Apr 24, 2013)

8654Maine said:


> Yup, the fight is far from over. One skirmish at a time, folks.
> Now, how 'bout them gun and ammo prices?


Assuming you can even find ammo! Was at the range a couple days ago and had to replace my range ammo (I'm not a reloader). I had a better chance of finding a unicorn than I did .40 S&W. The range had no ammo (any caliber), neither did the 3 shops in the area that I called. Finally found a box yesterday...last one on the shelf.

The stuff is getting snatched up as quick as they can stock it....and like you said, if you can find it, the prices are nuts; locally about $2 a round (.40 S&W) for range ammo! Certainly makes you think some strings are being pulled somewhere.


----------



## 0699 (Apr 24, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> I can't wrap my head around the liberal sheep idea that "guns R bad":wall:


 
The best I've come up with is that many of them believe that evil doesn't exist and that all people are inherently good.  If you believe that everyone is good, then who/what do you blame when evil things happen?  The only option is to blame the inanimate object that was used to commit the evil.

I've already heard people making excuses for subject #2 and how what he did isn't his fault... :-/


----------



## JBS (Apr 24, 2013)

It's culture and upbringing. If you grow up in the city, you live your whole life in a system where things mostly work pretty well. The stoplights control the flow of traffic every 90 seconds, the elevators take you to the floor you live on, the subway shows up every 6 minutes, the bus shows up every 11 minutes, and if there's a problem, you're expected to call 911. That's your role in the fine-tuned machine called city life. It's a system... and it mostly works pretty well under normal circumstances.

If your whole life has been lived in that system, though, it's tough to understand that most of the rest of the country doesn't function like that. And the "system" also has terrible weaknesses, since when the system is overloaded (hurricane, flood, power outage, terrorist attack, crime outbreak) , it fails the people who live within it in a big way. People who rely on the system pay the ultimate price when the system fails. And it doesn't have to be a hyper developed metropolitan area. It's the fact that people depend on the system exclusively rather than developing self reliance like that found in the rural areas of the country. Thus, wherever people live reliant upon the system, when there is a water outage, people die of thirst. When there is a blackout, mass looting / rape/ mayhem breaks out. When there is a riot, people are beaten to death in the streets for days. Etc., etc.


----------



## pardus (Apr 24, 2013)

JBS said:


> It's culture and upbringing. If you grow up in the city, you live your whole life in a system where things mostly work pretty well. The stoplights control the flow of traffic every 90 seconds, the elevators take you to the floor you live on, the subway shows up every 6 minutes, the bus shows up every 11 minutes, and if there's a problem, you're expected to call 911. That's your role in the fine-tuned machine called city life. It's a system... and it mostly works pretty well under normal circumstances.
> 
> If your whole life has been lived in that system, though, it's tough to understand that most of the rest of the country doesn't function like that. And the "system" also has terrible weaknesses, since when the system is overloaded (hurricane, flood, power outage, terrorist attack, crime outbreak) , it fails the people who live within it in a big way. People who rely on the system pay the ultimate price when the system fails. And it doesn't have to be a hyper developed metropolitan area. It's the fact that people depend on the system exclusively rather than developing self reliance like that found in the rural areas of the country. Thus, wherever peolpe live reliant upon the system, when there is a water outage, people die of thirst. When there is a blackout, mass looting / rape/ mayhem breaks out. When there is a riot, people are beaten to death in the streets for days. Etc., etc.


 
One thing I have noticed in NYC is the people here really are sheep/slaves. They want and need to be told what to do.
We see this a lot with people looking for directions, I can be standing next to a large, prominent sign saying "Train This Way" etc... and people will walk up and ask where the train is.

I saw a British couple straight off the plane walk out, no idea where they were, looked around, saw a sign and took off to wherever they wanted to go, it was noticeable because it was so unusual.

No one here is looking to work things out for themselves, they want someone to tell them where/what to do.
It's pathetic and it's scary. Bodes ill for the future of liberty in this country.


----------



## Dame (Apr 24, 2013)

pardus said:


> One thing I have noticed in NYC is the people here really are sheep/slaves. They want and need to be told what to do.
> We see this a lot with people looking for directions, I can be standing next to a large, prominent sign saying "Train This Way" etc... and people will walk up and ask where the train is.
> 
> I saw a British couple straight off the plane walk out, no idea where they were, looked around, saw a sign and took off to wherever they wanted to go, it was noticeable because it was so unusual.
> ...


No wonder Bloomberg thinks anyone with a sense of independence and self reliance is a radical right wing danger to society. It's like watching a SciFi movie.


----------



## JBS (Apr 24, 2013)

It's like, someone with independence, with a willingness to take their own security upon themselves, the desire to have a few weeks worth of food on hand, a water filter, whatever... where does that person belong in the "system"?

Part of me thinks the notion of being self reliant is a scary concept. When you take ownership of your own condition, you're forced to confront certain issues- chief among them areas of vulnerability in your sense of safety and well being. If you are going to own- for example- a water filter- you are acknowledging that water might not always be available. Want to stockpile 8 weeks of food? You're an aberration. Don't you trust our collective "system" to provide for you?

Buy a gas mask in NYC, and see how people will look at you. They won't even begin to know how to categorize you. You must be a terrorist or a street-walking crazy person, or else a burnt rice crispy veteran. It's so outside the "norm", it's hard to process.

Taking ownership of your own well being while living in an otherwise all-providing system like a city is the equivalent of making the statement that you doubt the ability of the system to provide for your well being, while at the same time forcing people to look at the vulnerabilities in that system. People don't want to look at those things. It upsets their sense of tranquility.


Same thing with guns.  In "the system", only cops and bad guys have guns, because that's the way the "system" is designed to work.  Ultra specialization.  You don't bake bread, you trade for it.  You don't concern yourself with water, that's what the system pipes are for.  You don't worry about security, the system has provided that for you with cops on the other end of your cellphone.


----------



## Yoshi (Apr 24, 2013)

I know this is a tad off topic but today I received my CHL in the mail! Very excited, now I just need to get on the range, practice makes perfect.


----------



## Confederate Son (Apr 25, 2013)

I think JBS is right on target. It's not just a big city mentality though.. the suburbs of S. Florida are just as you described as well. The last real hurricane that hit did little structural damage but knocked the power grid out for as long as 2 weeks in some places. You don't realize what little ability some people have to solve the smallest problems until you've watched them try to navigate an intersection without the divine intervention of three colored lights.

A few days without the basic infrastructure and you can literally feel the instability in the air. The combination of that storm and watching the Katrina nightmare unfold prompted me to obtain my CCW. We may not see that level of Wild West here but I'd never take the chance. Nor would I ever assume the local law enforcement would be able to keep the wolves away from the door. No disrespect intended.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 30, 2013)

Confederate Son said:


> I think JBS is right on target. It's not just a big city mentality though.. the suburbs of S. Florida are just as you described as well. The last real hurricane that hit did little structural damage but knocked the power grid out for as long as 2 weeks in some places. You don't realize what little ability some people have to solve the smallest problems until you've watched them try to navigate an intersection without the divine intervention of three colored lights.
> 
> A few days without the basic infrastructure and you can literally feel the instability in the air. The combination of that storm and watching the Katrina nightmare unfold prompted me to obtain my CCW. We may not see that level of Wild West here but I'd never take the chance. Nor would I ever assume the local law enforcement would be able to keep the wolves away from the door. No disrespect intended.


 
People will bitch if their cable is out more than 4 hours.

I support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Period.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Apr 30, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> People will bitch if their cable is out more than 4 hours minutes.
> 
> I support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Period.


Fixed that for you.


----------



## policemedic (Apr 30, 2013)

Cable can go out?


----------



## 0699 (Apr 30, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> People will bitch if their cable is out more than 4 hours.
> 
> I support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Period.


 
Thunderstorm a couple of weeks ago.  We lost power from about 1900 till 1500 the following day.

I took it as an opportunity to catch up on some reading and remember how grateful I am for electricity and flush toilets...


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 30, 2013)

0699 said:


> Thunderstorm a couple of weeks ago. We lost power from about 1900 till 1500 the following day.
> 
> I took it as an opportunity to catch up on some reading and remember how grateful I am for electricity and flush toilets...


 
I love to read through books!

I suggest all read books on the current firearms debate.


----------



## Marine0311 (May 1, 2013)

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington


----------



## Marine0311 (May 2, 2013)

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...as-more-than-20-shot-on-one-chicago-day?lite=

I can see the gun laws of Chi town are working just fine.


----------



## Gypsy (May 3, 2013)

Oh but...but...but...there were less murders than a year ago.  

Jackasses.


----------



## TheSiatonist (May 4, 2013)

Saw this at SEALTwo.Org and I thought I'd put this here...


----------



## nobodythank you (May 7, 2013)

Interesting read.

*Media's Anti-Gun Narrative Destroyed By Justice Dept. Report*

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...-Report-Destroys-Medias-Gun-Control-Narrative

Original report
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf


----------



## 8654Maine (May 7, 2013)

This whole anti-gun and anti-2A farce has about as much validity as going on the "View" to discuss tossed salad.


----------



## Marine0311 (May 7, 2013)

This call for AWB in Congress has got to stop. I just saw several TV ads by the Brady folks.


----------



## pardus (May 7, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> This call for AWB in Congress has got to stop. I just saw several TV ads by the Brady folks.


 
The traitorous scum leading these attacks will not stop until they win or are crushed. Much like our Jihadist enemies.


----------



## pardus (May 9, 2013)

I just got this in an email...




> *NSSF Statement on Management of the SHOT Show®*
> The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms industry, today announced that it has reached an agreement with Reed Exhibitions to terminate the agreement the parties had for the management of the SHOT Show®. Accordingly, effective immediately, Reed Exhibitions will no longer be manager and producer of the SHOT Show.
> Reed Exhibitions provided excellent service to NSSF and the customers of the SHOT Show for more than three decades, however, the company's decision to restrict the sale of certain types of firearms this year at its consumer hunting and fishing show -- an event unrelated to NSSF and the SHOT Show -- was in conflict with NSSF's mission to serve the shooting sports industry. As a result, both organizations decided it was in the best interest of the SHOT Show to end their relationship.
> NSSF is actively engaged in the process of identifying a new show management company to manage and produce the SHOT Show beginning with the 2014 SHOT Show.
> The SHOT Show -- the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show -- is owned and sponsored by NSSF. It is the largest and most comprehensive trade show for all professionals involved with the shooting sports, hunting and law enforcement industries. The 2014 SHOT Show will be held Jan. 14-17 at the Sands Expo and Convention Center in Las Vegas.





Really pleasing to see companies as well as individuals standing up for our rights.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 9, 2013)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygre...le-gun-for-possible-export-control-violation/

"On Thursday, Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson received a letter from the State Department Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance demanding that he take down the online blueprints for the 3D-printable “Liberator” handgun that his group released Monday, along with nine other 3D-printable firearms components hosted on the group’s website Defcad.org. The government says it wants to review the files for compliance with arms export control laws known as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR. By uploading the weapons files to the Internet and allowing them to be downloaded abroad, the letter implies Wilson’s high-tech gun group may have violated those export controls."

*Government working to enforce a monopoly on the capacity for violence in all directions.*


----------



## Marine0311 (May 9, 2013)

After thousands of people downloaded those blueprints.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 9, 2013)

Perhaps it might be time to start printing parts and mailing them to the statesmen who are choosing to ignore the constitution? I dunno, but it sounds like a better idea than the armed march on DC.


----------



## Marine0311 (May 9, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> Perhaps it might be time to start printing parts and mailing them to the statesmen who are choosing to ignore the constitution? I dunno, but it sounds like a better idea than the armed march on DC.


 
A Million Gun Owner March!? Why not? Everyone else gets a march for their "rights".


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 9, 2013)

You think they'd get the message if someone strolled from Nevada to DC with a case of the ass?


----------



## Confederate Son (May 9, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> A Million Gun Owner March!? Why not? Everyone else gets a march for their "rights".


Supposedly they wouldn't release a permit...


----------



## Marine0311 (May 9, 2013)

Confederate Son said:


> Supposedly they wouldn't release a permit...


 
I could see their point. A million gun owners, many armed, the masses, then the morons who start trouble.

There have been rallies around the country with gun owners gathering at state capitals.


----------



## Confederate Son (May 9, 2013)

Considering it's illegal to carry in the District that shouldnt be a determining factor but yea... They weren't gonna open that can. I say have it anyway.. What are they gonna do.. arrest 1 Million people?


----------



## Marine0311 (May 9, 2013)

Confederate Son said:


> Considering it's illegal to carry in the District that shouldnt be a determining factor but yea... They weren't gonna open that can. I say have it anyway.. What are they gonna do.. arrest 1 Million people?


 
I don't know the firearms laws for D.C. If you can't carry don't test the waters then.


----------



## Confederate Son (May 10, 2013)

It's just like NY.. No badge.. no carry. Don't need to carry to march though.


----------



## RackMaster (May 10, 2013)

Confederate Son said:


> It's just like NY.. No badge.. no carry. Don't need to carry to march though.


 
It's the "image" that matters.  Look you could even "role play" the good and bad guys. 

http://www.moretoyguns.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=4T&Category_Code=530


----------



## Marine0311 (May 14, 2013)

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html


----------



## Marine0311 (May 15, 2013)

A man was arrested for violating New York's new gun restrictions after state troopers discovered a gun loaded with two more bullets than are allowed by law.
Gregory Dean Jr. was pulled over on Sunday in New Lebanon when authorities noticed his car's license-plate lamp wasn't working properly.
Troopers then noticed a .40 caliber handgun, legally registered to Dean, on the passenger seat of the car. The weapon was loaded with nine bullets rather than the seven bullets allowed under the state's recently passed SAFE Act. 
Dean, who was also allegedly driving on a suspended license at the time, has been charged with unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...law-two_n_3267853.html?utm_hp_ref=gun-control


----------



## pardus (May 15, 2013)

Those State Troopers are fucking assholes IMO. 

Fuck any LEO who enforces these illegal laws.


----------



## Confederate Son (May 15, 2013)

RackMaster said:


> It's the "image" that matters. Look you could even "role play" the good and bad guys.
> 
> http://www.moretoyguns.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=4T&Category_Code=530


can't decide between the Draganov or the SOCOM... Leaning towards the SOCOM..


----------



## pardus (May 16, 2013)

Confederate Son Don't repost pictures or video when replying to posts.


----------



## Confederate Son (May 16, 2013)

Apologies...


----------



## TheSiatonist (May 20, 2013)

Meanwhile, in Chicago...

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/05/20/5-dead-15-wounded-in-weekend-violence/


----------



## Marine0311 (May 20, 2013)

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

*Introduction*
There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveysindicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.
There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?​


----------



## Marine0311 (May 20, 2013)

I don't know what else to do.  I talk to people about this issue and they seem content to be sheep. This is dangerous thinking to me. Everyone should be up in arms () over this issue. I am bothered by all the new firearms related laws being passed or currently working their way through.


----------



## Yoshi (May 21, 2013)

The FRS-15 Stock.








Pretty innovative design to let one circumvent certain laws against the Evil AR ..


----------



## Marauder06 (May 21, 2013)

Yoshi said:


> The FRS-15 Stock.
> 
> Pretty innovative design to let one circumvent certain laws against the Evil AR ..


 
Well, that didn't take long...

no thumbhole or pistol grip, no collapsible buttstock, no flash suppressor or bayonet lug...  this one might actually be legal here.


----------



## Totentanz (May 21, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Well, that didn't take long...
> 
> no thumbhole or pistol grip, no collapsible buttstock, no flash suppressor or bayonet lug...  this one might actually be legal here.



Until legislators see this new breed of evil and ban it.


----------



## policemedic (May 21, 2013)

It seems to have a barrel shroud and thus was conceived in Hell by Lucifer's own armorer.


----------



## Marine0311 (May 21, 2013)

An old clip from the CT gun debate but a good one:


----------



## Marine0311 (May 22, 2013)

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A group of Connecticut organizations that support gun rights, pistol permit holders and gun sellers filed a lawsuit in federal court Wednesday against Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and other state officials, arguing the state's new gun control law violates their constitutional rights.
The plaintiffs are seeking a federal court injunction to stop the law from being enforced.
Wednesday's suit comes more than a month after Malloy signed into law a wide-ranging gun control package that extends the state's assault weapons ban to more guns, bans large-capacity magazines and expands background check requirements. Considered one of the toughest laws in the country, it was a response to the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Lead attorney Brian Stapleton said the plaintiffs' core complaint is that the assault weapons and large-capacity magazine bans violate their rights to bear arms and to equal protection under the law. Stapleton, a partner with Goldberg Segalla LLP, with offices in Hartford, New York and elsewhere, is also the lead trial counsel in the challenge of New York's new "Safe Act" gun control law.

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Lawsuit-filed-against-state-of-Conn-over-gun-law-4539706.php


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (May 29, 2013)

Fuck you California!

These passed the Senate today and move on to the Assembly:



> SB 47 by Sen. *Leland Yee*, D-San Francisco: bans so-called "bullet buttons" used to get around existing laws banning detachable magazines
> SB 53 by Sen. *Kevin de León*, D-Los Angeles: creates new state permits that require background checks for buyers of ammunition
> SB 374 by Sen. *Darrell Steinberg*, D-Sacramento: bans detachable magazines in rifles
> SB 396 by Sen. *Loni Hancock*, D-Berkeley: prohibits possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition
> ...


 
SOURCE


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (May 30, 2013)

So if the above bills pass and get signed into law, California may as well turn into a "shall issue" CCW State.  I know it won't ever happen, but with background checks for everything and mandatory classes, you've fulfilled all of the current requirements for a CCW permit (minus the Chief/Sheriff's signature).


----------



## Marine0311 (May 30, 2013)

LimaOscarSierraTango said:


> So if the above bills pass and get signed into law, California may as well turn into a "shall issue" CCW State. I know it won't ever happen, but with background checks for everything and mandatory classes, you've fulfilled all of the current requirements for a CCW permit (minus the Chief/Sheriff's signature).


 
Yes it seems that way. You're not going to stop crime or deter it only punish law abiding people. I bet the fees will play a role also. Another reason for the background checks is to raise more revenue for the state to spend...poorly.


----------



## Marine0311 (May 31, 2013)

In a recent online poll the vast majority of respondents wanted handguns to be legal. Nothing surprising, as it was probably overwhelmed by Second Amendment and Tea Party types with vast email trees to “pump” the vote right?
Except this wasn’t an online poll in the U.S. or even hosted by a U.S. news site. This poll was conducted byUK newspaper site the _Daily Telegraph_. At the time of The Commentator story, a clear majority of respondents wanted to overturn the handgun ban.
“While the poll continues, so far over 80% of the 11,000+ respondents have told the _Telegraph_ that they want to see the handgun ban repealed. The news comes as America contemplates its own new laws on gun ownership, with British talk show host Piers Morgan claiming to back a UK-style ban for the United States.”


http://www.policymic.com/articles/4...poll-finds-majority-support-handgun-ownership


----------



## Marine0311 (May 31, 2013)

Sixty-two percent of Americans want the U.S. Senate to "move on" from stalled gun control legislation, according to a Reason-Rupe poll released Wednesday. Just 33 percent of respondents said the Senate should vote again on the bill.

The Reason-Rupe poll found that women are significantly more likely than men to want the Senate to take another vote on the proposals, which include mandatory background checks for all gun sales. Forty percent of women said the Senate should vote again and 54 percent said it's time to move on. By comparison, 72 percent of men said it's time to move on.
Only a slim majority of self-identified Democrats - 51 percent - said they wanted the Senate to vote again. The poll was conducted earlier this month with 1,003 respondents. Its calculated margin of error is 3.7 percentage points.


http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram...ontrol-poll-62-percent-want-senate-to-move-on


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 5, 2013)

*IF YOU LIVE IN NEVADA *

Senate Bill 221 is on the Governors desk. This bill is a "universal background check" bill, that is hinky as fuck, requires everyone to have to go to a gun dealer and pay a fee to get a background check done EVEN IF YOU HAVE A CCW THAT ALLOWS YOU TO LEGALLY BYPASS BACKGROUND CHECKS like this state's CCW's do.

You fuck it up, the other guy fucks it up, or the dealer fucks it up, and at a minimum you can LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO POSSESS FIREARMS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS FOR A NON FELONY

Best part?

*Bloomberg and his fucking shitheads from the east coast are literally trying to pressure this shit into happening. There's been so many phone calls to the governors office that it's gone flat automated now for the public number*.

*This is a National fight for Local rights now, friends*

*IF YOU LIVE IN NEVADA WITH A NEVADA PHONE NUMBER*

CALL (775) 684-5670

Listen, and vote option 2 against this bullshittery

A background check requirement has* no enforceablity* without a *REGISTRATION* to know who the "Original" owner is.

They'll say "This bill isn't helping things... how can we enforce the rules on the books already like the pro-gunners always say? Oh, lets do a registration because it'll strengthen our background check enforceability"

*Prime slippery slope.*

Registration is the next step, at which point... well, history tells us a tale of what is a pretty reliable rule when weapons get registered.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 7, 2013)

http://www.examiner.com/article/ant...ion-for-foreign-minions-to-influence-nv-polls

Key snippet:

"Several sheriffs who testified said it would be unenforceable without a registry of firearms owners and their firearms. As of Thursday, calls to the Governor were running 4 to 1 to veto the bill. The governor's office was so inundated that a special automated line was set up to tally votes of support and votes for veto. The automated line would exclude foreign interests from influencing the outcome. On the Governor's Facebook page, support for the veto was running near 90% from Nevadans, whereas out of state agents of the Mayor's Against Illegal Guns, a group chartered by gun control fanatic NYC Mayor Bloomberg, and Obama For America were running up the numbers on the other side. Still, no where near the made up 86% statistic that they parrot about to anyone who will listen.

*When word got out that their out of state phone votes were not being counted, one of these gun control groups set up a toll free line (888)966-9244 for their minions to call in. The toll free number is answered by an automated message which prompts the caller to press 1 and then transfers the caller to the Governor's automated call system. From there the caller can press 1 to ask him to support the bill or 2 to veto it.*

*The chicanery involved here is that to the Governor's Office, the call appears to be coming from Nevada. It may not be the crime of the century; just par for the course for the party based on lies, deception and voter fraud. Let us all hope that the Governor of Nevada is smarter than the tin horn dictator from New York and his minions.*"


----------



## 0699 (Jun 7, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> http://www.examiner.com/article/ant...ion-for-foreign-minions-to-influence-nv-polls
> 
> Key snippet:
> 
> ...


 
I'm willing to bet the anti-constitutionalists think this is a case of "the ends justify the means".  They probably also believe they're smarter than Nevadans who just need to be led in the right direction, even if it takes a ring through their noses...


----------



## policemedic (Jun 7, 2013)

I just called the number, and it seems you need a PIN number to access the system.  I'm sure someone has posted the number somewhere. What's good for the goose!


----------



## policemedic (Jun 8, 2013)

Gun Owners of America posted this number to vote against the Nevada bill.  Just call 775-684-5670--it accepts votes from out of state--and let's keep that fuckhead in NYC from fucking up Nevada. 

The NO vote is option 2.


----------



## pardus (Jun 8, 2013)

policemedic said:


> Gun Owners of America posted this number to vote against the Nevada bill. Just call 775-684-5670--it accepts votes from out of state--and let's keep that fuckhead in NYC from fucking up Nevada.
> 
> The NO vote is option 2.


 
Thank you! I voted option 2... more than once.


----------



## Dame (Jun 8, 2013)

policemedic said:


> Gun Owners of America posted this number to vote against the Nevada bill. Just call 775-684-5670--it accepts votes from out of state--and let's keep that fuckhead in NYC from fucking up Nevada.
> The NO vote is option 2.


 

Fuck Nanny Bloomberg in the arse with @Freefalling's Pakistani Pizza Cutter! He's set up a toll free number to forward out of state calls as if they were from Nevada area codes. 

I recommend using his own system against him and let his money pick up your charges. 

*Call (888)966-9224   Press 2. *

http://www.examiner.com/article/anti-gunners-caught-using-deception-for-foreign-minions-to-influence-nv-polls


----------



## pardus (Jun 8, 2013)

Dame said:


> Fuck Nanny Bloomberg in the arse with @Freefalling's Pakistani Pizza Cutter! He's set up a toll free number to forward out of state calls as if they were from Nevada area codes.
> 
> I recommend using his own system against him and let his money pick up your charges.
> 
> ...


 
Umm, you havent read the last few posts?  :-/ lol

http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threads/united-states-gun-control-discussion.16408/page-63#post-284867



policemedic said:


> Gun Owners of America posted this number to vote against the Nevada bill. Just call 775-684-5670--it accepts votes from out of state--and let's keep that fuckhead in NYC from fucking up Nevada.
> 
> The NO vote is option 2.


 
Use this, do this.


----------



## Dame (Jun 8, 2013)

TY pardus. Just recommending the Bloomberg number to charge it to him. I've used it and had no trouble nor was I asked for a pin number.


----------



## policemedic (Jun 8, 2013)

Dame said:


> TY pardus. Just recommending the Bloomberg number to charge it to him. I've used it and had no trouble nor was I asked for a pin number.


 
That's because you had the right number...9224 as opposed to 9244.  _The Examiner_ published the wrong number.


----------



## pardus (Jun 8, 2013)

policemedic said:


> That's because you had the right number...9224 as opposed to 9244. _The Examiner_ published the wrong number.


 
Thank you for that info!

For everyone out there, the 888 number just sends you to the 775 number. 
Bloomberg isnt going to miss a few thousand (or millon honestly) but any chance to fuck him is a good thing.

Which ever number you use, remember to choose OPTION *2*


----------



## racing_kitty (Jun 9, 2013)

Vote early, vote often!


----------



## Dame (Jun 15, 2013)

Thank you everyone who took the time to say FU to that old lady in men's britches, Nanny Bloomberg.
Yesterday, Nevada's Governor vetoed SB221. His reasons are well stated here: http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/SB 221 Veto Message 2013.pdf


----------



## policemedic (Jun 15, 2013)

Fuck Bloomberg.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 15, 2013)

And now 80% lowers are soon to be under attack:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/13/officials-santa-monica-gunman-weapon-assembled-in-bedroom/

Seriously.... it just really really seems strange how "Events" keep popping up that are specifically and directly related to this administration's focal points re: weapons legislation.

There just ain't enough batshit people in the US to make this happen often enough and just coincidentally fall into the purview of what's pissing off the emperor in chief.


----------



## 8654Maine (Jun 15, 2013)

It does seem like a string of coincidences.  Maybe I'm crazy...crap...I wrote that on the webz.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 15, 2013)

I mean... Marauder... you're the uber-intel dude even if you're the shiny figurehead walking behind the chevrons and rockers bulldozing the actual data.

This is a track record at this point.  It really feels like a check the blocks type list of "we need this we need that we need that to happen AND THEN"


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 15, 2013)

I don't give our government enough credit to successfully pull off a conspiracy on that level.  A conspiracy to capitalize on it?  Yeah, I can see that.  But these crazies are doing this on their own.

I'll tell you, though, that I'm getting damn tired of people screwing things up for the rest of us.  I had a really, really nice California-compliant Colt heavy  barrel Match Target AR-15 that I really loved, that I had to sell in order to have the privilege of living in the state of New York for the next three years.  Then this clown decides to take his 80% upper and shoot up a bunch of people with it.  Bye-bye 80% uppers... thanks asshole.  

RIP to the dead.


----------



## pardus (Jun 16, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I don't give our government enough credit to successfully pull off a conspiracy on that level. A conspiracy to capitalize on it? Yeah, I can see that. But these crazies are doing this on their own.
> 
> I'll tell you, though, that I'm getting damn tired of people screwing things up for the rest of us. I had a really, really nice California-compliant Colt heavy barrel Match Target AR-15 that I really loved, that I had to sell in order to have the privilege of living in the state of New York for the next three years. Then this clown decides to take his 80% upper and shoot up a bunch of people with it. Bye-bye 80% uppers... thanks asshole.
> 
> RIP to the dead.


 
Wrong! You did not have to!

You fucked up by doing that. I warned you about it, but...


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Jul 31, 2013)

Not too sure how I feel about this...  Naming the teachers/administrators will make them a target.  I am not a fan of arming teachers, which is odd, because if they already had their CCW, I would have no problem allowing them to carry on campus.  Maybe with the school district doing this makes me feel like it is turning more and more into a police state, where as if they allowed current holders to carry at work, it would feel more like 2nd Amendment protection.



> *Arkansas school district arms 20 teachers and administrators with concealed guns*
> 
> CLARKSVILLE, Ark.— As Cheyne Dougan rounded the corner at Clarksville High School, he saw three students on the floor moaning and crying. In a split-second, two more ran out of a nearby classroom.
> 
> ...



More in SOURCE


----------



## Marine0311 (Jul 31, 2013)

I am divided. If they have their permit and have training then yes. One concern is that teachers are not warriors. A second concern is if a kid gets that firearms we have another school shooting. Then the calls for banning guns starts, or continues, again.


----------



## pardus (Jul 31, 2013)

Id be happier to see a well trained and vetted, armed security guard or better still, cops patrolling schools.


----------



## policemedic (Jul 31, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> I am divided. If they have their permit and have training then yes. One concern is that teachers are not warriors. A second concern is if a kid gets that firearms we have another school shooting. Then the calls for banning guns starts, or continues, again.



Didn't some of the Sandy Hook teachers either shield the kids with their bodies or attempt to disarm the gunman?  Makes them warriors in my book.


----------



## JHD (Jul 31, 2013)

I think a lot of which solution has to do with a couple of things...1). Does the school district have the money to hire an armed guard or guards and 2) As to arming teachers, is their state blue or red.

I kind of like the idea of arming the teachers.  Maybe it will make the sick f*cks think twice about shooting up the school.  Agree that they need proper training, permits, and procedures for safeguarding guns to keep them away from the kids.

The schools around here are Sandy Hooks waiting to happen.  There is laughable security at the front doors, but the playgrounds...wide open access.  It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.  There would be no where for the kids to hide.  I am waiting for some sicko to figure that out.


----------



## policemedic (Jul 31, 2013)

JHD said:


> The schools around here are Sandy Hooks waiting to happen.  There is laughable security at the front doors, ...



I generally like to stay away from putting ideas in people's heads.  Just sayin'.


----------



## pardus (Jul 31, 2013)

JHD said:


> Does the school district have the money to hire an armed guard or guards .



I thought about that and came to the conclusion that it was a no brainer, yes they can afford it, all schools.

Think about the lawsuits that will happen after a shooting, the legal fees alone (forgetting about the actual settlements) would be far far more than the salary of a guard.


----------



## JHD (Jul 31, 2013)

pardus said:


> I thought about that and came to the conclusion that it was a no brainer, yes they can afford it, all schools.
> 
> Think about the lawsuits that will happen after a shooting, the legal fees alone (forgetting about the actual settlements) would be far far more than the salary of a guard.



I agree.  Unfortunately, I think most school administrators are more reactive rather than proactive when it comes to budgeting something like this.


----------



## pardus (Jul 31, 2013)

JHD said:


> I agree.  Unfortunately, I think most school administrators are more reactive rather than proactive when it comes to budgeting something like this.



Sadly true, like most managers/businesses/organizations etc...


----------



## JHD (Jul 31, 2013)

policemedic said:


> I generally like to stay away from putting ideas in people's heads.  Just sayin'.



Yeah you are right.  But this is a big issue we need to address now, nationwide.  You know someone has thought about it already, they just haven't done it yet.


----------



## policemedic (Jul 31, 2013)

Perhaps, but we needn't suggest it to the guy who _hasn't_ thought of it but _will_ do it.


----------



## JHD (Jul 31, 2013)

policemedic said:


> Perhaps, but we needn't suggest it to the guy who _hasn't_ thought of it but _will_ do it.



Yes, I know the risk you are pointing out.  But to get the problems not being addressed, in addition to the ones that every one IS talking about, need to be raised.

The good guys have to think like the bad guys and move on it yesterday.


----------



## AWP (Jul 31, 2013)

pardus said:


> I thought about that and came to the conclusion that it was a no brainer, yes they can afford it, all schools.
> 
> Think about the lawsuits that will happen after a shooting, the legal fees alone (forgetting about the actual settlements) would be far far more than the salary of a guard.


 
People think it won't happen to them, that it will happen to "the other guy." Managers won't look at what they are preventing, they will look at how much they are spending. That's one reason new laws are so attractive to the masses. They are cheaper than any real alternatives or proactive measures.


----------



## JHD (Jul 31, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> People think it won't happen to them, that it will happen to "the other guy." Managers won't look at what they are preventing, they will look at how much they are spending. That's one reason new laws are so attractive to the masses. They are cheaper than any real alternatives or proactive measures.



And I hate to say it, but also  playing the odds that it won't happen rather than spend the money in the event it might.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jul 31, 2013)

policemedic said:


> Didn't some of the Sandy Hook teachers either shield the kids with their bodies or attempt to disarm the gunman?  Makes them warriors in my book.



I don't recall any of those reports. My term "warriors" was meant for police officers and those who are trained to act and react with a firearm.


----------



## AWP (Aug 20, 2013)

Here we go again. At least no one was injured.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/20/us/georgia-school-gunshots/index.html?hpt=hp_t1



> (*CNN)* -- A gunman who opened fire at a Georgia elementary school on Tuesday was armed with an AK-47 "and a number of other weapons," police said.
> The shooter barricaded himself in the school's front office with employees before eventually surrendering to police, DeKalb County Police Chief Cedric Alexander told reporters.
> No one was injured, authorities said. Police are investigating whether a vehicle the shooter parked outside the school contained explosives, Alexander said.


----------



## AWP (Aug 28, 2013)

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/08/24/harvard-study-proves-gun-grabbers-argument-dead-wrong-82127
Link to the actual study:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf



> There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.


 
The study has a ton of notes, stats, charts, etc.


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 28, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Surprise, surprise, surprise!...*snip*



It's an attempt at misinformation by the one lone conservative at Harvard to make The Cause look bad. Now, STFU and put your tin-foil hat back where it belongs.   /sarc


----------



## x SF med (Aug 28, 2013)

Here is some interesting information on militias  (historically European and specifically American)....

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FieldsAndHardy.html
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/militia/
http://planet.infowars.com/guns/a-well-regulated-militia

the last one is an extremely interesting view....


----------



## surgicalcric (Aug 29, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Here we go again. At least no one was injured.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/20/us/georgia-school-gunshots/index.html?hpt=hp_t1




If I was a conspirator it would be easy to think the Govt was behind all these shootings IOT push more stringent gun regulations and circumvent The Constitution. 

Talked to a local (SC) sheriff's officer (SWAT)  about personal weapon while teaching PHTLS/TC3 to a group of local LE agencies at North American Rescue today.  As our discussion matured he confided about how many SOF guys he had come across since he began working as a LEO and how he wasn't looking forward to having to enforce unconstitutional laws given the sheer number of us in the area.  I asked why he would enforce a law he deemed unconstitutional and he didn't have an answer.  He never asked how many different weapons I owned but we talked at length about ballistics and various weapons. 

It amazes me how many LEO I have met admit they will enforce unconstitutional gun laws.  It isn't as if you (LEOs) are writing a parking ticket or citing someone for littering or jay-walking.  I just don't really get it...  I know the ones I noted dont make up the sum of all opinions in the community so could one of you guys here please fill in that blank for me.  How do you enforce something that is counter to the US Constitution?  Is it ignorance or is it a LEO are right, etc...


----------



## policemedic (Aug 29, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> If I was a conspirator it would be easy to think the Govt was behind all these shootings IOT push more stringent gun regulations and circumvent The Constitution.
> 
> Talked to a local (SC) sheriff's officer (SWAT)  about personal weapon while teaching PHTLS/TC3 to a group of local LE agencies at North American Rescue today.  As our discussion matured he confided about how many SOF guys he had come across since he began working as a LEO and how he wasn't looking forward to having to enforce unconstitutional laws given the sheer number of us in the area.  I asked why he would enforce a law he deemed unconstitutional and he didn't have an answer.  He never asked how many different weapons I owned but we talked at length about ballistics and various weapons.
> 
> It amazes me how many LEO I have met admit they will enforce unconstitutional gun laws.  It isn't as if you (LEOs) are writing a parking ticket or citing someone for littering or jay-walking.  I just don't really get it...  I know the ones I noted dont make up the sum of all opinions in the community so could one of you guys here please fill in that blank for me.  How do you enforce something that is counter to the US Constitution?  Is it ignorance or is it a LEO are right, etc...



Tagged for later. 

Short answer for now- I won't, nor will anyone under my command.


----------



## AWP (Aug 29, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> Is it ignorance or is it a LEO are right, etc...


 
Human psychology, my friend. Historically people have proven time and time again that they will execute some order no matter how wrong they think that order may be. There are controlled studies and who knows how many actual cases where people rationalized their behavior away because they were told to do something. Sure, Nuremburg is the most recent (and vivid) reminder that being told to do something doesn't exonerate you from your actions...but that only matters if you're on the losing side.

Americans, and perhaps all people but I'll focus on who I am and what I know, have this hubris, this misguided idea that "it can't happen here." we've somehow talked ourselves into beliving that our system and our culture will allow us to prevail in the darkest of hours. It worked before, right? Several times, so it will always work, right?

Maybe I'm too much of a pessimist, but people look at other people and see hope, they see light, they see the good in other people. Well, angels and demons reside within us all. If someone wants pure love, they should get a dog.

With a properly framed argument the most devout American out there would burn the Constitution and then weep later.

By the way, we're all taught this behavior on some level and we've all done this on some level. We've knowingly done something that we shouldn't, but we did anyway for whatever reasons.

We all have angels and demons.


----------



## JBS (Aug 29, 2013)

We can start by asking those fucking jackass morons who confiscated legally owned firearms after Hurricane Katrina.   The most worthless law enforcement officers in America were running that outfit and should have their credentials/badges stripped and a boot broken off in their asses.   Especially the chief who wanted to be on TV and exclaimed "we will take all guns. No one will have any guns".   Blithering idiot.  On Youtube for all posterity to see what happens when idiots are in power.


If I recall correctly this is the same department that had MASS DESERTIONS and dozens of their force members caught on tape smashing windows with bricks and they themselves amongst the very first waves of looters.  Begs the question if their"right -n- wrong" switch could be flipped so easily during a minor crisis,  what kind of shitbags were they while on ordinary duty?


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 30, 2013)

One of the best posts written on any subject @Freefalling


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 30, 2013)

Hmmm, generally speaking, I think most LEO's will enforce any law on the books. Meaning if its a law, they will enforce it (its kind of their job). Again "most" not all.

However, I don't feel that LEO's are to blame for enforcement (within reason) of bad laws. I think the law makers are really to blame.

That said, I wouldn't want to be the LEO who decided to enforce that unconstitutional law on someone like me, who.might just decide to say "nope not today, I won't play that game". 

Point being, I won't blame LEO's for doing their jobs, at the same time if they are going to do it, they better be ready for that fight (not saying I want or will fight a LEO,nor am I saying anyone else should).


----------



## AWP (Sep 18, 2013)

An interesting opinion piece from CNN.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/17/opinion/granderson-gun-control-fail/index.html?hpt=hp_t5



> And it will keep continue to happen until the advocates accept that ridding the country of guns is a hopeless -- and unconstitutional mission -- and that the real goal should be addressing the factors that lead to the various forms of gun violence: factors such as poverty, mental health and failing schools.


----------



## DasBoot (Sep 18, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> An interesting opinion piece from CNN.
> 
> http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/17/opinion/granderson-gun-control-fail/index.html?hpt=hp_t5


 I like that article. The Navy Yard shooting, Sandy Hook, Colombine, etc. will always happen IMO- they are perpetrated by mentally ill or just plain evil people. The only way to do with them is to "build a bigger pen" and put more money into mental health treatment as well as providing funds for private organizations that provide services and care for the mentally ill. As to mass gang violence, I believe the article is spot on- better schools and better job opportunities will go a long way in stopping gang violence in places like Chicago, Detroit, Augusta- whatever the major crime ridden city.


----------



## pardus (Sep 18, 2013)

DasBoot said:


> I like that article. The Navy Yard shooting, Sandy Hook, Colombine, etc. will always happen IMO- they are perpetrated by mentally ill or just plain evil people. The only way to do with them is to "build a bigger pen" and put more money into mental health treatment as well as providing funds for private organizations that provide services and care for the mentally ill. *As to mass gang violence, I believe the article is spot on- better schools and better job opportunities will go a long way in stopping gang violence in places like Chicago, Detroit, Augusta- whatever the major crime ridden city.*



How about communities saying no to criminal behavior? A lot of people grow up in neighborhoods where breaking the law is seen as normal and right.
How about people stop buying gangster music and encouraging a criminal mindset that is corrupting children? How about people stop with the handout/you owe me mentality? That just leads to people becoming angry when they don't get what they are "owed" which just pushes them to the dark side. How about cooperating with police when crime is committed to help stamp crime out?
Do you know why schools in "the hood" are shitty? Because a lot of kids are disobedient, disruptive, disrespectful, violent etc... Good teachers leave, the remaining teachers do what they have to and get the fuck out. The schools are in ruin because the students vandalize the place. School systems can't afford to keep pumping money in to repair the same shit over and over again.

How about people taking responsibility instead of expecting a fucking handout.


----------



## DasBoot (Sep 18, 2013)

pardus said:


> How about communities saying no to criminal behavior? A lot of people grow up in neighborhoods where breaking the law is seen as normal and right.
> How about people stop buying gangster music and encouraging a criminal mindset that is corrupting children? How about people stop with the handout/you owe me mentality? That just leads to people becoming angry when they don't get what they are "owed" which just pushes them to the dark side. How about cooperating with police when crime is committed to help stamp crime out?
> Do you know why schools in "the hood" are shitty? Because a lot of kids are disobedient, disruptive, disrespectful, violent etc... Good teachers leave, the remaining teachers do what they have to and get the fuck out. The schools are in ruin because the students vandalize the place. School systems can't afford to keep pumping money in to repair the same shit over and over again.
> 
> How about people taking responsibility instead of expecting a fucking handout.


I don't disagree. I don't view education or mental health treatment as a hand out- its an investment for long term prosperity and as a way to "fix" high crime, economically depressed areas. The social issues that affect high crime areas are too deep seated to be fixed by the government though, like you said. They may not change things over night, but having a safe place for a kid to get 2-3 meals a day, receive life direction from component guidance counselors, and learn critical thinking skills from teachers who actually care (the biggest issue I've seen in public education)- that's a start.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 18, 2013)

pardus said:


> How about communities saying no to criminal behavior? A lot of people grow up in neighborhoods where breaking the law is seen as normal and right.
> How about people stop buying gangster music and encouraging a criminal mindset that is corrupting children? How about people stop with the handout/you owe me mentality? That just leads to people becoming angry when they don't get what they are "owed" which just pushes them to the dark side. How about cooperating with police when crime is committed to help stamp crime out?
> Do you know why schools in "the hood" are shitty? Because a lot of kids are disobedient, disruptive, disrespectful, violent etc... Good teachers leave, the remaining teachers do what they have to and get the fuck out. The schools are in ruin because the students vandalize the place. School systems can't afford to keep pumping money in to repair the same shit over and over again.
> 
> How about people taking responsibility instead of expecting a fucking handout.



More goes into schools being shitty than just students. That is most assuredly part, however the amount of funding certain schools receive has as much to do with shitty schools as student body makeup. Low tax revenue in shitty school districts has a lot more to do with the lack of teachers nice schools etc. why the tax revenue is low OTOH is because of exactly what you stated above.


----------



## 0699 (Sep 18, 2013)

This isn't an arguement about shitty schools, mental health, or better job opportunities.  This is about "don't kill other people".  Pretty fucking basic rule.  I don't care how poor, downtroden, abused, mentally fucked, etc, you are, not killing other people seems like a simple rule to follow.  If you can't follow it, then you need to be removed from society to protect others.  Until we realize that there isn't a job program, or education program, or handout program, or mental health program that will fix this, we'll never be over it.

Simple answer, there's some bad/crazy people out there and there always will be.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 18, 2013)

@0699 I agree, I was addressing what was said about schools though.


----------



## 0699 (Sep 18, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> @0699 I agree, I was addressing what was said about schools though.


 
And I agree that there are a lot of factors that go into making a school good or bad.  IMO parental involvement is a big factor.

I'm just railing against the urge of many Americans to try to find a "reason" for things and a way to "fix" it so things don't go wrong.  Every discussion we have about these distractors just distances us from the truth.


----------



## pardus (Sep 18, 2013)

DasBoot said:


> I don't disagree. I don't view education or mental health treatment as a hand out- its an investment for long term prosperity and as a way to "fix" high crime, economically depressed areas. The social issues that affect high crime areas are too deep seated to be fixed by the government though, like you said. They may not change things over night, but having a safe place for a kid to get 2-3 meals a day, receive life direction from component guidance counselors, and learn critical thinking skills from teachers who actually care (the biggest issue I've seen in public education)- that's a start.



You make it sound like kids are all innocent and just need the chance to develop. In NYC and I wouldn't mind betting many other large urban areas it's the kids themselves that are destroying the school system. They either don't have parents, parents are absentee, drug/alcohol addicts or just scum. Yes it does suck to be those kids but that's not my problem. They are shitting in their own nest, then using that as an excuse years later that the terrible school system failed them. Fuck off! ( <- that's not directed at you @DasBoot )
That's not to say there aren't a lot of great kids in school. However I often hear nightmares from large city schools. In particular NYC and London.



cback0220 said:


> More goes into schools being shitty than just students. That is most assuredly part, however the amount of funding certain schools receive has as much to do with shitty schools as student body makeup. *Low tax revenue in shitty school districts has a lot more to do with the lack of teachers nice schools etc*. why the tax revenue is low OTOH is because of exactly what you stated above.



I agree with your post and you are correct r.e. the bold, though I'd like to find out if that is true for a city system, I suspect not but am really not sure. To clarify what I mean, does one public city school have a different budget to one in the next neighborhood? I might be completely wrong about this though.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 18, 2013)

pardus said:


> You make it sound like kids are all innocent and just need the chance to develop. In NYC and I wouldn't mind betting many other large urban areas it's the kids themselves that are destroying the school system. They either don't have parents, parents are absentee, drug/alcohol addicts or just scum. Yes it does suck to be those kids but that's not my problem. They are shitting in their own nest, then using that as an excuse years later that the terrible school system failed them. Fuck off! ( <- that's not directed at you @DasBoot )
> That's not to say there aren't a lot of great kids in school. However I often hear nightmares from large city schools. In particular NYC and London.
> 
> 
> ...



I like to use Durham and Chapel hill as examples. One is an affluent community with amazing schools, Durham just across the freeway is quite the opposite. Per person tax revenue is much higher in Chapel Hill than Durham, so the schools are way way better. The fact that teachers can't afford to live near where they teach is another equally huge problem to me. But that is enough hijack for one day.

School funding is truly our best national defense. Unfortunately it is often one of the first cuts.


----------



## pardus (Sep 18, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> School funding is truly our best national defense. Unfortunately it is often one of the first cuts.



Agree 100% 

I think cutting education is an action that borders on being criminal. It should be a sacred cow IMO.


----------



## AWP (Sep 19, 2013)

pardus said:


> To clarify what I mean, does one public city school have a different budget to one in the next neighborhood? I might be completely wrong about this though.


 
Yes. The county where I grew up had your well off folks on the coast, your "less well off" folks inland, and the "really not well off" folks further inland or close to Georgia. The schools had vastly different budgets and teaching positions on the coast had a waiting list. Kids would spend their whole lives in one town, but for high school they would travel to the school on the coast because it was larger, had better funding, and for athletes had more college scouts looking at the school.

Point blank, in FL if your neighborhood is poor, your education will be poor.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 19, 2013)

I think another problem (at least in Texas) is that public schools are mostly self governing by their respective districts. San Antonio has several independent school districts (ISD's). The education tools, teacher requirements, programs of instruction and educational goals vary from ISD to ISD. 

The state of TX regulates a basic standard for Teaching certs, textbooks and testing. However, these are often open to "interpretations" by the ISD. 

Also like all other states, Texas seems (especially in larger cities) have an extreme liberal/progressive influence within the administration, teachers and textbooks. An example that was recently caught by a parent in the DFW area, was a textbook that did not give the full wording of the second amendment, but only a interpretation of the 2A. Basically stating that the 2A was for state security and militia (or to that effect), leaving out the fact that its an individual right to keep and bear arms.

There are tons of incidents Ive read about in TX alone, where school policy, text materials and personal opinion of the teacher are being introduced to students, that are of a political nature.

My own daughter (5years old) came home and told me she didn't feel safe with me b/c I carry a gun. That guns are dangerous and kill people. I asked where she learned that as she has a .22 and shoots regular with my supervision. Her reply, her teacher gave a gun safety/awareness class that day.  I am sure many of you can imagine how that ended:

Me-what makes you an expert on gun safety teacher lady? What certifications do you hold that authorizes you to teach gun safety?

Teacher-Its a district program, and thus I am required to teach it. Oh and by the way I support the 2A and my hubby is a hunter.

Me-did you receive any special training from the district in this program, may I have a copy of the POI?

Teacher- no I have not and you will have.to request that from the district.

Me- so basically you don't have any training or certifications in gun safety and the POI of which you instructed my child, is not an open source document?

Teacher- yes.

Me- you are not allowed to instruct my child in gun safety without my permission and approval of the POI. Lets go talk to your principal.

I ended up taking it all the way up to the district board. It's my understanding that the gun safety/awareness will no longer be taught by teacher, but by local LEO's. I'm working to find out what that will be, but the point here is that you really have to keep a watchful eye onvthe schools now. They have their own agendas and by not getting involved and questioning /raising hell as needed. You are basically saying you can program my child to think like you.

Do I think gun safety is important? Absolutely, but proper gun safety, taught by a professionally certified instructor, with a POI that is recognizable on a state/natioanl level.

I think its a damned shame what our public education has turned into. Worse off, I can't believe people are not taking issue on a national level. I was the first parent to complain about the gun safety in the 9 years they had been doing it. WTF?


----------



## AWP (Sep 19, 2013)

Good on ya', JAB. Nicely done.


----------



## pardus (Sep 19, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Yes. The county where I grew up had your well off folks on the coast, your "less well off" folks inland, and the "really not well off" folks further inland or close to Georgia. The schools had vastly different budgets and teaching positions on the coast had a waiting list. Kids would spend their whole lives in one town, but for high school they would travel to the school on the coast because it was larger, had better funding, and for athletes had more college scouts looking at the school.
> 
> Point blank, in FL if your neighborhood is poor, your education will be poor.



County I understand and concur. Where I am, people buy houses based on the school district within the county, but city is a different beast. e.g. New York City etc...  NYC places some ' housing projects' (poor housing estates) into otherwise affluent areas to be "fair", kids go to public school in their community, which is why I'm very interested to find the answer.


----------



## AWP (Sep 19, 2013)

pardus said:


> County I understand and concur. Where I am, people buy houses based on the school district within the county, but city is a different beast. e.g. New York City etc...  NYC places some ' housing projects' (poor housing estates) into otherwise affluent areas to be "fair", kids go to public school in their community, which is why I'm very interested to find the answer.


 
We do the same in FL. One reason counties outside of Duval in North FL have seen strong growth over the last 20 years is because of Duval's educational system. Duval went to a charter program to improve education, and it has helped greatly, but if you can't get into the charter program of your choice (or don't want to spend almost 12 hours away from home per day due to busing) then you're stuck with your 'hood.

Duval had a lawsuit go all the way to the Supreme Court over forced busing. The result is they drive kids from all over the county to "level" the racial make up of every school. The result's are not stellar.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 19, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> We do the same in FL. One reason counties outside of Duval in North FL have seen strong growth over the last 20 years is because of Duval's educational system. Duval went to a charter program to improve education, and it has helped greatly, but if you can't get into the charter program of your choice (or don't want to spend almost 12 hours away from home per day due to busing) then you're stuck with your 'hood.
> 
> Duval had a lawsuit go all the way to the Supreme Court over forced busing. The result is they drive kids from all over the county to "level" the racial make up of every school. The result's are not stellar.


 
Free, just give me all your guns, I'll control them for you.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 23, 2013)

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclu...d-citizenry/story?id=20637341&singlePage=true

Snippet:



> Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month's deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.
> 
> In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called "soft targets" are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.



First Responders =/= first on the scene.  This is hilariously awesome, especially coming from the HMFIC of Interpol. LOL


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 23, 2013)

Sounds pretty familiar...


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 29, 2013)

American Tactical Imports is moving from New York to South Carolina.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/n-y-gunmaker-shot-dixie-article-1.1499710



> A Rochester-based company that makes firearms, ammunition and tactical equipment is relocating its headquarters in Dorchester County, South Carolina officials announced Monday.
> 
> The state Department of Commerce said that the $2.7 million investment by American Tactical Imports, currently located on Airpark Drive, would mean more than 100 new jobs for the Summerville area.
> 
> ...


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 1, 2013)

http://hitthewoodline.com/politics/2013/11/1/an-armed-society-is-a-safe-society



> In the wake of yet another Islamic terrorist attack in Nigeria, the Secretary General of Interpol advised that the solution to preventing such attacks in the future might include allowing responsible citizens to arm themselves.[1] "Societies have to think about how they're going to approach the problem. One way is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you're going to have to pass through extraordinary security," he said. How is it that Interpol, the European police organization, got this particular issue so right when so many in the US get it dead wrong?


----------



## AWP (Nov 5, 2013)

Meanwhile, over at ABC...

http://twitchy.com/2013/11/04/good-morning-america-depicts-lax-shooter-with-grenade-launcher-pics/

http://bearingarms.com/abcs-good-mo...lt-rifle-complete-with-40mm-grenade-launcher/



> ABC’s Good Morning America took a great deal of liberty with reality this morning, creating a computer animation that equipped Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) shooting suspect Paul Ciancia not with the Smith & Wesson M&P15 modern sporting rifle that he actually used, but instead with a military M16 selective-fire assault rifle and m-203 40mm grenade laucher.


----------



## AWP (Nov 8, 2013)

Guns and Ammo editor fired over a column. I'm kind of on the fence about this. I resist an infringment upon our rights, but have to wonder if that is inevitible and if the pro-2A crowd (myself included) should get ahead of that change and shape the dialogue. I guess as long as Obamacare is dragging us down no one will seriously worry about guns...

I do worry that any changes would open the floodgates and be used as a rationale for more restrictions. What an ugly, unnecessary scene.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/us/gu...after-gun-control-column/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



> The editor of Guns & Ammo magazine apologized to readers and resigned immediately, earlier than planned, after he published a column advocating gun control, enraging his readers.
> Editor Jim Bequette wanted to "generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights" when he published a commentary by Dick Metcalf, who wrote that he supported regulations on firearms.
> Instead, the column in the December issue "aroused unprecedented controversy" among readers who began "questioning 'Guns & Ammo's commitment to the Second Amendment," Bequette wrote in his apology.


----------



## Raksasa Kotor (Nov 8, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Guns and Ammo editor fired over a column.


 
File under: "know your audience."

Thinking that a magazine like Guns & Ammo was an appropriate place for anything appearing to be even remotely pro-gun control shows a stunning lack of forethought by Mr. Bequette and Mr. Metcalf.


----------



## pardus (Nov 8, 2013)

Kinda glad I let my subscription lapse now.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 8, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Guns and Ammo editor fired over a column. I'm kind of on the fence about this. I resist an infringment upon our rights, but have to wonder if that is inevitible and if the pro-2A crowd (myself included) should get ahead of that change and shape the dialogue. I guess as long as Obamacare is dragging us down no one will seriously worry about guns...
> 
> I do worry that any changes would open the floodgates and be used as a rationale for more restrictions. What an ugly, unnecessary scene.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/us/gu...after-gun-control-column/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



Shape what dialogue? The ONLY direction things will go is further restrictions, removals, bannings, and requirements. There *IS NO COMPROMISE* when someone pro-2A is the one who loses everything. Compromise is when both sides give a little. This is right removal. It's already restricted enough, as is.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 8, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Guns and Ammo editor fired over a column. I'm kind of on the fence about this. I resist an infringment upon our rights, but have to wonder if that is inevitible and if the pro-2A crowd (myself included) should get ahead of that change and shape the dialogue. I guess as long as Obamacare is dragging us down no one will seriously worry about guns...



After reading the article and the backlash it caused, I am totally with Dick Metcalf.  I own guns and was a concealed carry permit holder in the state of Washington for some time, a process which literally required me to only visit the county courthouse, pay a small fee, and wait six to eight weeks.  That's it.  Firearms possession and use is a given right in the constitution, but that does not necessarily apply to concealed carry (which is something the author addressed).  As such, there likely should be some sort of restriction placed upon it by the states, within reason.  There should be some sort of mandatory training involved (or at least a competence test to ensure you aren't going to shoot yourself in the foot).  

A second issue that has been spawned by this author and his subsequent firing was the "all-or-nothing" approach that some gun owners have taken with regards to 2A rights.  I believe that this is the "healthy exchange of ideas" that the publisher was attempting to spur by publishing the article.  The reality is that while the guns rights are usually considered important to most Americans, the public image of gun owners has suffered because of this unwillingness to compromise.  You can see numerous examples of gun owners being characterized as out-of-touch with reality because of these attitudes.  And with that attitude will come continued alienation of your average voter who may or may not own a gun whenever an issue regarding firearms comes up.  If you want the public to rationally consider the issues of your community, your community has to put its best face forward and show that you're reasonable and willing to talk.  The gun community is not doing that right now.  The reaction to this article makes that pretty apparent.  This is part of the reason why I don't associate with so-called "gun people" any more.  Recreational and sport shooters?  Sure.  SHTF or TEOTWAWKI types?  Not so much.

And since the "slippery slope" argument has been brought up already, where have we gotten since the AWB sunset?  Some states (such as California, New York, and Maryland) have banned assault weapons.  But we also won a pair of landmark supreme court cases (DC vs. Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago) that regained ground lost to gun control advocates years prior.  Because of this, Illinois residents can now carry a concealed weapon, and states like Tennessee, Arkansas, and Alabama were able to expand gun rights.  So really, it's been a wash.

I think the biggest gain, overall, has been the public's general weariness of gun control issues.  Sure, after Sandy Hook it was all the rage to ban guns and whatnot.  But we've had a series of high-profile shootings in the past few months, and there have been very few (if any) national calls for action.  It seems as if the public just doesn't want to hear about gun control any more, and wants to focus on something more pressing (like mental health issues).

Anyway, that's my two cents on the topic.


----------



## Centermass (Dec 10, 2013)

Ex3 said:


> Not sure what your point is....you think New Yorkers are dumb?  Because they aren't.
> 
> Not for nothing, but I think that fact that a mass shooting like they one yesterday or in Columbine  has never happened in NYC says the more strict control of guns in the city is working.  Notice I didn't say outlawing of guns, just stricter control.



Is this your idea of stricter control and do you agree with it?



pardus said:


> The 2nd amendment is going to be under serious attack soon I think.




*And unfortunately, that day is finally here:*

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) is sending out letters telling gun owners to turn over their rifles and shotguns — or else face the consequences.

New York City’s ban on rifles and shotguns that hold more than five rounds is now being enforced, according to a letter the NYPD is sending out to targeted city gun owners.

“It appears you are in possession of a rifle and/or Shotgun (listed below) that has an ammunition feeding device capable of holding more than five (5) rounds of ammunition. Rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than five (5) rounds of ammunition are unlawful to possess in New York City, as per NYC Administrative Code 10-306 (b).”

“You have the following options,” the letter explains.

1. Immediately surrender your Rifle and/or Shotgun to your local police precinct, and notify this office of the invoice number. The firearm may be sold or permanently removed from the City of New York thereafter.

2. Permanently remove your Rifle and/or Shotgun from New York City and provide the following…Disposition Report/Registration Certificate…Notarized statement of permanent removal…Utility bill or other proof of residency regarding the address where the firearm will be stored outside the City of New York.

3. You may call to discuss the matter if you believe your firearm is in compliance…”

Departing New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a major gun-control activist, with his coalition recently sponsoring an ad that depicts an Adam Lanza-type character entering a school full of children.



http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-and-shotguns/#ixzz2n5sJBOz1


Now, does anyone wonder why a majority of gun owners are so adamantly opposed to gun registration? Don't comply with the NYC AC, and they will be at your door steps next with a warrant....first, to take any soda bottles you possess over 8oz and then your arsenal....


----------



## Centermass (Dec 10, 2013)

Hopefully, all the non law abiding thugs and criminals have received their letters as well and will comply to the letter of the law....:-"


----------



## pardus (Dec 10, 2013)

Centermass said:


> Now, does anyone wonder why a majority of gun owners are so adamantly opposed to gun registration? Don't comply with the NYC AC, and they will be at your door steps next with a warrant....first, to take any soda bottles you possess over 8oz and then your arsenal....



It happened to myself before in New Zealand. First registration, then confiscation/hand in etc... due to the huge increase in compliance measures and cost to retain control of firearms.

If I owned firearms in this country I would never register them.

Thankfully in NY State there is a strong law suit going on against the state by gun owners to repeal the illegal SAFE act.

FYI, the NRA was founded in New York City if you can believe that.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 10, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> Shape what dialogue? The ONLY direction things will go is further restrictions, removals, bannings, and requirements. There *IS NO COMPROMISE* when someone pro-2A is the one who loses everything. Compromise is when both sides give a little. This is right removal. It's already restricted enough, as is.



Why is it that people for some reason can't come to the understanding that owning, carrying, using a firearm is a right and not a privilege.

I've been in debates on the internet, in person and the one thing that I never understand is how gun control advocates (regardless to what level) fail to understand that it is my birth right as an American born citizen to own, carry and use a firearm. Its really irritating and like arguing with dumb & dumber when trying to clarify that one little stickler of a point.

Want to require this or that? Limit this or restrict that? What part of "shall not be infringed" do people not understand.

The other side is personal responsibility, should a gun store owner sell a firearm to someone who has never been trained, or take some responsibility and say I'll sell it to you as soon as you demonstrate you won't shoot yourself in the foot with it.

We don't need laws, rules and restriction. We need people to start being fucking responsible. And you can't make stupid illegal, therefore people will always do stupid shit, regardless how many gun locks and limited capacity magazines they are required to have.


----------



## x SF med (Dec 10, 2013)

JAB,

I will disagree with you, owning a gun is a right, a privilege, and a huge responsibility - the privilege should only be granted to lawful and lawabidng citizens, but should be a State's Right within the bounds of the Constitution.   Do you want every gang banger and convicted felon owning a firearm?  Your argument above leads me to believe you do, and that you believe there should be no restrictions at all on firearms ownership...  I don't believe those that commit a felony, or violent misdemeanor, nor those with a diagnosed mental or emotional illness that would cause uncontrolled violent outbursts or instability (I do not include PTSD in most cases here) should be allowed the privilege to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, as a way to protect the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness of the law abiding majority of the country.

I am not for the depraved gun control that is rampant in our country, but a responsible and safe way to keep the law abiding majority armed (should they care to be) and safe from those who should not own firearms...  Responsible ownership and control by community not the Fed.

An armed society is a polite society.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 10, 2013)

@x SF med, its called the bill of "rights" not privileges.

The felon/gangbanger argument is silly, as if they want them, they will have them. No law, as in reaction or consequence to an action, will stop that. It only imposes more criminal charges/longer sentencing.

Mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves or society, should be brought before a judge and institutionalized as the law allows. However when they are deemed fit to return to society, no law is going to stop them from possessing a weapon (be it a firearm, knife, club, etc).

States rights are very important and states should have the right to regulate (make laws) concerning the good order of the state. However, the US constitution clearly states in the 2nd amendment of the "bill of rights" that the "right" of the people to "keep" and "bear" arms "shall not be infringed". Id doesn't say "unless the state deems otherwise" or does it say anywhere that it is a privilege of any kind....it is purely a right of all American citizens...period.

Do I understand your POV on this? I sure do, but I strongly disagree with it, and see the argument of light restriction or state restrictions as no different than people who want to outright ban firearms, its infringement no matter how you want to cut it.


----------



## x SF med (Dec 10, 2013)

JAB said:


> @x SF med, its called the bill of "rights" not privileges.
> 
> The felon/gangbanger argument is silly, as if they want them, they will have them. No law, as in reaction or consequence to an action, will stop that. It only imposes more criminal charges/longer sentencing.
> 
> ...



So, you are a proponent of "if you can afford it or steal it you can own it" school of weaponry?  There should be no rule of law other than the Bill of Rights?  All people who were at one time diagnosed with any mental or emotional problems who are now back in the general population of the community are safe to own a weapon?  Any state can and should promulgate and regulate its militia, as set forth in the Constitution and Articles of Confederation...

Again, community regulations - for the safety, and by the will of the citizens is also a right granted to the people by the Constitution and Articles of Confederation.

Reasonability of ownership is the question, not the mechanics - I took the fallacies in your arguments and asked pertinent, if leading, questions to get you to think about your construction and tone when arguing a point - be clear, be concise, have ammo to back up your theses.

Regulation for the safety of the people is not infringement if the vast majority of the eliglible citizenry actually exercise that right...  voting is a good example, it is a guaranteed right, that has not been properly regulated and it has become a problem.  selective community policing of responsible gun ownership has helped create the current state of afffairs, and reasonable people realize that not everybody should own a fire arm, be it because of lack of training,  weakness of character, weakness of spirit, felony, or weakness of mind...   by your argument, every citizen upon reaching majority should be issued a firearm whether they want one or not.

You are arguing that a right MUST be exercised...  basic rights are and always have been controlled and legislated by the ruling elite...  do you also propose to remove the laws governing the sale of tobacco and alcohol since it is a humanist right that the will of the individual is the greatest right of all?

I agree with the ownership and abilty to use or carry firearms, I exercise that right, responsibly - do I believe every lawful and law abiding citizen of this country should do the same, theoretically Yes, practically, no.  It is a right, but it is also a huge responsibility and, yes, a privilege granted to those who choose to exercise the right - the safety of their families and neighbors and strangers is directly affected by the exercise of that right - and not everybody is up to the privilege and attendant responsibility inherent here...  that is the key, responsibility in the exercise of a right.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 10, 2013)

I don't have the time to line-by-line response to your post right now (but I will when I do have time). But my thoughts have not changed since I started this thread, I do not support gun regulations of any kind as they are a violation of the 2A and my liberty/ability to defend myself,  my family and my property. 

I don't care who has a gun, if they have one or not, if they threaten me or mine, I take responsibility in putting them down, as should anyone else who believes in being a citizen of a free nation.

States do not have the right to violate its American citizens constitutional rights, regardless if it is for safety or order. You know that, and I am not understanding your position on that as it relates to the constitution and bill of rights.

I'll do a more in-depth response later, got to make dinner for the kids.


----------



## x SF med (Dec 10, 2013)

JAB said:


> I don't have the time to line-by-line response to your post right now (but I will when I do have time). But my thoughts have not changed since I started this thread*,[3] I do not support gun regulations of any kind as they are a violation of the 2A and my liberty/ability to defend myself,  my family and my property.*
> 
> *[2]I don't care who has a gun, if they have one or not, if they threaten me or mine, I take responsibility in putting them down, as should anyone else who believes in being a citizen of a free nation.*
> 
> ...



This is the reasoning using logic and the interpretations you expressed - a strict Constituional and Confederational review of the points you are arguing, laid out with references (those being the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation)

In order of my numbering:
[1] - Any elected government has the authority and the obligation to ensure the safety of its citizens.  Realizing that the Articles of Confederation were never repealed, and that the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation bolster and clarify each other, neither usurping full authority of the other, the point of regulation of gun ownership falls into a grey area - as is evidenced by recent regulations and a less free interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in recent years.  The State's abilities to make laws are tempered by those rights given initially to the 3 Federal Branches of Government - the standing or regulation of militias fall to the States, yet the standing of an Army is a Federal mandate which is supposed to be limited to a 2 year stand with annual reviews by the Legislative branch - both houses- for a review of the need to stand an Army, the army to be called from first the militia and then the non militia general citizenry.  Paupers, vagabonds and Fugitives from justice are explicitly denied any rights or protections by the States or the Federal Government under the articles of Confederation.   Using a strict Constitutional stance as you are calling for - you are asking that a large portion of this country , its standing Army(ies) and yourself (as a recipient of Federal disability funds, making you a pauper under the definition at the time of the writing of the cited documents) to be excluded from the protections offered to full citizens of the Nation and their respective States... 

Remember, this is under the strict Constitutional and Confederational reading and interpretation you expressed.  If it were considered that you were under indenture to the Government for your injuries (using the broad term of indenture, your welfare and sustenance are provided by another due to the inability to work), you would have the as not being a  normal 3/5 vote by proxy allowed to a working pauper or slave.  the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation are both promulgated under the assumptions they were adopted to "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." (Preamble to the Constitution of the United States)

As a member of a standing Federal Army for a term of more than 2 years, you have already thumbed your nose at the document you are stating as the law of the land.

...and yes the States are charged with keeping Order and Safety within their borders, by the Constitution

[2] How as a good citizen who believes in the Constitution, can you state this?  I thought you prescribed to the Constitution - isn't it your right and your obligation to follow the section of the Preamble to the Constitution quoted in section [1]?  Promoting the general welfare and establishing justice both require you to care who has a gun if it might invade upon other's domestic tranquility or beat down the walls of the blessings of Liberty, or is that a part of the Constitution that is irrelevant?  Justice means that the individuals who are a threat are not armed, or become disarmed if they are carrying a weapon.

You are a proponent of vigilante justice, not rule of law per your statement, that IS anti-Constitutional.  A direct personal threat is one thing, more common now, but still not as rampant as a Mad Max movie. 

You don't care who has a gun - as long as you are carrying one too, how many other s feel the opposite, or just plain choose not to carry - ownership is a right, openly carrying isn't, concealed carrying isn't...  do you think every untrained idiot should have a gun just because it's a right stated in the Constitution - it's not just naïve, it's careless and dangerous and directly in violation of the stated precepts of the preamble to the Constitution.

[3]  You don't support any Gun regulations of any kind in support of the 2nd amendment?  But the amendment itself calls for a well regulated militia - it calls for regulation to responsible, trained citizens who are willing to defend not only themselves but those too weak or cowardly to defend themselves or others... because that's what a militia is...  it's not a vigilante mob.

I respect your deep feeling on the subject matter - but emotion can be as dangerous as panic - especially if not tempered with logic, and a broader view than your front porch - there are dangerous people out there - with good as well as bad intentions - with firearms and without.  Exercise your rights, I do; but temper them with reason and a watch for the safety of all others - which might mean that the community polices itself and the sheepdogs roam armed with guns to fight off the armed wolves... but allow the sheep to quietly munch grass, don't force them to be armed, because they might transform into wolves.


----------



## pardus (Dec 10, 2013)

x SF med said:


> But the amendment itself calls for a well regulated militia -



Now that is very interesting! I had never thought of it in that way. Food for thought.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 10, 2013)

@JAB Is your position on the several other Amendments the same as your view of the 2nd?  If the instant Amendment is inviolable and not subject to reasonable regulation, are the other Amendments equally protected?


----------



## Centermass (Dec 10, 2013)

Hello, Manhattan South 911?

911: Yes, Do you need Police, Fire or Medic?

I need police. I am currently located at West 42 Street and Fifth Ave. I'm being robbed and need an ammo resupply of my next 5 rounds please......:wall:


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 10, 2013)

policemedic said:


> @JAB Is your position on the several other Amendments the same as your view of the 2nd?  If the instant Amendment is inviolable and not subject to reasonable regulation, are the other Amendments equally protected?


 
IMO Yes, all of the amendments should be equally protected.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 11, 2013)

x SF med said:


> This is the reasoning using logic and the interpretations you expressed - a strict Constituional and Confederational review of the points you are arguing, laid out with references (those being the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation)
> 
> No I think you totally missed the point, but lets go with it.
> 
> ...


 
The last bit in bold, was and is the best and only part I agree with in your post. I don't say that disrespectful. You know what they say "opinions are like assholes, everyone has one".

Show me where in the constitution or the articles of confederation (being you brought them up) that the states have the authority to violate the bill of rights in any way outside of martial law…


----------



## JBS (Dec 12, 2013)

It's not just people wearing the uniform/badge and merely following orders that are a threat to our traditions
*US Army Colonel Wants to Literally Pry Your Guns from Your Cold, Dead Hands*
_*- Proposes "400% Tax on Ammunition"*_
_*- Wants Fed to Nationalize All Private Gun Manufacturers*_

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bateman-on-guns-120313


First thought when I saw this: "Step away from the french fries, sir."


Amazing:


> 1. The only guns permitted will be the following:
> 
> a. Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets. No 7-11 in history has ever been held up with one of these.
> b. Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns. Hunting with these is valid.
> c. Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds. Like I said, hunting is valid. But if you cannot bring down a defenseless deer in under five rounds, then you have no fking reason to be holding a killing tool in the first place.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 12, 2013)

And here's a response!

*Lt. Colonel Robert Bateman is A Jackass for Wanting to Disarm Americans*
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/lt-colonel-robert-bateman-jackass-wanting-disarm-americans/


----------



## x SF med (Dec 12, 2013)

Centermass said:


> Hello, Manhattan South 911?
> 
> 911: Yes, Do you need Police, Fire or Medic?
> 
> I need police. I am currently located at West 42 Street and Fifth Ave. I'm being robbed and need an ammo resupply of my next 5 rounds please......:wall:



42nd and 5th is mid-town, right in the heart of Times Square   - I know a fa great little Jazz Bar (Iridium) at 51st and 5th, downstairs.... I used to go see Les Paul Play there on Monday nights...


----------



## pardus (Dec 12, 2013)

That Bateman asshole is active army serving in the UK presently. I just looked him up on AKO.


----------



## x SF med (Dec 12, 2013)

pardus said:


> That Bateman asshole is active army serving in the UK presently. I just looked him up on AKO.




apparently there are two LTC Bateman's...  make sure you got the right one.


----------



## Dame (Dec 12, 2013)

I'm betting he's the NY state guard asshat. Volunteer force that does not mobilize for feds. I wonder if he even took an oath to "protect and defend."


----------



## pardus (Dec 12, 2013)

x SF med said:


> apparently there are two LTC Bateman's...  make sure you got the right one.



There is only one.


----------



## pardus (Dec 12, 2013)

Dame said:


> I'm betting he's the NY state guard asshat. Volunteer force that does not mobilize for feds. I wonder if he even took an oath to "protect and defend."



Read post #1347


----------



## AWP (Dec 12, 2013)

I just finished an excellent book, Shadow Warrior by Randall B. Woods. It is a biography of William Colby. OSS Jedburgh turned CIA paramilitary type, ran South Vietnam and the Asian desk, Phoenix Program, etc. before eventually becoming the head of the CIA. Colby was a bit of a liberal and his thoughts on the 2A aren't known (or presented in he book), but one recurring theme relevant to this thread is:

A key failure in the counterinsurgency programs in Vietnam was resistance, by the Vietnamese gov't and army, to arming villagers. They did not want an armed populace because of the fear of a revolt against their corrupt gov't.

Look at the history of despotic regimes and you'll find ample evidence of gun control. Our gov't is not despotic, but one day it could be, and do we really want to willingly give it the tools needed to control us? This isn't crazy right-wing thinking, this is history teaching us a lesson over and over and over....


----------



## Dame (Dec 12, 2013)

pardus said:


> Read post #1347


You are correct.
http://bearingarms.com/attacking-the-wrong-robert-bateman/


----------



## JBS (Dec 12, 2013)

And just in case anyone else's mind works even remotely the same way mine does, you'll want to know there has in fact been at least one documented instance of a robbery at muzzleloader-point.  Fitty cal, no less.

Not making this up:

www.cbsnews.com/news/ny-amish-man-robbed-at-gunpoint/



> Police say two men armed with a .50 caliber muzzleloading rifle held up an Amish buggy driver and made off with a pipe, tobacco and flashlight.



Whether these guys made a big score or not depends on whether that flashlight was a SureFire.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 12, 2013)

I have two cap & ball revolvers and three muzzle loading rifles, b/c they are not regulated or considered a firearm. Even if Texas magically went full retard and tried to take my guns (whichever ones they know about), I will still have something to carry/protect whats mine.

Besides black powder is just cool...


----------



## x SF med (Dec 12, 2013)

pardus said:


> There is only one.



One's retired, one's AD....


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 12, 2013)

Interesting that the college intends to ignore this ruling.   

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/12...da-court-in-major-2nd-amendment-victory-88805




> UNF regulations prohibit weapons on campus. According to the student handbook printed in 2011 when the case was filed, expressly threatened that violators could be arrested.
> 
> “No college or university has the authority” to make such a regulation, Friday said.
> 
> ...





> In an emailed statement Wednesday, UNF Associate Director for Public Relations Joanna Norris wrote that the university is still reviewing its options on whether to appeal the case. Until it makes that decision, she wrote, the university’s policy prohibiting weapons on campus will remain in effect.
> 
> Friday said that means the university intends to continue breaking the law.
> 
> “In other words, despite the express, well-reasoned opinion of this court, they intend to continue violating students’ rights until they_ have to_ comply,” he said.


----------



## pardus (Dec 12, 2013)

x SF med said:


> One's retired, one's AD....



:wall: This magical retired person can't be the guy in the article. Dumbass Troll.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 12, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Interesting that the college intends to ignore this ruling.
> 
> http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/12...da-court-in-major-2nd-amendment-victory-88805


 
This is why state preemption laws like the one we have in PA are so important.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 12, 2013)

JAB said:


> IMO Yes, all of the amendments should be equally protected.


 
The problem is, your rights are subject to reasonable regulation.  You have the right to free speech, by way of example, but that right is not unfettered.  You can't say whatever you want, wherever and whenever you choose, in the manner that most pleases you.


----------



## Worldweaver (Dec 12, 2013)

policemedic said:


> The problem is, your rights are subject to reasonable regulation.  You have the right to free speech, by way of example, but that right is not unfettered.  You can't say whatever you want, wherever and whenever you choose, in the manner that most pleases you.



Regulation?  Prior restraint is not Constitutional and the argument about the First Amendment is moot.  Obviously you can say whatever you want, you can yell fire in a crowded theater, however you may be punished for it later.  That's not regulation, that's law enforcement.  "Preemptive" laws punish citizens before a crime is committed, and that is Bullshit.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 13, 2013)

policemedic said:


> The problem is, your rights are subject to reasonable regulation.  You have the right to free speech, by way of example, but that right is not unfettered.  You can't say whatever you want, wherever and whenever you choose, in the manner that most pleases you.



I disagree somewhat, the only time you cannot say what you want when you want, is when you are no longer being peaceful in your use (I.e. threating someones life, calling for violence, etc). Even so, generally (excluding a verbal threat of death) a conviction of using speach to cause harm or disturb the peace would require some follow on effect, or consequence to sustain that the persons speach was in fact not peaceful and provoked further disorderly conduct and or disruption of the peace/order.

Keep in mind, that I am not talking about the person who getaway a city ticket for disorderly conduct for cursing, etc. As I personally believe that those type offense are in fact a violation of an individuals 1A rights, but understand most are willing to pay a fine rather than spend the money to sue in federal court.

My$.02


----------



## 0699 (Dec 13, 2013)

policemedic said:


> The problem is, your rights are subject to reasonable regulation.  You have the right to free speech, by way of example, but that right is not unfettered.  You can't say whatever you want, wherever and whenever you choose, in the manner that most pleases you.


 
IMO, the only restirction my my rights should be in making sure they don't effect others rights.  The way I phrase it, "My rights end where yours begin".


----------



## nobodythank you (Dec 14, 2013)

Wow. UNF is right down the road from me and this is the main reason I stayed away from there. They have always been a major pain in the ass when it came to firearms. When I worked for AOL back in the day, they purposely moved their call center onto UNF property to keep employees from having weapons in their vehicles. Very happy the state came to its senses and fixed this. The UNFPD and administration is a joke. Glad I avoided that shit storm.


----------



## Brill (Dec 14, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> ... This isn't crazy right-wing thinking, this is history teaching us a lesson over and over and over....



Actually it is crazy thinking because the MSM says so! Control the message and the people will follow because that's what is "tending"... Right?

Live high speed chases were once the norm on TV. Now not so much so the number of people running from the po-po  MUST be drastically reduced whereas shooting and gun violence is at epidemic levels (except in the inner cities of DC, Baltimore, and Detroit) especially in the gun totting red states.  If those whacko parents didn't have guns, the kids and/or criminals would not have access to guns and the public would be safer (except in the inner cities of DC, Baltimore, and Detroit).

Violence is so bad that elementary kids are acting out with dangerous toys such as pop tarts and fingers.

:whatever:


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 16, 2013)

Good to see that the resource officer on site was a big part of ending this quickly.  Prayers out for Ms. Davis. 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/us/colorado-school-shooting



> The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school, Robinson said.





> Once he learned of the threat, he ran -- accompanied by an unarmed school security officer and two administrators -- from the cafeteria to the library, Robinson said. "It's a fairly long hallway, but the deputy sheriff got there very quickly."
> 
> The deputy was yelling for people to get down and identified himself as a county deputy sheriff, Robinson said. "We know for a fact that the shooter knew that the deputy was in the immediate area and, while the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life."
> 
> He praised the deputy's response as "a critical element to the shooter's decision" to kill himself, and lauded his response to hearing gunshots. "He went to the thunder," he said. "He heard the noise of gunshot and, when many would run away from it, he ran toward it to make other people safe."


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 3, 2014)

Magpul has made their choice(s).  Texas and Wyoming. 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/2/colorado-gun-firm-magpul-relocating-to-texas/



> Magpul Industries, a leading firearms accessories maker, will relocate its extensive manufacturing facilities to Texas and Wyoming in response to the Colorado legislature’s enactment of sweeping gun control legislation last year, the company announced Thursday.





> The cost to Colorado’s economy, according to the company: $85 million in local economic activity and up to 400 supply-chain jobs.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 3, 2014)

I consider acts like these small victories


----------



## Karoshi (Jan 3, 2014)

Currently there are 3 proposed Colorado ballot measures that have been filed, which I will be following closely come November if they make it onto the ballots:

- CCW limitation on public college campuses, essentially overturning the previous state Supreme Court decision of no legal restrictions on concealed-carry permit holders possessing their handguns on public college campuses. A previous bill to ban CCW on campuses failed during the 2013 legislature. Proposed by: Heather Coogan and Ken Toltz.
- A proposal to overturn the imposed ban on ammunition magazines that fire more than 15 rounds. Proposed by: Tom Lucero and Patrick Davis.
- A proposed measure that not only overturns gun restrictions passed in 2013, but deems that future measures limiting gun rights can be decided only by the voters. Proposed by: Mike Holler and Anne Gill.


----------



## RetPara (Jan 3, 2014)

So much for HIPPA.......

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...w-executive-actions-on-gun-background-checks/


----------



## Brill (Jan 4, 2014)

Gun owner = racist?

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/ar...e-linked-study-finds/527aa572fe34440c26000296

I wonder if this "study" looked at DC, Baltimore, Detroit, and LA or if they just interviewed folks with big belt buckles, boots, and drove pick up trucks? :whatever:


----------



## AWP (Jan 7, 2014)

My cynical side expects the headline in a few weeks to read, "Federal Judge Found Dead in Apparent Suicide."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/us/chicago-gun-ban/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



> *(CNN)* -- A federal judge ruled Monday that Chicago's ban on virtually all sales and transfers of firearms is unconstitutional.



Let's see how the appeal goes.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 7, 2014)

RetPara said:


> So much for HIPPA.......
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...w-executive-actions-on-gun-background-checks/



That sounds like an abuse of  power to me. I don't want any issue with medical records just thrown out there.


----------



## JBS (Jan 7, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> My cynical side expects the headline in a few weeks to read, "Federal Judge Found Dead in Apparent Suicide."
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/us/chicago-gun-ban/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
> 
> ...




Plane crashes are kind of the 'in' way to do things these days...

http://dailycaller(DOT)com/2013/12/...rth-certificate-sole-casualty-in-plane-crash/


----------



## JBS (Jan 7, 2014)

lindy said:


> Gun owner = racist?
> 
> http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/ar...e-linked-study-finds/527aa572fe34440c26000296
> 
> I wonder if this "study" looked at DC, Baltimore, Detroit, and LA or if they just interviewed folks with big belt buckles, boots, and drove pick up trucks? :whatever:


Wow.   I actually listened to this drivel.    Completely made-up nonsense like "symbolic" racism.   TOTAL utter horseshit.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 7, 2014)

SCOPE(Shooter's Committee on Political Education) has put up a nice billboard in Albany, NY.  http://www.scopeny.org/new-pics-of-our-billboard/

My personal favorite:


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 7, 2014)

Another gun company relocates.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/0...-warmer-surroundings-in-south-carolina-after/



> From beat cops to cashiers to Gov. Nikki Haley, South Carolina’s newest gun manufacturer has received an “absolutely tremendous” amount of support since leaving Connecticut for The Palmetto State, according to the firm's CEO.
> 
> Josh Fiorini, CEO of PTR Industries, formerly of Bristol., Conn., told FoxNews.com that the firm’s new facility in Aynor, S.C., remains a week away from production, but 11 local employees began sorting inventory on Monday along with a team of training personnel from Connecticut. The manufacturer of military-style rifles announced in April that it intended to leave Bristol following the passage of gun-control legislation after the shooting deaths of 26 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown.
> 
> “In general, things are going very well,” Fiorini said Tuesday. “Basically, we’re just unpacking and training right now, but the building is coming together and we’re putting on the final touches. We’re all very excited.”


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 7, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> Another gun company relocates.



Haley Strategic is joining the Colorado exodus as well & heading for Arizona. Makes me feel even better about purchasing a second WML light!
http://soldiersystems.net/2014/01/0...ners-announces-move-from-colorado-to-arizona/


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 12, 2014)

I hope all the gun makers leave those states and move thus taking jobs and money with them.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 24, 2014)

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-gun-registration-lawlor-20140122,0,3807026.story

Amnesty huh?  The comments after the article are fun to read.



> Amid concerns about gun owners who failed in their last-minute attempts to register now-illegal assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines, lawmakers are considering granting an amnesty period for people who missed the registration deadline.
> The comprehensive gun-control bill enacted last spring required owners of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to register the guns and declare ownership of the magazine if they wished to keep them.
> 
> About 50,000 assault weapons were registered last year, and close to 40,000 people declared possession of magazines – many of them doing so during the final days of December. But legislative leaders in recent weeks have raised concerns with the governor's office that some individuals who attempted to register their weapons were prevented from doing so as a result of early post office closings on New Year's Eve.
> "It had come to my attention and the attention of others that many people who were attempting in good faith to comply with the law…were not able to because of what I would argue were circumstances not under their control," said Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, who said he has been in discussion with other lawmakers about a possible amnesty period for people who tried to register but failed to do so.


----------



## pardus (Jan 25, 2014)

All you naughty Jews gun owners that didn't register yourselves have more time to do so. Think of the benefits, we will take total control and relieve you of any burden of thought or choice. 

ARBEIT MACHT FREI!


----------



## 0699 (Jan 25, 2014)

pardus said:


> All you naughty Jews gun owners that didn't register yourselves have more time to do so. Think of the benefits, we will take total control and relieve you of any burden of thought or choice.
> 
> ARBEIT MACHT FREI!


 
I just want more free time to worry about that poor unfortunate Justin Beaver kid.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 25, 2014)




----------



## AWP (Jan 27, 2014)

An interesting blurb I'd heard nothing about until today.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...olt-coming-after-all-20140127,0,6843293.story



> In a letter earlier this month to the county's public works director, Colt Defense Chief Operating Officer Mike Magouirk wrote that the company will "fulfill its obligations to the County of Osceola and the State of Florida," which have spent $550,000 combined to renovate the county's former Council on Aging building for use as a factory.
> 
> County Commission Chairman Fred Hawkins said the county has two backup deals lined up in case Colt doesn't make good on its promises. Because of confidentiality agreements, he could say only that the agreements are with companies* "in similar industries" as Colt*.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 27, 2014)

That would be the baby killing mass murdering bidnis.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 28, 2014)

I heard some companies in CA are moving?


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 29, 2014)

Marine0311 said:


> I heard some companies in CA are moving?


Do you mean the announcements from Smith and Wesson and Ruger regarding microstamping in California?

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/other/MSMicroSFinal.pdf



http://www.guns.com/2014/01/16/brea...cord-straight-california-microstamping-video/

http://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/declaration-Fifer.htm


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 29, 2014)

The President hardly mentioned gun control or gun violence in the State of the Union address last night.  I take that as a good sign, at least at the federal level, that more gun control measures are not in the pipe.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 29, 2014)

Bullshit. You know it's on his agenda and in the pipe if he can shove it in there through royal decree or legal legislation. I'm more concerned when he isn't talking about it.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 29, 2014)

Ranger Psych said:


> Bullshit. You know it's on his agenda and in the pipe if he can shove it in there through royal decree or legal legislation. I'm more concerned when he isn't talking about it.


Oh I'm sure it's on his agenda, but I think the Democrats have realized that if they can't pass anything at the federal level in the wake of a tragedy like Sandy Hook, then they probably can't muster enough votes for any GC legislation when things have quieted down.  As an example, Feinstein re-introduced her version of the AWB during the last session of Congress and it went absolutely nowhere.  From the looks of it, it died in committee before even reaching the senate floor. 

The states are another matter, however.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 29, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Oh I'm sure it's on his agenda, but I think the Democrats have realized that if they can't pass anything at the federal level in the wake of a tragedy like Sandy Hook, then they probably can't muster enough votes for any GC legislation when things have quieted down.  As an example, Feinstein re-introduced her version of the AWB during the last session of Congress and it went absolutely nowhere.  From the looks of it, it died in committee before even reaching the senate floor.
> 
> The states are another matter, however.



The fact that he felt comfortable saying this: 





> So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do."


 no matter what context it was in, is rather telling to me.  Yes, he was talking about minimum wage, entitlements, and other financial boons for the middle class, but the system of checks and balances guarantees that there isn't much POTUS can do without legislation.  It's not a failing in the system, it's a feature.  Don't like that?  Blame the Magna Carta. 

I'm concerned that he's engaging in political sleight of hand.  Look!  I'm giving you money!  Huhuhuhuh huhuh huh, I like munny (think "Idiocracy").  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain as he unilaterally moves to enact his ideal gun control by executive order.  He's not stupid.  He knows that even some members of his liberal base are all about keeping their guns.  That's why he didn't say a damned thing about it.  I agree with RP, I don't trust his silence on the gun control issue.


----------



## AWP (Jan 29, 2014)

I'll be a little surprised if much happens on the Federal level. That doesn't mean  they've forgotten about it, but they know nothing will go anywhere. They need another Sandy Hook or two to manipulate public opinion and fearmonger. States know they have to tread carefully after watching what happened in CO.  A few states may try something, NY is still a bucket of fail, but I think lawmakers are biding their time and waiting for another high visibility shooting.

The issue isn't dead, not by a long shot.


----------



## Red-Dot (Jan 29, 2014)

His decree of have phone and pen/ executive order decree has me so pissed I want to chew nails.... Hey POTUS, have you ever heard of a thing called the constitution?    Screw this lets impeach the ass hat.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 29, 2014)

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42987.pdfpdf
You can take a look at the gun control legislation introduced since the start of the 113th congress, and track their progress by entering the bill number at www.govtrack.us
The whole process is pretty transparent.  Obviously the committee hearings are less-so, but its not like you can't see which bills are going forward and which ones are stalled

As for a possible executive order....I don't know where you guys are getting this notion, but a sweeping GC executive order would be smashed by the supreme court In like five seconds.  Remember guys, Obama was a constitutional law professor lecturer, so I'm pretty sure that he knows his left and right lateral limits extremely well.  I'm sure he's weighed the option of a sweeping GC executive order and realized that it would be folly.  Obama may be something of a demagogue, but he's not a tyrant.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 29, 2014)

I totally disagree with notion that POTUS knows/understands/follows the US constitution. And he was a guest lecture not a paid professor. He is a community organizer, a member of the democratic socialist party, and he straight up said if he can't get something done by legislative measure he will do it by executive order. He has already signed 26 EO on gun control.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 29, 2014)

> UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.


http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/

While not a tenure-track professor, he nonetheless is considered an expert in constitutional law.

With regards to the EOs he has already signed, nearly all of them had to do with background checks and mental health.  That's hardly a blip on the radar.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 29, 2014)

Funny how such an "expert" has systematically trampled all over the very thing he was "lecturing" law students on. I guess we should be okay with it since he was only doing that three times a year.

I guess the EO's are how the individual views them. Personally, I don't understand how anyone is okay with any POTUS using EO's to restrict and or regulate a constitutional right.

What if he decided by EO to suspend your 4th and 5th amendments, or not suspend them just tweak them to his liking?

This POTUS, has basically thrown the constitution out and is nullifying the checks and balances of our government.

Yep, an expert...


----------



## Red-Dot (Jan 29, 2014)

JAB said:


> Funny how such an "expert" has systematically trampled all over the very thing he was "lecturing" law students on. I guess we should be okay with it since he was only doing that three times a year.
> 
> I guess the EO's are how the individual views them. Personally, I don't understand how anyone is okay with any POTUS using EO's to restrict and or regulate a constitutional right.
> 
> ...



That's what happens when you put an ass clown in office.... Don't worry Jimmy Carter, you are no longer the worst President in U.S. history.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 30, 2014)

JAB said:


> Funny how such an "expert" has systematically trampled all over the very thing he was "lecturing" law students on. I guess we should be okay with it since he was only doing that three times a year.


Well, hardly anyone has brought any constitutional challenges to his executive orders.  You or I don't decide what is or is not constitutional.  The Supreme Court does.  And to date, only one party has brought suit against the administration for its use of executive orders, and that case is still in the courts (See NLRB vs Canning ).  This case is likely to decide the scope of future Presidential executive orders, and should be very interesting to watch.  But until the Supreme Court says that they are unconstitutional, they remain constitutional.



JAB said:


> I guess the EO's are how the individual views them. Personally, I don't understand how anyone is okay with any POTUS using EO's to restrict and or regulate a constitutional right.
> 
> What if he decided by EO to suspend your 4th and 5th amendments, or not suspend them just tweak them to his liking?


Well, curtailing certain parts of the constitutional amendments to ensure public good has been part of jurisprudence for centuries.  Scalia even weighed in during DC v. Heller, saying that while DC restricting an entire class of firearms (in this case, handguns) was unconstitutional, being able to keep and bear whatever arms you felt like is not.  In essence, the Second amendment's scope is not unlimited.  1st amendment rights have been curtailed for the public good in previous cases (as well as upheld in phenomenally stupid cases like Citizen's United vs FEC). 



JAB said:


> This POTUS, has basically thrown the constitution out and is nullifying the checks and balances of our government.


Executive orders, as I stated above, are subject to judicial review and congressional action.  It doesn't change checks and balances.

Like I said before, I sincerely doubt that Obama and the democrats will get anything done on gun control.  I'm sure that Congress members will try, but they'll fail.  Obama will likely not attempt anything.  It's proven to be a non-starter issue, even in the most favorable times.


----------



## 0699 (Jan 30, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> I'll be a little surprised if much happens on the Federal level. That doesn't mean  they've forgotten about it, but they know nothing will go anywhere. *They need another Sandy Hook or two to manipulate public opinion and fearmonger*. States know they have to tread carefully after watching what happened in CO.  A few states may try something, NY is still a bucket of fail, but I think lawmakers are biding their time and waiting for another high visibility shooting.
> 
> The issue isn't dead, not by a long shot.


 
You've got to burn down a few Reichstags in order to make any progress...


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 30, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Well, hardly anyone has brought any constitutional challenges to his executive orders.  You or I don't decide what is or is not constitutional.  The Supreme Court does.  And to date, only one party has brought suit against the administration for its use of executive orders, and that case is still in the courts (See NLRB vs Canning ).  This case is likely to decide the scope of future Presidential executive orders, and should be very interesting to watch.  But until the Supreme Court says that they are unconstitutional, they remain constitutional.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> ...



Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) asked Eric Holder about the constitutionality of executive orders in this video right here.  Holder doesn't seem to recall, but he's just the janitor.  If it were so cut and dry, or even a single shred of legality, no matter how questionable, I think Eric the Red would have clung to it like Kate Winslet's character to driftwood in Titanic, and beat Sen. Lee in the face with it.  Rather telling, if you ask me.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 30, 2014)




----------



## CDG (Feb 4, 2014)

Mark Dice recorded multiple college students on a campus in CA signing a fake petition to have gun owners imprisoned, and in some cases, executed.

http://www.infowars.com/students-sign-petition-to-have-gun-owners-executed-in-concentration-camps/


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 5, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) asked Eric Holder about the constitutionality of executive orders in this video right here.  Holder doesn't seem to recall, but he's just the janitor.  If it were so cut and dry, or even a single shred of legality, no matter how questionable, I think Eric the Red would have clung to it like Kate Winslet's character to driftwood in Titanic, and beat Sen. Lee in the face with it.  Rather telling, if you ask me.


I think this has more to do with Holder being a shitty AG than anything.  He really should've been replaced after Fast and Furious, but that obviously didn't happen.



CDG said:


> Mark Dice recorded multiple college students on a campus in CA signing a fake petition to have gun owners imprisoned, and in some cases, executed.



Oh man!  He got 14 people to sign up!  Those stupid liberal college kids!


----------



## CDG (Feb 5, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Oh man!  He got 14 people to sign up!  Those stupid liberal college kids!


 
Yeah, you're right.  Nothing to worry about!  It was only some stupid kids on one out of thousands of college campuses across the country.  Clearly this is indicative of nothing.  After all, we have a staunchly pro-Constitutional government in place that has expressed zero interest in raping the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 5, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I think this has more to do with Holder being a shitty AG than anything.  He really should've been replaced after Fast and Furious, but that obviously didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh man!  He got 14 people to sign up!  Those stupid liberal college kids!



I am disturbed when it happens at all.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 5, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I think this has more to do with Holder being a shitty AG than anything.  He really should've been replaced after Fast and Furious, but that obviously didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh man!  He got 14 people to sign up!  Those stupid liberal college kids!



For one thing, the DOJ should damn well know what is and isn't constitutional. The cabinet head should know intimately. And is a leader responsible for the actions of his hand picked subordinate? To say no is a direct contradiction of everything I learned as an NCO. 

As for the college kids signing that petition, and your flippant dismissal of that whole scenario, that even one allegedly educated student of higher learning signed this is indicative of something grossly wrong with society. They are supposed to be smart enough to recognize a setup similar to "An Indecent Proposal," yes? Again, maybe not. It's the lack of critical thinking skills that have allowed them to embrace their inner lemmings, and nothing is more dangerous than a large group of idiots. They can be easily led, and there are those strong-willed enough and of nefarious intent that will do it.

Bet if they had called for the imprisonment and execution of one of the Protected Victim Classes you'd have gone completely apeshit.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 5, 2014)

CDG said:


> Mark Dice recorded multiple college students on a campus in CA signing a fake petition to have gun owners imprisoned, and in some cases, executed.
> 
> http://www.infowars.com/students-sign-petition-to-have-gun-owners-executed-in-concentration-camps/



Whenever I see something like this it cracks me up. Take highly edited videotape and then make a vast generalization. Further people are allowed to have a view that guns are not good. Those people heard one thing and then after they started signing he went all crazy and started adding all kinds of other BS. I agree they should be more up to date on issues, but people also believe airliners are poisoning the air with chemicals, 9/11 was a government conspiracy and that marijuana was planted in America by the Soviets to make Americans docile and less aggressive. So I guess what I am saying is people have a right to believe whatever they want, even when it is stupid.



racing_kitty said:


> As for the college kids signing that petition, and your flippant dismissal of that whole scenario, that even one allegedly educated student of higher learning signed this is indicative of something grossly wrong with society. They are supposed to be smart enough to recognize a setup similar to "An Indecent Proposal," yes? Again, maybe not. It's the lack of critical thinking skills that have allowed them to embrace their inner lemmings, and nothing is more dangerous than a large group of idiots. They can be easily led, and there are those strong-willed enough and of nefarious intent that will do it.
> 
> Bet if they had called for the imprisonment and execution of one of the Protected Victim Classes you'd have gone completely apeshit.



I don't know about this. Maybe those people believe the petition they signed, maybe they were tricked by a guy with a hidden camera and good editing, who knows for sure. What I think is funny is your flippant dismissal of people who don't share your viewpoints. One person doing something stupid is indicative of a problem with society? Well using that logic one bad gun owner is enough to strip guns out of citizens hands...


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 5, 2014)

Your comparison is apples and oranges, TLDR. Perhaps they were tricked, but pointing out a gross lack of critical thinking, and that's what it was, is not an outright dismissal. I would have told Deathy to STFU if it were a dismissal. I raised an opposing point, nor was I flippant with my rebuttal.

Flippant: adjective 1. frivolously disrespectful, shallow, or lacking in seriousness; characterized by levity. 2. nimble, limber, or pliant. 3. glib; voluble

Where did my last post meet that qualification?


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 5, 2014)

Flippant may have been the wrong word. I guess I should have used Websters before I posted, but what you did do was take one example and then vastly over generalize. You said that if even one person signed this there is something grossly wrong with society. Really? I can find someone who doesn't believe in the moon landings, that doesn't mean the fabric of our society is falling apart, it means I found one idiot. Same as this video, he doesn't show the thousands of people who walked right by, or asked intelligent questions. Nonetheless you made a generalization that I found pretty silly. Sorry that I used the wrong adjective.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 5, 2014)

My apologies for an overgeneralization.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 5, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> For one thing, the DOJ should damn well know what is and isn't constitutional. The cabinet head should know intimately. And is a leader responsible for the actions of his hand picked subordinate? To say no is a direct contradiction of everything I learned as an NCO.


I agree!  As the nation's top lawyer, he should be able to express the administration's legal opinions on pertinent matters, especially before a congressional committee.  And yes, the President is responsible for keeping him on the staff.  It's one of the problems I have with the administration.



racing_kitty said:


> As for the college kids signing that petition, and your flippant dismissal of that whole scenario, that even one allegedly educated student of higher learning signed this is indicative of something grossly wrong with society. They are supposed to be smart enough to recognize a setup similar to "An Indecent Proposal," yes? Again, maybe not. It's the lack of critical thinking skills that have allowed them to embrace their inner lemmings, and nothing is more dangerous than a large group of idiots. They can be easily led, and there are those strong-willed enough and of nefarious intent that will do it.
> 
> Bet if they had called for the imprisonment and execution of one of the Protected Victim Classes you'd have gone completely apeshit.


My biggest problem was that the video was from Infowars, probably one of the least-credible news sites on the internet.  To even call it a "news site" is a stretch.  It's a fear-mongering conspiracy site, and is probably the only source I will dismiss outright without consideration.  I know that's not being open-minded, but Infowars and its acolytes have demonstrated over and over and over that nearly everything they produce is absolute trash and panders to the lunatic fringe. Mind you, I am not accusing anyone here of being a conspiracy theorist because they shared a link from the site, but if anyone regularly visits that site as a news source, they really ought to have their head examined.  I'm convinced that Alex Jones believes in every conspiracy theory, all at the same time.

Now, as to your argument: I can't be sure, but that campus looks like UCSD, arguably the top school in San Diego.  UCSD has a student body of over 30,000.  Getting 14 people to sign up who were probably rushing off to class and likely had more on their mind than what the guy with the clipboard was telling them does not really hold much argumentative weight.  On every California campus there are these paid petition-holders whose only job is to get signatures for legislation.  Because of the legislative-referral system in California, signing a petition does not say "Yes, I agree with this measure", it merely means "I agree that this measure should go to the polls."  Sure, there were probably a few students who heard this guy's spiel and thought "Yeah, this is a great idea!" But then again, people read Infowars, so take that as you will.  It's as @TLDR20 said, people are allowed to have shitty opinions.  They have as much value as the homeless guy downtown chasitising the FBI for hacking his brain.

As to your last comment, I'm not going to address that.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 5, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Flippant may have been the wrong word. I guess I should have used Websters before I posted, but what you did do was take one example and then vastly over generalize. You said that if even one person signed this there is something grossly wrong with society. Really? I can find someone who doesn't believe in the moon landings, that doesn't mean the fabric of our society is falling apart, it means I found one idiot. Same as this video, he doesn't show the thousands of people who walked right by, or asked intelligent questions. Nonetheless you made a generalization that I found pretty silly. Sorry that I used the wrong adjective.



TLDR, Training Circular 2-33.4 Intelligence Analysis Appendix A has a listing of Analytic Pitfalls analysts run into.  Instead of flippant you could have used:
1. Oversimplification
2. Hasty Generalization
3. False Cause
4. Misusing Analagies
5. Absence of Evidence
6. Persistence of Impressions Based Upon Discredited Evidence

All of which I think would have been very applicable.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 8, 2014)

I just cant stop giggling....
http://www.buffalonews.com/city-reg...tes-defend-man-who-had-gun-in-school-20140207



> Dwayne Ferguson spent more than a decade advocating for nonviolence and peace in the streets of Buffalo.
> He was a well-known face in the movement for the SAFE Act, the state law that made carrying a gun on school property a felony. He was also a familiar presence in the hallways of the city’s Harvey Austin Elementary School, where he worked in the after-school program and mentored students.
> No one imagined that on Thursday he would show up at the school in possession of a gun, touching off an hours-long lockdown, search and ultimately his arrest on two felony charges.
> Ferguson, 52, told WGRZ-TV that he frequently carries the gun, for which he has a permit, and did not realize he had it on him when he went to the school as part of the mentoring program.





> He was among local activists who stood with Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples-Stokes last year lobbying for a law that would make possessing a gun on school property a felony. Prior to New York State’s adoption of the SAFE Act last year, in response to the Sandy Hook school massacre in Connecticut, it was a long-established state law that guns could not be brought onto school property. The only difference was that the crime carried less punishment as a misdemeanor.
> In an ironic turn of events, Ferguson was charged with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon under that law for Thursday’s incident. The law carries a maximum sentence of up to four years in state prison.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 8, 2014)

Schadenfreude, it's what's for dinner.


----------



## pardus (Feb 9, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> I just cant stop giggling....
> http://www.buffalonews.com/city-reg...tes-defend-man-who-had-gun-in-school-20140207



Karma's a bitch! LMFAO!

I can only hope he gets ass raped in jail


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 10, 2014)

That's a pretty bonehead move.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 10, 2014)

Well, you have to understand he didn't think the laws apply to him.  Obviously, HE can be trusted with a gun; it's the unwashed masses that are the problem.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 10, 2014)

I think that a lot of people forget why we have a constitution what it is for and how it is supposed to protect the unpopular rights from the popular thinking of a period in time. If this country as a whole really supported gun control or the removal of the right to keep and bear arms, why has the constitution not been amended? If the issue is so important, why do they use the passing of laws and the implementation of executive orders to circumvent a constitutionally protected right? IMO, it is because the majority of Americans will never support such an amendment, ever… I believe the people who do get into office, by whatever means, who have personal agendas or who are the front of their supporters (not the people but the lobbyist) agenda, know that it will never be possible to pass such an amendment. Thus they use laws, regulations and orders to bypass the constitution in order to further the agenda past what the majority actually want. They do this in ways that the American people are left with little recourse to change.

Deathy, you seem to have the idea that the current system of government works, and that people simply don’t like or follow the process. Or that the three branches of our government are not corrupted by agendas that have been laid out over centuries of careful planning and organization. The truth is that anyone who thinks that there is a conspiracy within our government, is quickly laughed away and made to be a conspiracy theorist and more or less made to be a fool. Although in many cases conspiracies probably do not exist and are there for groundless and should be met with constructive criticism. I think it also is foolish for people to blindly believe that every proposed conspiracy is crazy tin foil hattery.

You think Obama is not going to go after guns, he has been trying to since he got into office. His party wants to take guns (mainly any gun that possess a matching fire power to any civil authority) away. Why? To save the children? To save us from our selves? Why? If the American people really wanted this, why not propose a amendment to the constitution (that requires a 2/3 majority of the states) and let the cards fall where they may? Why do they want laws, regulations and executive orders, instead of letting the people decide? I believe it is really simple, they can influence the people, but they cannot control them. They can however, control all three branches of government, twist outcomes, and achieve their agendas and reduce the ability of the people to have recourse by chumming up the system. Either it be by finical influence, political pressures, or appointing the right Supreme Court justice, they can work the balances of power in their favor. When it comes to actual amendments to the constitution, they cannot, without the direct consent of the people. And IMHO, that is exactly why they attempt to go around the constitution or simply nullify it through chumming the legal waters and insuring influences in all steps of the process.

I do not agree with your opinions about Obama, I think you are giving the man far too much credit, and why I am not sure. However, I will state that I do value your opinions, regardless how much I may agree or disagree with whichever the current one may be. I would encourage you to unplug from the media influences of this issue, and do some historical research on gun control, and who and how many people, to include many supreme court justices have destroyed your seconded amendment right and put us in the political discourse and separations of government powers from the powers of the people. It really is not as simple as electing the right people, or taking XYZ’s justices opinion and or ruling. There are deeply rooted problems surrounding the issue of the second amendment, that cannot be simply taken a face value.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 10, 2014)

I should preface this entire post by saying I AM ANTI-GUN CONTROL.  Also, almost every reference I make here is to federal law, not state law.  Make sure to take that into consideration.



JAB said:


> I think that a lot of people forget why we have a constitution what it is for and how it is supposed to protect the unpopular rights from the popular thinking of a period in time. If this country as a whole really supported gun control or the removal of the right to keep and bear arms, why has the constitution not been amended?


The second amendment is just that - a constitutional amendment.



> If the issue is so important, why do they use the passing of laws and the implementation of executive orders to circumvent a constitutionally protected right? IMO, it is because the majority of Americans will never support such an amendment, ever… I believe the people who do get into office, by whatever means, who have personal agendas or who are the front of their supporters (not the people but the lobbyist) agenda, know that it will never be possible to pass such an amendment. Thus they use laws, regulations and orders to bypass the constitution in order to further the agenda past what the majority actually want. They do this in ways that the American people are left with little recourse to change.


How are laws "bypassing" the constitution?  You're going to need to be more specific.  The constitution and its amendments are deliberately vague, and issues pertaining to them need to be codified by laws and court rulings.  Lawmakers in 1938, for example, realized that it would be harmful to the public good if firearm sales were completely unregulated, and if felons were allowed to possess firearms.  Thus, they passed the Federal Firearms Act, which (among other things) created FFLs.  Is that infringing on your right to keep and bear arms? No.  It IS a measure of control over who can sell them, but it in no way violates the letter or spirit of the second amendment.    These laws are passed because the constitution and its amendments don't always give us hard and fast rules over how to govern.  I mean, look at how many first amendment restrictions there are!  I would argue that many of them, like prohibition against libel and slander, are in the public interest.  Are there some laws that try to restrict other facets of gun ownership?  Sure there are.  The passage of the LEO Safety act of 1986 made the sale of armor-piercing ammunition illegal.  Is that infringing on the right to keep and bear arms?  No.  Does it prevent you from having certain ammunition?  Yes.  Ammunition, however, is not a constitutionally protected right.  These are things you need to consider when you say that laws are "circumventing a constitutionally protected right."
Before you bring the up the AWB of 1994, I'm totally with you.  That law was bogus and unconstitutional as FUCK.



> Deathy, you seem to have the idea that the current system of government works, and that people simply don’t like or follow the process. Or that the three branches of our government are not corrupted by agendas that have been laid out over centuries of careful planning and organization. The truth is that anyone who thinks that there is a conspiracy within our government, is quickly laughed away and made to be a conspiracy theorist and more or less made to be a fool. Although in many cases conspiracies probably do not exist and are there for groundless and should be met with constructive criticism. I think it also is foolish for people to blindly believe that every proposed conspiracy is crazy tin foil hattery.


If you look at it holistically, the government DOES work.  It does not work with great efficiency, nor does it work the way you or I want it to some of the time, but laws still get passed, court cases are ruled on, and things happen.  I can understand how it would be hard to have a positive impression of government when all we hear about is how the sky is falling, but if you're like me and you follow politics pretty closely, you'll see that's there's more happening than the headlines would have you believe.  And of course politicians have agendas!  They wouldn't be representing their constituencies if they didn't have a plan when they came into office.  I would be highly suspicious of any politician who claimed he or she _didn't_ have an agenda upon getting into office.  But plotting and politicking is not just about idealism.  It's about being able to give and take, and to be able to use political capital when you have it.  The democrats have not had the political capital to pass any gun control measures for years now.  I posted this back in November, but it bears repeating:


Deathy McDeath said:


> I think the biggest gain [after Sandy Hook], overall, has been the public's general weariness of gun control issues.  Sure, after Sandy Hook it was all the rage to ban guns and whatnot.  But we've had a series of high-profile shootings in the past few months, and there have been very few (if any) national calls for action.  It seems as if the public just doesn't want to hear about gun control any more, and wants to focus on something more pressing (like mental health issues).


Do you know how many federal gun laws have passed under the Obama administration?  Two.  One allowed people to carry in national parks, and another allows them to carry on Amtrak trains.  A cursory glance at govtrack.us shows that the docket is quite full of proposed gun control measures, including Feinstein's backalley abortion of an AWB that thankfully will never see the light of day.  So yes, I acknowledge that the President and Democrats want gun control.  Do I think they can get it?  No.  Not only no, but fuck no.  If they couldn't get it done after Sandy Hook, they sure as hell aren't going to get it done before 2015 rolls around and the 113th congress dumps the docket.

Also, what do you mean "corrupted by agendas that have been laid out over centuries of careful planning and organization"?  That's....I don't even know what that is.



> You think Obama is not going to go after guns, he has been trying to since he got into office.


Like I said before, I think that he WANTS to, but I don't think he is GOING to.  I think that he realizes that federal gun control is a fool's errand, and is more likely to lose his party congressional seats than gain anything worthwhile.



> His party wants to take guns (mainly any gun that possess a matching fire power to any civil authority) away. Why? To save the children? To save us from our selves? Why? If the American people really wanted this, why not propose a amendment to the constitution (that requires a 2/3 majority of the states) and let the cards fall where they may? Why do they want laws, regulations and executive orders, instead of letting the people decide?


You're saying a bunch of different things here so let me address them one by one.  The Democrats want to regulate guns, yes.  Why?  I don't know.  They're scary (to them).  What do you mean by "mainly any gun that possess a matching fire power to any civil authority"?  Are you implying that democrats want to take away guns so that citizens can't fight back?  If that's your argument, I find that highly specious and would like to see how you arrived at that conclusion.
As to your amendment question: 1) Nobody except a bunch of fringe liberals (who are conveniently in the minority right now) wants a sweeping gun ban, 2) The federal government doesn't work on a referendum system so "letting the people decide" is not a simple option, we "let the people decide" by holding free and fair elections for state and federal representatives.



> I do not agree with your opinions about Obama, I think you are giving the man far too much credit, and why I am not sure. However, I will state that I do value your opinions, regardless how much I may agree or disagree with whichever the current one may be. I would encourage you to unplug from the media influences of this issue, and do some historical research on gun control, and who and how many people, to include many supreme court justices have destroyed your seconded amendment right and put us in the political discourse and separations of government powers from the powers of the people. It really is not as simple as electing the right people, or taking XYZ’s justices opinion and or ruling. There are deeply rooted problems surrounding the issue of the second amendment, that cannot be simply taken a face value.


I give Obama credit because he understands that Sandy Hook was his last chance to get any sort of gun control legislation passed.  He understands that the topic is deeply unpopular, and though I'm sure that a lot of you guys like to think he's a blind ideologue (which is true in some cases), he's still a politician and he knows when he faces a losing proposition.  That's the crux of it all: he knows that gun control is a zero-sum game for him and the party.  Any paltry legislative victory he might get will ultimately hurt the party, so I believe he will not risk it.
As far as the supreme court goes, the bench rulings from the last ten years or so have been great for gun owners.  In DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago, the Supreme Court _finally_ incorporated that second amendment, and asserted that it was an individual right instead of state right.  I think it's been a great decade for pro-gun Supreme Court rulings.

I think the rest of us should take care not to conflate the word "unconstitutional" with "immoral".  They are two separate words and have two different meanings.  As such, something can be immoral while also not being unconstitutional.  Murder, for instance, is never mentioned in the constitution.  While it is immoral, it is not unconstitutional. 
Unless a thing is specifically mentioned in the constitution, its amendments, or constitutional case law, it is likely not unconstitutional.  Just something to consider.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 11, 2014)

Good post dude…


Deathy McDeath said:


> I should preface this entire post by saying I AM ANTI-GUN CONTROL.  Also, almost every reference I make here is to federal law, not state law.  Make sure to take that into consideration.
> 
> You state that you are anti-gun-control, but yet you have also stated in past posts that you are okay with what “you consider reasonable measures” like the executive orders that Obama signed applying more restriction on the ability to purchase a gun (which is gun control, regardless how you would like to dumb it down). And this is really where I normally have major differences with people regarding gun control. I read the constitution and take it at its face value, I don’t attempt to twist it, and I don’t try to discover the meanings of the time. I take it for the plain English it was written in. IMO, Gun control of any kind, is unconstitutional. As long as the second amendment reads the way it does, any measure to restrict gun ownership is in fact going against the wording of the 2A.
> 
> ...


 

Okay I am getting bored here, I get it, you think everything is awesome in our government, it’s just a few crazy liberals who want my gun, the supreme court is in our corner, Obama is not so bad, etc.

Obama has very little to do with it, he is just the current face of it, I am not going to spend hours educating you on the reasons, history and providing you with data. If you are interested in the facts, I recommend you research gun control in the USA, between 1865 to 1880’ish. Than research Gun Control on a global scale between 1880’ish to 1975’ish. Than if you would really like to really educate your self on the issue, research currency and banking, and where and how it ties into countries who passed gun control during those specific time periods. You might also be interested in looking into the global genocides of the 20th century, where gun control was enacted and which banking firms were involved within those countries in regards to currency, etc.

I know, I am just a crazy guy, completely unplugged from reality, fear mongering and turning everything I see into a conspiracy….


----------



## pardus (Feb 11, 2014)

JAB said:


> I read the constitution and take it at its face value, I don’t attempt to twist it, and I don’t try to discover the meanings of the time. I take it for the plain English it was written in. IMO, Gun control of any kind, is unconstitutional. As long as the second amendment reads the way it does, any measure to restrict gun ownership is in fact going against the wording of the 2A.



With regards to the portion of your post above, @x SF med brought up a point that was hugely significant to me at least. 



> 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.



That would seem to allow for restrictions without infringement.
What is your take on that?


----------



## The Hate Ape (Feb 11, 2014)

Constitutionals scholars have argued the "well-regulated" topic. 

Two Supreme Court rulings; _District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008_ and _McDonald v Chicago, 2010_ state the 2nd Amendment guarantees individuals & collectives alike the right to bear arms but there are instances (e.g., regulating the sale of "assault weapons") in which local, state, and federal governments do have the right to regulate the sale and use of arms.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 11, 2014)

pardus said:


> With regards to the portion of your post above, @x SF med brought up a point that was hugely significant to me at least.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I view as it is, its a statement of why the right shall not be infringed. The militia is the people and the regulation of said militia belongs to the state. However again the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is very clear, as it clearly tells the federal government that they cannot infringe upon the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

I also responded to X SF Meds statement, the same way he attempted to use the preamble (which is nothing more than and intro) to state the federal government can use it to regulate the bill of rights. Again its more or less attempting to twist wording and means to support ones views.

Deathy stated murder was not covered under the constitution, and he is correct, this is b/c the states are intended to govern themselves, again you have to remember the state came before the federal union.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 11, 2014)

JAB said:


> ...
> I also responded to X SF Meds statement, the same way he attempted to use the preamble (which is nothing more than and intro) to state the federal government can use it to regulate the bill of rights. Again its more or less attempting to twist wording and means to support ones views.
> 
> ...



JAB, the Preamble is the Thesis Statement for the entire Constitution - it clearly states the reasons and the precepts for the remainder of the document - who wrote it "We the People of the United States" why it was written "In order to form a more perfect Union," what it hopes to use to accomplish the goal "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, _provide for the common defense, _promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty" who it will benefit " to ourselves and our Posterity," and finally the name "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Article I section 1. then states: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives."   These are the guys who make the laws and amend the laws to make sure the goals and practices and wants of the people should be carried through.   Our problem in all of this is the Constitution was written with the "Citizen Legislator" in mind, not professional politicians who are out for their own good (essentially prohibited by the Constitution) rather than the wants of their constituency.

You may argue 'strict Constitutionalism' on your part, but you actually mean static constitutionalism, but, my friend, the world ahs evolved, technologies have developed, and populations have grown immensely- and have been concentrated in areas where they cannot produce their own sustenance.  Yes, the ideas are valid, the spirit is valid, but the document was written in a prior world - it has to evolve, or it does become stale - evolve to meet the changing world, but not evolve to change the ideology of the founders - which is clearly stated in the Preamble.

I can disagree with decisions made by the various administrations from inception of the Constitution to today...  and Yes, I still believe in the 2nd Amendment, but regulation is necessary in today's world - due to the technologies, population densities and sheer laziness of today's citizens.

The articles of the Constitution have been changed by amendment, but never has the Preamble been changed...  not even the skeeviest of political mole rats has even attempted it - because it is the tone, the heart, and the soul of the Constitution - it carries the basic ideals on which this country was founded.

Your self styled homegrown Constitutionalism is akin to some of the most corrupt Puritanical Christians, Fundamental Muslims, Fascists, Nazis or Bolshevik Communists because there is no tempering of the letter of the writing with the spirit of the writing.  Has the ideology of the Constitution been corrupted by self serving but well meaning political hacks?  Hell yes, but has there also been truly inspired adaptation by amendment  of the Constitution...

You want people to hear and follow you - get into politics, or start your own religion or political party - but make sure you know what you want and why you want it before you start - nothing is more dangerous than a well meaning man without the full information needed for the mission.


----------



## pardus (Feb 11, 2014)

JAB said:


> I view as it is, its a statement of why the right shall not be infringed. The militia is the people and the regulation of said militia belongs to the state. However again the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is very clear, as it clearly tells the federal government that they cannot infringe upon the peoples right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> I also responded to X SF Meds statement, the same way he attempted to use the preamble (which is nothing more than and intro) to state the federal government can use it to regulate the bill of rights. Again its more or less attempting to twist wording and means to support ones views.
> 
> Deathy stated murder was not covered under the constitution, and he is correct, this is b/c the states are intended to govern themselves, again you have to remember the state came before the federal union.



Thanks.

So you're cool with the State imposing the regulation but not the Feds?

To my shame I'm not super knowledgeable on the Constitution and the details of it's formation. My knowledge is mainly big picture, not detailed.


----------



## 0699 (Feb 11, 2014)

x SF med said:


> JAB, the Preamble is the Thesis Statement for the entire Constitution - it clearly states the reasons and the precepts for the remainder of the document - who wrote it "We the People of the United States" why it was written "In order to form a more perfect Union," what it hopes to use to accomplish the goal "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, _provide for the common defense, _promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty" who it will benefit " to ourselves and our Posterity," and finally the name "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


 
//HIJACK//

To this day, I have to sing the Preamble to get the words right.  When I read the above thread, I started singing in my head...

//HIJACK OFF//


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 12, 2014)

@x SF med, I do argue for strict constitutionalism as it is the only way to limit the federal government, but I have never argued for a static constitution. You seem to like to tweak my posts to suit your personal opinion. So let me spell it out very clearly for you…

The US constitution is a living document, it has the ability to be amended, it purposes is to form and outline the federal government, the powers it holds in each branch of government and the powers it does not. Those powers that the three branches of government DO NOT hold are reserved to the PEOPLE. The Federal government is supposed to be a government of the people and for the people, however, just as today and just as the time when the document was drafted, there have always been people who wanted to centralize power in the federal government (i.e. remove the power from the people).

Preamble defined by online dictionary:
*pre·am·ble*
1.an introductory statement; preface; introduction. _Synonyms: _opening, beginning; foreword, prologue, prelude. _Antonyms: _epilogue, appendix, conclusion, afterword, closing.
2.the introductory part of a statute, deed, or the like, stating the reasons and intent of what follows.
3.a preliminary or introductory fact or circumstance: _Hischildhoodintheslumswasapreambletoalifeofcrime._
4.( _initialcapitalletter_) the introductory statement of the U.S.constitution, setting forth the general principles of American government and beginning with the words, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. …”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/preamble

So yeah, as I said before, it’s and intro to the constitution. Again, it’s a plain English thing…
I do not want people to follow me, nor do I want people to take my word for anything. I would like people too actually: 1) research the actual constitution, 2) the history of it, and 3) understand it.

The problem as I see it is that a lot of people claim the same thing as you, the constitution is an old document from a different world, and it does not support the problems of today. I completely disagree. The document can be amended by a 2/3rds majority of the states; it can be modified to allow more and less power to the federal government, and just because the people (i.e. the states) do not want to change it, doesn’t mean the federal government has the authority to circumvent the document or assert power where they do not possess power.



x SF med said:


> *Your self styled homegrown Constitutionalism is akin to some of the most corrupt Puritanical Christians, Fundamental Muslims, Fascists, Nazis or Bolshevik Communists because there is no tempering of the letter of the writing with the spirit of the writing*. Has the ideology of the Constitution been corrupted by self serving but well meaning political hacks? Hell yes, but has there also been truly inspired adaptation by amendment of the Constitution...
> 
> *You want people to hear and follow you - get into politics, or start your own religion or political party* - but make sure you know what you want and why you want it before you start - nothing is more dangerous than a well meaning man without the full information needed for the mission.


 

^^^^^This right here is silly and unnecessary.

@pardus, I do believe the states have the right to regulate firearms within their state borders to some level. An example would be passing a law requiring anyone who carries a firearm to keep it concealed or for them to be licensed, or even the type of weapon they may carry. However, I do not believe they restrict the ability for a state resident and non resident to travel with a firearm, regardless of type, etc. So take NY, they can restrict Newyorkers, but if I am traveling through NY, they have no athourity to restrict me, as I am traveling with my property, and it would be unreasonable for someone to give up or loose property in order to travel through NY. That is diving into another issue regarding the right to travel, and although important to this topic, a bit of a side rail.

What most people confuse is attempting to define “the people” and “the state” although the state is a formed government, it is in fact the people as well. So in theory, if the the people, pass laws restricting their own rights, and they are giving powers of governance to the state over protected rights of the people, than it’s very hard to argue that it is not legal for the state to enforce such laws. However, and this is what you are seeing with business and free markets, the people, have the ability to leave X state for Y state, to escape perceived infringement of their personal liberties, and or taxesation without proper representation. Hint’s companies like MAGPUL leaving CO, for TX and WY, or USAA leaving CA for TX, or even people leaving NY and IL to move to more gun friendly states, etc.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 12, 2014)

0699 said:


> //HIJACK//
> 
> To this day, I have to sing the Preamble to get the words right.  When I read the above thread, I started singing in my head...
> 
> //HIJACK OFF//


Do you sing it to the tune of "Dancing Queen"?


----------



## pardus (Feb 12, 2014)

Thanks @JAB


----------



## JBS (Feb 12, 2014)

Can a mod/admin please PM me (or post it on the thread, either way) with why my post in this thread was deleted?


----------



## x SF med (Feb 12, 2014)

@JAB - take a look at your definition #4 - and the section that reads: "...setting forth the general principles of American government..."  It would behoove you to fully read a definition you are setting out as total fact, when that same definition directly states the differential connotations in a specific case and qualifies them in such away as to give, in the specific case mentioned, a more finely tuned and absolute definition.  In this case, based on your own 'research' and a logical fallacy, you have negated your argument by using an argument based on a wrong premise.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 12, 2014)

x SF med said:


> @JAB - take a look at your definition #4 - and the section that reads: "...setting forth the general principles of American government..."  It would behoove you to fully read a definition you are setting out as total fact, when that same definition directly states the differential connotations in a specific case and qualifies them in such away as to give, in the specific case mentioned, a more finely tuned and absolute definition.  In this case, based on your own 'research' and a logical fallacy, you have negated your argument by using an argument based on a wrong premise.



I read it dude, however you want to twist it, it is what it is. The preamble is an intro to the constitution and gives zero powers by way of the preamble to the federal government, as you attempted to imply by use of definition in regards to the bill of rights. 

It's obvious that the way you are attempting to define meaning or interpret the meaning of the US constitution is not something I agree with. I am not going to try and call you names or attack your intellect over it, we should probably leave it at a disagreement as I have clearly stated my opinions and reasoning many times throughout this thread.


----------



## JHD (Feb 12, 2014)

I don't know if this will help clarify anything or not...

but in my position, I interpret and determine how to implement legislation and regulations for my employer.  In doing so, I MUST read and consider the preamble.  In the definition of preamble above @JAB, you included "the introductory part of a statute, deed, or the like, stating the reasons and intent of what follows".  In determining the letter and spirit or the legislation and implementing regulations, the preamble lays out the intent of the regulation and the why's, which helps determine how to implement the regulations.  The SCOTUS applies similar principles when they review cases brought before them, looking at what the regulation says and what was the intent.

So even though the preamble is the introduction, it must be included as part of The Constitution when determining what the intent was by the Founding Fathers.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 12, 2014)

JHD said:


> I don't know if this will help clarify anything or not...
> 
> but in my position, I interpret and determine how to implement legislation and regulations for my employer.  In doing so, I MUST read and consider the preamble.  In the definition of preamble above @JAB, you included "the introductory part of a statute, deed, or the like, stating the reasons and intent of what follows".  In determining the letter and spirit or the legislation and implementing regulations, the preamble lays out the intent of the regulation and the why's, which helps determine how to implement the regulations.  The SCOTUS applies similar principles when they review cases brought before them, looking at what the regulation says and what was the intent.
> 
> So even though the preamble is the introduction, it must be included as part of The Constitution when determining what the intent was by the Founding Fathers.



Okay, but again, has no application to granting powers, especially in regards to the bill of rights.

I get what you are saying, I'm not sure if you are understanding my point. You can read the preamble and say "oh okay this is why they decided on x-y-z. However, it has zero legal bearing on the powers granted to the government or the rights reserved by the people. You cannot take the preamble and the 2A and say well because they used these words here and there we can change the overall meaning of the 2A. Example being: well regulated militia, trumps the right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed, because in the preamble it states domestic tranquility and welfare, etc.

If you go back a few pages that is how X SF med presented his argument, which is very much IMO an attempt to twist wording with meaning.


Eitherway, the courts have never used the preamble as the sole means to decide constitutionality. Because, regardless how you want to use it, it has no legal standing as a measure of athourity or grant of powers, it is legally nothing more than an introduction to the constitution. Can it be referenced, sure, but can it alone justify congress passing laws for social welfare, or other issues? No.


----------



## JHD (Feb 12, 2014)

In your comment:
"You cannot take the preamble and the 2A and say well because they used these words here and there we can change the overall meaning of the 2A. Example being: well regulated militia, trumps the right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed, because in the preamble it states domestic tranquility and welfare, etc."

If I were interpreting this back in the day to see if the Preamble trumped 2A, I would say "no, it doesn't trump."  They work together.

I would be completely comfortable arguing that a well regulated militia goes along with "provide for the common defense."  Also, ensuring domestic tranquility goes along with the establishment of the courts and justice system, which is separate from the militia and providing for the common defense and ensuring the blessings of liberty.  I don't think they are contradictory at all, but work in tandem.  I agree the Preamble isn't Law, but in drafting any amendments to the Constitution, the Preamble guidance and intent would/should be taken into consideration.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 13, 2014)

JHD said:


> In your comment:
> "You cannot take the preamble and the 2A and say well because they used these words here and there we can change the overall meaning of the 2A. Example being: well regulated militia, trumps the right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed, because in the preamble it states domestic tranquility and welfare, etc."
> 
> If I were interpreting this back in the day to see if the Preamble trumped 2A, I would say "no, it doesn't trump."  They work together.
> ...


 
I can agree with you on this.
My overall point is that some attempt to use the preamble as a means to justify enacting gun control laws that are in direct contradiction to the 2A. I think that is wrong, and a misuse of the preamble.


----------



## pardus (Feb 13, 2014)

JAB said:


> I can agree with you on this.
> My overall point is that some attempt to use the preamble as a means to justify enacting gun control laws that are in direct contradiction to the 2A. I think that is wrong, and a misuse of the preamble.



JAB, I think you are overlooking "A well regulated". That is part of the 2nd Amendment, like it or not.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 13, 2014)

pardus said:


> JAB, I think you are overlooking "A well regulated". That is part of the 2nd Amendment, like it or not.



How so?


----------



## pardus (Feb 13, 2014)

JAB said:


> How so?



Because you appear to be discounting that portion of the 2nd A. It's in there as clear as "shall not be infringed", and therefore is just as important, it doesn't negate "shall not be infringed" either. 

I'm a huge gun fan, I want to own everything, I want to govt to leave me the fuck alone, but I understand there is a need for restrictions of some kind. I feel we have more than enough restrictions now and I'm against anymore, but I do see the need for some of the restrictions in place, e.g.  restrictions on mentally deficient people, felons etc... to own firearms.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 13, 2014)

JBS said:


> Can a mod/admin please PM me (or post it on the thread, either way) with why my post in this thread was deleted?



Hey brother, we polled the staff and no one remembers deleting your post.  Either a member of the staff deleted it accidentally, doesn't remember deleting it, or one of the members of the staff who is away on business did it.   If you remember what you wrote, PM me with it.


----------



## Brill (Feb 14, 2014)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4f4-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html?hpid=z5

Federal court strikes down Cali's requirement that CCW applicants show good cause in order to be granted a permit.

MD has the EXACT same requirement, which was too stuck down in Federal court only to be upheld in appellate court.  Impact?

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ard-v-sheridan-decision-mean-to-other-states/


----------



## JBS (Feb 14, 2014)

Marauder06 said:


> Hey brother, we polled the staff and no one remembers deleting your post.  Either a member of the staff deleted it accidentally, doesn't remember deleting it, or one of the members of the staff who is away on business did it.   If you remember what you wrote, PM me with it.


Thank you, sir.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 14, 2014)

lindy said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4f4-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html?hpid=z5
> 
> Federal court strikes down Cali's requirement that CCW applicants show good cause in order to be granted a permit.
> 
> ...


This is awesome.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 14, 2014)

pardus said:


> Because you appear to be discounting that portion of the 2nd A. It's in there as clear as "shall not be infringed", and therefore is just as important, it doesn't negate "shall not be infringed" either.
> 
> I'm a huge gun fan, I want to own everything, I want to govt to leave me the fuck alone, but I understand there is a need for restrictions of some kind. I feel we have more than enough restrictions now and I'm against anymore, but I do see the need for some of the restrictions in place, e.g.  restrictions on mentally deficient people, felons etc... to own firearms.



A well regulated diet being necessary to the security of your health, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

Unless of course we think what your eating is unhealthy, and we decided to restrict what foods you can have and or eat, how much food your refrigerator can hold, where you can eat that food, etc.

Again, the comma is important, as its making a statement of why, followed by the right of the people.


----------



## pardus (Feb 14, 2014)

JAB said:


> A well regulated diet being necessary to the security of your health, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.
> 
> Unless of course we think what your eating is unhealthy, and we decided to restrict what foods you can have and or eat, how much food your refrigerator can hold, where you can eat that food, etc.
> 
> Again, the comma is important, as its making a statement of why, followed by the right of the people.



You seem to be negating part of the 2nd Amendment in favor of the part you like which I don't understand. Regulation doesn't equate to infringement. Every right is regulated.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 14, 2014)

pardus said:


> You seem to be negating part of the 2nd Amendment in favor of the part you like which I don't understand. Regulation doesn't equate to infringement. Every right is regulated.



No I'm not, I am just not trying to twist the verbiage to suit my opinion. I know most rights are being regulated, that doesn't mean it is constitutional or right.

Take full auto for example, there is absolutely zero reason to regulated full auto, its just stupid. Suppressors, same thing.

It is impossible to go through daily activity and not commit some sort of a crime, regardless how minor the crime. Felons pay a debt to society before being released from prison/parole. Why should they after paying their debt to society, be exempt from self protection?

Why should someone who.has been treated for a mental illness lose their right to self protection?

If we are so afraid of the felon and the crazy, why allow them back into society?

More to the point, why should law abiding citizens be punished and restricted, because of the actions of criminals and mentally ill. I mean really, the logic just doesn't make any sense at all.


----------



## pardus (Feb 14, 2014)

JAB said:


> No I'm not, I am just not trying to twist the verbiage to suit my opinion. I know most rights are being regulated, that doesn't mean it is constitutional or right.
> 
> Take full auto for example, there is absolutely zero reason to regulated full auto, its just stupid. Suppressors, same thing.
> 
> ...



JAB, the second amendment says that gun rights should be regulated. Which means it's Constitutional and Right. You are the one 'twisting the verbiage' and I really don't understand why you are doing that.


----------



## Rabid Badger (Feb 14, 2014)

I'm still trying to find where the 2A says; [Originally posted by pardus] [JAB, *the second amendment says that gun rights should be regulated.* Which means it's Constitutional and Right. You are the one 'twisting the verbiage' and I really don't understand why you are doing that.]


> As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:[29]
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...


​


----------



## pardus (Feb 14, 2014)

RB said:


> I'm still trying to find where the 2A says; [Originally posted by pardus] [JAB, *the second amendment says that gun rights should be regulated.* Which means it's Constitutional and Right. You are the one 'twisting the verbiage' and I really don't understand why you are doing that.]
> 
> ​



Read the first four words of the 2nd Amendment. Give me your take on it if you disagree that it means our gun rights should be regulated.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 14, 2014)

Use the reasonable man theory here people...  would a reasonable man hand a gun to a felon, a child, or a mentally or emotionally damaged individual?  That in itself is regulation, by the same account, the spirit of the 2nd Amendment is that those who would qualify for the militia would own guns, and along with that right comes the responsibility of protecting your neighbors and the country as a whole when called.   By this reasoning - a sane, healthy non-felon should be afforded the opportunity to own reasonable weapons for self and proximal protection.  Note, that a militia is a secondary force of protection, and when that militia is seconded under an army, then it should have the same military arms as their primary force.  In peacetime why would a citizen need an automatic weapon to protect a homestead, or a suppressor?   Magazine limitations are foolish, but a drum magazine is not reasonable in a normal hunting or home security situation.  A limit on belt fed, fully auto weapons is prudent - and rational.  and that is regulation, by reason.  Unreasonable regulation is like in NY, NJ, and IL where even hunters are restricted in ownership, and normal capacity of manufactured firearms.  An AR platform weapon was designed for a 20-30 rd mag, not a 7 rd magazine.  Is the regulation to semi-only reasonable, imho, yes it is.  A pistol designed for 16 rounds should hold 16 rounds.

The point is moot in the argument - the 2nd Amendment does call for regulation to support a militia - and prudent safe use by the populace, not to form an armed camp of vigilantes and marauders... 

JAB, if somebody handed one of your kids a loaded pistol and defended it by saying, it's the kid's 2nd Amendment Right, would you agree, or wait until you thought your kid was ready, trained and responsible enough to have a loaded pistol.  That's fucking regulation too, why are you better than the government to regulate firearms in the hands of anybody?

again - this is all moot - and the argumentum ad absurdum of the food regulation was nowhere even close to a reasonable argument.  when our society regains its moral, ethical and logical compass this argument will cease to be a talking point...  we are nowhere close to regaining that.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 14, 2014)

pardus said:


> JAB, the second amendment says that gun rights should be regulated. Which means it's Constitutional and Right. You are the one 'twisting the verbiage' and I really don't understand why you are doing that.



I am not sure where you are seeing that the bill of "rights" would give the government power to regulate the very rights that are protected. Your use of "a well regulated militia" is incorrect, I've tried to point that out, maybe someone else will do a better job. Simply put, even SCOTUS who magically believes that 2A can be regulated, doesn't use "a well regulated militia" as the means.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 14, 2014)

@x SF med, are you kidding me? 

As a parent of course I have more say in the protection and or education of my child. Lets not bring my kids into this argument as you probably will be astonished at how a 6 year old is more safe, proficient and trustworthy, than many of the soldiers and cops I've come across.

The moral compass argument is a good one, but I see it from the otherside of the coin. How is it being moral for a government of a free people in restricting protected rights of the people. This same clowns who work deals to implant their ideas of social justice while conducting themselves as they are above the free citizen and the laws they inact to restrict those free citizens. More over how is it moral to punish law abiding people, due to the actions of criminals and mentally ill.

Your argument is weak sauce my friend.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 14, 2014)

JAB said:


> I am not sure where you are seeing that the bill of "rights" would give the government power to regulate the very rights that are protected....



Changing the ability of formerly prohibited races or a gender is not changing the Constitution?  In it's own body, the Constitution calls for the ability to change the Constitution by amendment - and you are arguing that any change is wrong...in reference to one of the first changes to that document... the second change, to be exact...  so you don't believe the Constitution should be changed but argue that the second change to that selfsame document in unassailable by virtue of it's placement in that document.   This is what is known as circular logic, and requires a suspension of disbelief to argue...


----------



## pardus (Feb 14, 2014)

JAB said:


> I am not sure where you are seeing that the bill of "rights" would give the government power to regulate the very rights that are protected. Your use of "a well regulated militia" is incorrect, I've tried to point that out, maybe someone else will do a better job. Simply put, even SCOTUS who magically believes that 2A can be regulated, doesn't use "a well regulated militia" as the means.



You haven't pointed out anything at all coherent with regards to "a well regulated militia", I wish you would.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 14, 2014)

JAB said:


> @x SF med, are you kidding me?
> 
> As a parent of course I have more say in the protection and or education of my child. Lets not bring my kids into this argument as you probably will be astonished at how a 6 year old is more safe, proficient and trustworthy, than many of the soldiers and cops I've come across.
> 
> ...




Do you not have that same moral and ethical right to protect others in the community/country by dint of your acceptance to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic?   the argument is not weak from the Judeo-Christian Underpinnings of the Constitution, and the founding of this country - all citizens, by your argument, should be treated the same, right?  Are children not citizens?  Should we not allow them the same rights as we deserve?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 14, 2014)

Friday night and the live band ain't bad.... I'll reply to both of your posts tomorrow.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Feb 15, 2014)

In debating/discussing the 2nd Amendment in general, & the "well regulated" portion in particular, it's important to note that there are variations in interpretation-not just from legal scholars, but Supreme Court rulings as well. Those interested in the latter should look at United States v. Miller, District of Columbia v. Heller, & McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Most important of these rulings regarding the current debate here is Heller. There, they make the distinction between the operative clause ("the right of the people to keep & bear arms, shall not be infringed") and the prefatory clause ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"). The Heller ruling states that the operative clause exists independently from the prefatory one.  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

As for legal scholars, I thought I'd highlight the 2 big versions. Version 1 would entail JAB's view (as I understand it):



> First, as William Van Alstyne (law professor at Duke) points out, the "right of the people" described in the Second Amendment is "to keep and bear arms," not to belong to a militia.
> 
> Rather, the Second Amendment adheres to the guarantee of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as the predicate for the other provision to which it speaks, i.e., the provision respecting a militia, as distinct from a standing army separately subject to congressional ...control.... In relating these propositions within one amendment, moreover, it does not disparage, much less does it subordinate, "the right of the people to keep (pg.473) and bear arms." To the contrary, it expressly embraces that right and indeed it erects the very scaffolding of a free state upon that guarantee. It derives its definition of a well-regulated militia in just this way for a "free State": The militia to be well-regulated is a militia to be drawn from just such people (i.e., people with a right to keep and bear arms) rather than from some other source (i.e., from people without rights to keep and bear arms).​
> In other words, the right to keep and bear arms is not subordinate to the purpose of having a militia—the notion of a "well regulated militia" is subordinate to the purpose of having an armed citizenry. Furthermore, Van Alstyne points out, the reference in the Second Amendment's opening clause is "an express reference to the security of a 'free state.' It is not a reference to the security of THE STATE." Thus, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure an armed citizenry, from which can be drawn the kind of militia that is necessary to the survival of a free state.
> ...



Version 2 is the more liberal view, and one that emerged in the 20th century:



> For example, gun-control activist Dennis Henigan writes that "The purpose of the [Second] Amendment was to affirm the people's right to keep and bear arms as a state militia, against the possibility of the federal government's hostility, or apathy, toward the militia." He describes his interpretation of the Second Amendment as providing "that the Second Amendment guarantees a right of the people to be armed only in service to an organized militia," and argues that James Madison interpreted the Amendment as ensuring that
> the Constitution does not strip the states of their militia, while conceding that a strong, armed militia is necessary as a military counterpoint to the power of the regular standing army.... Madison saw the militia as the military instrument of state government, not simply as a collection of unorganized, privately armed citizens. Madison saw the armed citizen as important to liberty to the extent that the citizen was part of a military force organized by state governments, which possesses the people's 'confidence and affections,' and 'to which the people are attached.' This is hardly an argument for the right of people to be armed against government per se.​In Henigan's view, which seems representative of the "states' rights" camp, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the (pg.490) existence of state military forces that can serve as a counterweight to a standing federal army. Thus, it seems fair to say, the scope of any rights enjoyed by the states under the Second Amendment would be determined by the goal of preserving an independent military force not under direct federal control.



For further elaboration on the above, see: "A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment" by Glenn Harlan Reynolds,  62 TENN. L. REV. 461-511 (1995)

It's up to you to figure out where on this spectrum you fall. As I understand it right now, the "well regulated" part is in relation to the militia in the prefatory clause, not the "right of the people" in the operative clause. Thinking that the 2nd Amendment means "the right to bear arms should be well regulated" is to impose modern usage of language onto a legal document written in the 18th century.

This isn't to say that restrictions on rights are necessarily unconstitutional. We have laws against slander and libel, yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre, etc. We all accept that violent criminals should not have the right to bear arms. How far these restrictions are allowed to be taken is where the debate will occur.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 15, 2014)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> ...
> 
> This isn't to say that restrictions on rights are necessarily unconstitutional. We have laws against slander and libel, yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre, etc. We all accept that violent criminals should not have the right to bear arms. *How far these restrictions are allowed to be taken is where the debate will occur.*[*/*quote]




Bingo. We have a winner.


----------



## pardus (Feb 15, 2014)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> post...



Very interesting, thank you.


----------



## Brill (Feb 15, 2014)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> We all accept that violent criminals should not have the right to bear arms.



In order to accept that, one MUST accept the FACT that violent criminals ALREADY bear arms regardless of legality of the right.  Additionally, one must further accept that various gun laws, if followed, present the lawful gun owner with a dilemma:

accept inability to defend themselves or become a criminal themselves (ref NYC recent mandatory registration).


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 15, 2014)

I guess perhaps Remington is starting to feel unwelcome in NYS? Was it something Cuomo said? 



> Gun maker Remington Outdoor Co. will soon announce plans to open a major manufacturing operation in Huntsville, according to multiple reports.
> 
> Military Times said Remington executives are expected to sign a deal on Monday to purchase a 500,000-square-foot facility in Huntsville. The report said Alabama's reputation as a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights was a factor in the decision.
> 
> The project will create more than 2,000 jobs in the state, according to Yellowhammer Politics.



http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/news/2014/02/15/remington-arms-huntsville-plant.html


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Feb 15, 2014)

I apologize for the rushed response, but I was lucky enough to hook the wife on Game of Thrones & don't want to squander the opportunity for post-Valentine's Day binge-watching the epicness that is Daenerys Stormborn, Of House Targaryen



lindy said:


> In order to accept that, one MUST accept the FACT that violent criminals ALREADY bear arms regardless of legality of the right.
> I was using that example as a general illustration regarding rights- the public generally accepts certain restrictions on rights. For example, I haven't heard anyone advocate for a rapist's right to bear arms to be restored. Of course that has no bearing on whether the rapist decides to arm himself or not. I do agree that criminals certainly have a propensity to disregard the law if they see fit. My point was that justifications for restrictions toward our rights can be made. The public has accepted certain restrictions & there are plenty of historical precedents of curtailing complete exercise of rights. That does not be I agree with them all. That is simply an observation of the facts.
> 
> Additionally, one must further accept that various gun laws, if followed, present the lawful gun owner with a dilemma:
> ...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 15, 2014)

@x SF med, I don't know if your not reading my post's or just assuming things that are not being stated. If you go back and read, I stated that I do not support a static constitution and do support amending it. I think if you are going to try and regulate the nbill of rights, it should come in the form of amendment. I also spelled out why it has not been done.

Children are not afforded constitutional rights until made a legal adult, as I understand it. This is evident in their inability to vote.

As for the criminal element, while in prison or on parole they are stripped of their constitutional rights. However, upon release their rights are restored. Having a law that restricts them from exercising one right after their rights are restored is wrong. They paid for their crime, thats the end of it. That being said, I also feel people who murder, rape, kidnap, and commit major crimes against the community should never be released from prison or allowed in society again. More so I believe they should be put to death.

Mentally ill, should be found to be unfit by a judge, and when that is done, they should be put in a funny house until they are fit to be in society.  If/when they are found fit, they should have their rights restored and unrestricted.

Morality cannot be legislated, passing laws will not curve or mold the morality of society. Community, religion, and mainly upbringing is what molds the morality of a society. I have always stated that I believe the community should set the tone for laws and or restrictions. What works in the PNW wont work in Texas and so on.

As for your opinions that laws restricting people from the full liberty's of protected rights. I don't see that as being morally just or even reasonable. Who are you or anyone else to restrict my birth rights as an American citizen? Who are you to decide what is okay and what is not? Luckily you are not anybody who can restrict my rights, unfortunately there are too many people who think like you, who have and are still attempting to restrict my rights. And as long as people are out there who are willing to give up their liberty for a false security, this issue will be a splitting point in our society. The people who want to control everyone vs the people who don't want to control or be controlled.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 15, 2014)

JAB said:


> Children are not afforded constitutional rights until made a legal adult, as I understand it. This is evident in their inability to vote.


 
That's incorrect.  Children do have Constitutional rights; what they don't have is full autonomy of decision making.  The inability to vote does not create a bar to the exercise of other rights, nor to the protections offered by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.



JAB said:


> As for the criminal element, while in prison or on parole they are stripped of their constitutional rights. However, upon release their rights are restored. Having a law that restricts them from exercising one right after their rights are restored is wrong. They paid for their crime, thats the end of it.


 Here again, incorrect.  While some rights are restored, others are not.  Indeed, some rights were never abrogated in the first place.

I'll stick to the Second Amendment theme of this thread and ask you a direct question.  Do you believe a person convicted of a violent felony (let's include burglary as well) should be able to go to a FFL and buy a handgun as soon as they are released from prison/parole?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 15, 2014)

Intressting so children have freedom of speach and religion, gun ownership, 4th and 5th amendment rights? That doesn't seem to be the way it works inbthe school system, family protective services, or in the legal system criminal or civil. But then again if they do inbfact have those rights, than they should have all of them.

Yes I think once the criminal has completed all obligation of sentence, they should be allowed to buy a gun. I think if they are not trustworthy enough, they should have never been released in the first place.


----------



## DasBoot (Feb 15, 2014)

JAB said:


> @x SF med,
> 
> 
> Mentally ill, should be found to be unfit by a judge, and when that is done, they should be put in a funny house until they are fit to be in society.  If/when they are found fit, they should have their rights restored and unrestricted.


Everyone with a mental disability should be thrown into a mental institution? So someone with Autism or schizophrenia shouldn't be left with their families, but should be institutionalized? I hope- and honestly don't think- that is what you truly believe. It is something to think about though- someone who is high functioning, and/or hasn't committed any crime (ex. They go to a Psychologist in college and they are diagnosed with schizophrenia, it can be controlled with meds) do you just toss them in a hospital or psych ward or whatever, or do you keep them out, provide them their freedom and care they need while limiting (perhaps only temporarily) one specific right. Which sounds more logical?


----------



## comrade-z (Feb 15, 2014)

Rights are not necessarily restored simply because you served your sentence, depending on the state - some states require that you petition if you want to get your right to vote back even after serving your sentence.

Here is an interesting fact, assuming we are going by the legal definitions of rape/sexual harassment, something like 10% of the male population in America would be put to death. Doesn't really change anything, but it does add some perspective to how widespread the problem is.

As an aside, let us remember that a judge ruling that someone is "mentally unfit to own a firearm" and "mentally unfit to be in society" are two *very* separate things.  And that the "funny house" can sometimes be a traumatizing experience for those that are "less crazy" when they find themselves living with truly non-functional people for a period of time that is for someone else to decide.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 15, 2014)

DasBoot said:


> Everyone with a mental disability should be thrown into a mental institution? So someone with Autism or schizophrenia shouldn't be left with their families, but should be institutionalized? I hope- and honestly don't think- that is what you truly believe. It is something to think about though- someone who is high functioning, and/or hasn't committed any crime (ex. They go to a Psychologist in college and they are diagnosed with schizophrenia, it can be controlled with meds) do you just toss them in a hospital or psych ward or whatever, or do you keep them out, provide them their freedom and care they need while limiting (perhaps only temporarily) one specific right. Which sounds more logical?





DasBoot said:


> Everyone with a mental disability should be thrown into a mental institution? So someone with Autism or schizophrenia shouldn't be left with their families, but should be institutionalized? I hope- and honestly don't think- that is what you truly believe. It is something to think about though- someone who is high functioning, and/or hasn't committed any crime (ex. They go to a Psychologist in college and they are diagnosed with schizophrenia, it can be controlled with meds) do you just toss them in a hospital or psych ward or whatever, or do you keep them out, provide them their freedom and care they need while limiting (perhaps only temporarily) one specific right. Which sounds more logical?



I again feel that if that person cannot be trusted in society with a weapon, than they should not be in society.  I understand your POV and the logic behind it. It sounds great for their family to care for them, until some other knuckle head decides that families who have a mentally ill person cannot have a gun b/c that mentally ill person might get a hold of that gun and go "Sandy Hook" or something.

I get my opinions are not popular, it doesn't change them.

Comrade Z, why would a judge rule that someone is unsafe to have a weapon and not remove them from society. If they want a gun, they will get one. If someone is really that crazy or ill that they cannot be trusted with a weapon, I don't want them in society. This idea that magically taking someones right away makes everyone safe, is nuts IMO. 

I think there are many ways to deal with mental illness, ways to remove those who are untrustworthy from general society without locking them into a hospital.


----------



## comrade-z (Feb 15, 2014)

JAB said:


> Comrade Z, why would a judge rule that someone is unsafe to have a weapon and not remove them from society. If they want a gun, they will get one. If someone is really that crazy or ill that they cannot be trusted with a weapon, I don't want them in society. This idea that magically taking someones right away makes everyone safe, is nuts IMO.
> 
> I think there are many ways to deal with mental illness, ways to remove those who are untrustworthy from general society without locking them into a hospital.



Fair enough.


----------



## Polar Bear (Feb 15, 2014)

74 pages of BS, Next...some of you are just not listening and just reading and being hard headed. Please read, really read and think about what you are posting. Yes my opinion of some has changed  in this thread since you have shown zero ability to look outside your little box.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 15, 2014)

Im going to say this and than back away from the board for a while. I can come up with all types of rules that I personally think would be better for society as a whole. A few off the top of my head:

1) Punishment for adultery to include loss of joint property.
2) Mandatory civil/mil service upon becoming an adult.
3) death penalties for sexual assault, murder and large scale theft.
4) Sterilization for child abusers and neglect.
5) mandatory training before owning a gun.
6) mandatory duty to carry that gun and act in the defense of fellow citizen's.

I can go on and on, are they reasonable to me? You bet they are, however, are they reasonable to everyone? Nope. We are a nation of free people, free to live how we choose, until our actions infringe upon anothers liberty. People should be punished when they commit offenses against society and the liberty's of others. But making laws and restrictions against the masses due to the actions of a few, regardless how reasonable we may feel they are, is not right. This is why I take the stance I do, its easy for me to want to control others, its easy for me to want it my way. Its harder to accept that the freedom's I want belong to us all, and not the popularity of the time or the opinion of the current. I think it would be hypocritical  of me to demand liberty for my self,  while wanting to restrict others. Instead I choose to demand liberty for everyone, even the unpopular ones.

74 pages and I have not changed my stance, not b/c I don't listen or understand opinion's, but b/c I believe in freedom and I'm not going to sell those beliefs for false security and I'm not willing to trample the rights of people to suit my personal opinions. If that makes any of you feel "different" about me, so be it. I respect everyone on here, even when we strongly disagree about things. I hope that remains mutual.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 15, 2014)

JAB said:


> Intressting so children have freedom of speach and religion, gun ownership, 4th and 5th amendment rights? That doesn't seem to be the way it works inbthe school system, family protective services, or in the legal system criminal or civil. But then again if they do inbfact have those rights, than they should have all of them.


 
Is there a section of the Constitution, or an amendment thereto, that specifies its protections do not attach until one gains the age of majority?

Or are you suggesting that a police officer should be able to stop a child--without reasonable suspicion or probable cause--and search the child's person and effects, again without probable cause or a search warrant?  Should that police officer be able to interview or interrogate that child without their parents and without benefit of counsel? 

Does this mean you can't parent your kid as you see fit? Of course not.  But the child possesses rights to protect him from the government.



JAB said:


> Yes I think once the criminal has completed all obligation of sentence, they should be allowed to buy a gun. I think if they are not trustworthy enough, they should have never been released in the first place.


 
Obviously, I disagree with this.


----------



## ZmanTX (Feb 15, 2014)

JAB said:


> Yes I think once the criminal has completed all obligation of sentence, they should be allowed to buy a gun. I think if they are not trustworthy enough, they should have never been released in the first place.



:wall: 
Are you serious? How many repeat offenders promised they'd stop committing crimes?


----------



## JBS (Feb 16, 2014)

Just as an aside,  I think suppressors for citizens home defense can be argued as reasonably needed- or perhaps better described as useful.  If I am attacked by a few thugs on my property and decide to defend, why should I be subjected to the possibility of hearing loss? 

I don't walk around with earpro all the time.   Deafness as a result of defending myself is a kind of secondary long term assault on my well being thanks to no fault of my own.   Shouldn't I be able to protect myself from hearing loss too?


----------



## RustyShackleford (Feb 16, 2014)

JBS said:


> Just as an aside,  I think suppressors for citizens home defense can be argued as reasonably needed- or perhaps better described as useful.  If I am attacked by a few thugs on my property and decide to defend, why should I be subjected to the possibility of hearing loss?
> 
> I don't walk around with earpro all the time.   Deafness as a result of defending myself is a kind of secondary long term assault on my well being thanks to no fault of my own.   Shouldn't I be able to protect myself from hearing loss too?



Well, you can possess one, given you go through the proper channels.  Hunters have presented the same argument and can use suppressors in many states.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 16, 2014)

Yep.  In many states a suppressor, SBR or SBS is acquirable with some paperwork, patience, and a $200 tax stamp.


----------



## pardus (Feb 17, 2014)

JAB said:


> 5) mandatory training before owning a gun.



So you _are_ in favor of regulation and restriction of gun rights after all...


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 19, 2014)

pardus said:


> So you _are_ in favor of regulation and restriction of gun rights after all...



I don't consider that unreasonable at all. Before you own a gun you are required to get training in many states.


----------



## JBS (Feb 19, 2014)

Should be a State thing, in my opinion, since the residents of New York collectively feel different about firearms than the residents of Texas or Arizona do.  Why be governed by a remote power, completely disconnected from daily life in your region?


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 19, 2014)

JBS said:


> Should be a State thing, in my opinion, since the residents of New York collectively feel different about firearms than the residents of Texas or Arizona do.  Why be governed by a remote power, completely disconnected from daily life in your region?



I agree it should be a state level thing however if I had the magical power I would ensure that everyone go through training before owning a firearm.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 19, 2014)

pardus said:


> So you _are_ in favor of regulation and restriction of gun rights after all...



On a personal level (as in what would I want if I was king for a day) yes. On a constitutional level, no, unless the 2A is amended.

Being that this is not the united kingdom of JAB, and that it is a Republic structured by a constitution with a bill of rights, that limits the governments power to restrict the peoples rights, I do not support gun control of any kind by the federal government. 

I've made my points pretty clear, what I think is "reasonable or responsible" is pretty irrelevant, what is constitutional is more relevant.

ETA: JBS I agree 100% that states and even local government should have the power to decide their own rules for things such as gun control. As long as the do not restrict your ability to travel armed (ie pass through).


----------



## RustyShackleford (Feb 19, 2014)

JAB said:


> that states and even local government should have the power to decide their own rules for things such as gun control. As long as the do not restrict your ability to travel armed (ie pass through).


 
Not te states or local government.  The people should have that power, not their elected mouth pieces.  We have all witnessed what self-serving politicians do when given the chance.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 19, 2014)

RustyShackleford said:


> Not te states or local government.  The people should have that power, not their elected immouth pieces.  We have all witnessed what self-serving politicians do when given the chance.



Yeah I agree, generally speaking most local/state governments are more in touch with the people and when they are not the people get rid of them quickly. In Texas the larger metro areas tend to be more left-wing than the rural areas, which are more right wing. I think states should set the rules for licensing and the like, but local gov should set rules specific to their communities.

I think some places Chicago, NYC, LA take it to extreme,


----------



## Brill (Feb 19, 2014)

Marine0311 said:


> I don't consider that unreasonable at all. Before you own a gun you are required to get training in many states.



Or authorize military quals to meet that standard, if required, and if shown to reduce NDs that result in injury. (Most military are trained in firearms but quite a few NDs.). Does EVERY state require drivers training to get a license or just proficiency?

However, what is the purpose of owning a firearm?


----------



## 0699 (Feb 19, 2014)

Marine0311 said:


> I don't consider that unreasonable at all. Before you own a gun you are required to get training in many states.


 
Should there be required training before I give a speech in public, or join a church?

Serious question.  Why should the execution of one right require training, but not others?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 19, 2014)

lindy said:


> However, what is the purpose of owning a firearm?



I think the purpose although somewhat irrelevant, is individually dependent. Why someone would carry a firearm is probably a better question, and in most cases (outside of the criminal element)  I would say it is for some form of protection, either it be from the criminal, securing property or killing snakes.

What I think is very important, probably more so than skill level or proficiency, is knowing and understanding the laws regarding use of force, which are normally state specific, and vary greatly from state to state.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 19, 2014)

0699 said:


> Should there be required training before I give a speech in public, or join a church?
> 
> Serious question.  Why should the execution of one right require training, but not others?



No and your argument is terrible. It doesn't make any sense.

I am not sure how to answer that. Owning a firearm carries more responsibility than going to church.

Edit:  racing kitty said it better than me.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 19, 2014)

Unless your speach starts a riot or the church you pick puts you on a terrorist watch list.

It was my understanding that Randy Weaver attended what he and his late wife thought was a church meeting, turned out to be a skin head/KKK meeting. They left never to return, however his one visit put him on the radar and ended up resulting in some prison time, and a dead child and wife. Just saying...


----------



## x SF med (Feb 19, 2014)

JAB said:


> I think the purpose although somewhat irrelevant, is individually dependent. Why someone would carry a firearm is probably a better question, and in most cases (outside of the criminal element)  I would say it is for some form of protection, either it be from the criminal, securing property or killing snakes.
> 
> What I think is very important, probably more so than skill level or proficiency, is knowing and understanding the laws regarding use of force, which are normally state specific, and vary greatly from state to state.



So, per your stated argument, explicitly, defense is the only reason to own a firearm.  Target shooters and hunters are excluded.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 19, 2014)

0699 said:


> Should there be required training before I give a speech in public, or join a church?
> 
> Serious question.  Why should the execution of one right require training, but not others?



I don't agree with your analogy.  For starters, have you explained the concept of the First Amendment right to free speech to someone who legitimately does not understand its scope?  Specifically, have you ever, without scorn or derision, explained the caveat about not yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater?  If a loved one or junior troop has undergone some form of soul searching in that he/she has thought about changing religions and asked you about it, have you ever reminded them to be careful and not fall prey to a cult?  While my second rhetorical question is not quite in line with providing needed knowledge for the safe and responsible exercise of a guaranteed constitutional right (unless you're talking about Jonestown or comets), it is relevant to my point.

When the Constitution was written, it was taken for granted that people would know the business end of a rifle from a hole in the ground, and how to responsibly use it.  Even as late as the early 1990's, high school ROTC programs had rifle teams that would actually compete in shooting competitions (my sister was on a team, and she was a damned wicked shot, too).  That kind of education was provided in the home from a very early age, and without bias.  For a plurality today, that is no longer the case.  

While I do not believe that the ability of a person to exercise his right to keep and bear arms should be completely curtailed without adequate training in how to handle a firearm, I DO believe that an unbiased means of educating the general population about firearm safety, to include how to hit what you're aiming at, should be made readily available for firearm owners.  After all, sticks and stones may break my bones, but a .45 will kill me.  Not to mention that if the time should ever arise that the Second Amendment is needed to protect the other nine, I would hope that the person next to me at least has the knowledge to keep his booger hook off the bang switch, and how to acquire a sight picture to hit what he's aiming at.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 19, 2014)

x SF med said:


> So, per your stated argument, explicitly, defense is the only reason to own a firearm.  Target shooters and hunters are excluded.


Is your reading comprehension off?

The context of protection was in reference to the "carrying of a firearm" and as stated the purpose of "owning" is irrelevant.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 19, 2014)

*However, what is the purpose of owning a firearm?  *was the specific question you answered after quoting it above.  so, apparently, my reading comprehension is fine, as you went off on a tangent about defense, carry and use of force, without addressing ownership which means, by extension, you think that those are the only reasons to own a firearm.  Sorry, you did address ownership, and called the reason 'irrelevant".  Which could mean that you only think defense is legitimate, or crime, or any reason whatsoever...  the question was toward the relevancy of ownership...  maybe a statement like "any legal purpose not specifically forbidden by the moral, ethical and legal tenets of society in general"  would have been more appropriate, than "irrelevant"  which would include crime and mayhem.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 19, 2014)

x SF med said:


> *However, what is the purpose of owning a firearm?  *was the specific question you answered after quoting it above.  so, apparently, my reading comprehension is fine, as you went off on a tangent about defense, carry and use of force, without addressing ownership which means, by extension, you think that those are the only reasons to own a firearm.  Sorry, you did address ownership, and called the reason 'irrelevant".  Which could mean that you only think defense is legitimate, or crime, or any reason whatsoever...  the question was toward the relevancy of ownership...  maybe a statement like "any legal purpose not specifically forbidden by the moral, ethical and legal tenets of society in general"  would have been more appropriate, than "irrelevant"  which would include crime and mayhem.



Dude, what?

I am going to reverse myself on gun control, I now believe everyone except the Troll should be able to keep and bear arms, the Troll should take medication instead...

Love ya man.


----------



## pardus (Feb 19, 2014)

lindy said:


> However, what is the purpose of owning a firearm?



I don't think that's relevant and the question shouldn't be asked in an official capacity.

I originally come from a country where you must _now_ justify why you need a military style semi auto rifle, if you say self defense you'll be automatically disqualified and may never be allowed to own a firearm of any description again, if your answer is hunting it will be declared an invalid reason.
It's a slippery slope.




E.T.A. "military style"


----------



## policemedic (Feb 19, 2014)

pardus said:


> I don't think that's relevant and the question shouldn't be asked in an official capacity.
> 
> I originally come from a country where you must _now_ justify why you need a semi auto rifle, if you say self defense you'll be automatically disqualified and may never be allowed to own a firearm of any description again, if your answer is hunting it will be declared an invalid reason.
> It's a slippery slope.



Wow. Any firearm ?  Just for saying self-defense? WTF, mate.


----------



## Brill (Feb 19, 2014)

pardus said:


> I don't think that's relevant and the question shouldn't be asked in an official capacity.
> 
> I originally come from a country where you must _now_ justify why you need a semi auto rifle, if you say self defense you'll be automatically disqualified and may never be allowed to own a firearm of any description again, if your answer is hunting it will be declared an invalid reason.
> It's a slippery slope.



Strongly agree (but they are in effect asking) and actually favor Troll's response: the purpose is because it's my right and I haven't done anything deemed by society as a "no-go".

MD's laws say that I can own the shit out of shotguns or hunting rifles BUT no Class IIIs (suppressors are ok though) and no new "black rifles". No 20 round mags either.

Why not?

Technically I can get a CCW. I can apply but must show cause WHY I need one (cuz Baltimore is fucking dangerous isn't considered a valid reason).

Why?  What the hell did I do wrong? Why would PA, WV, or VA grant me a CCW but because I live in a state for work (and pay a shit ton of state, property, and sales tax), I'm unable to exercise my Constitutional rights  like other states?

The Founding Fathers clearly understood and foresaw that self defense was the reason for Art 2.  They understood that we may in fact need, nay, REQUIRE to defend ourselves for preservation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If gun ownership is such a national issue, Congress should press for a Constitutional amendment ratified by the States and enforced by the President.  These bullshit laws and piecemeal Acts must stop as they are exactly what the Fathers feared.  The heat is slowly being turned up on the poor frog.

Can one even buy a gun at a toy store anymore?


----------



## pardus (Feb 19, 2014)

policemedic said:


> Wow. Any firearm ?  Just for saying self-defense? WTF, mate.



You must store weapons securely and separately, from ammo and bolts to ensure you are unable to use a firearm in self defense...
Talk about self defense with a firearm and you'll be virtually considered a danger to society and treated accordingly. 

I was called into the police firearms officer for an interrogation and had my license threatened, because I ordered a book from Paladin press in the USA. 
They didn't even know what book I ordered. I have no idea how they knew I ordered it and I found that the scariest aspect of all.
The only reason I didn't loose my license was because I was in the Army at the time.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 19, 2014)

JAB said:


> Yeah I agree, generally speaking most local/state governments are more in touch with the people and when they are not the people get rid of them quickly. In Texas the larger metro areas tend to be more left-wing than the rural areas, which are more right wing. I think states should set the rules for licensing and the like, but local gov should set rules specific to their communities.
> 
> I think some places Chicago, NYC, LA take it to extreme,



Local rules are the worst way to go.  It inevitably results in a confusing patchwork of laws, ordinances, regulations, and general legislative asshattery.  It was precisely to fix that problem that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania wisely enacted preemption laws.  Only the Commonwealth can regulate firearms and ammunition.  The People's Republic of Philadelphia hates this because amongst other things it required them to issue licenses to carry in accordance with state law and honor licenses issued in other counties, but that's ok.  Philadelphia has a number of ordinances relating to gun control that--happily!--have been rendered unenforceable by preemption.

Preemption is a great thing for Second Amendment advocates, in my view.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 19, 2014)

pardus said:


> You must store weapons securely and separately, from ammo and bolts to ensure you are unable to use a firearm in self defense...
> Talk about self defense with a firearm and you'll be virtually considered a danger to society and treated accordingly.
> 
> I was called into the police firearms officer for an interrogation and had my license threatened, because I ordered a book from Paladin press in the USA.
> ...


 
Umm, wow.


----------



## pardus (Feb 19, 2014)

policemedic said:


> Umm, wow.



Yup!


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 19, 2014)

pardus said:


> I don't think that's relevant and the question shouldn't be asked in an official capacity.
> 
> I originally come from a country where you must _now_ justify why you need a semi auto rifle, if you say self defense you'll be automatically disqualified and may never be allowed to own a firearm of any description again, if your answer is hunting it will be declared an invalid reason.
> It's a slippery slope.



No you don't, only semi autos with certain features and the rest of it isn't true either. If at your initial application you say "self defence" you probably won't get your licence but it is dependent on a lot of things too. NOTE that initial licence application has nothing to do with semi autos or not.


----------



## pardus (Feb 19, 2014)

SpitfireV said:


> No you don't, only semi autos with certain features



Hmm, I'll double check that. A vs E cat...



SpitfireV said:


> and the rest of it isn't true either.



Bullshit, unless they changed the law since I was there.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 19, 2014)

@pardus  I've edited it slightly to clarify. I'm not totally interested in a discussion on NZ law (since this is a US themed thread) but I do want to clarify any points of law being the bush lawyer that I am.


----------



## pardus (Feb 19, 2014)

SpitfireV said:


> If at your initial application you say "self defence" you probably won't get your licence but it is dependent on a lot of things too. NOTE that initial licence application has nothing to do with semi autos or not.



OK bush lawyer, when you go for an E cat you must give a justification of why you _need_ it (want is no justification), if  you say self defense you will be automatically disqualified. That is a fact, I was there when they were making the laws, I spoke with numerous cops about it as well as many members of pistol/shooting clubs which as you may know is a big deal to be apart of and knowing and obeying the firearms laws is a strict requirement.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 19, 2014)

pardus said:


> OK bush lawyer, when you go for an E cat you must give a justification of why you _need_ it (want is no justification), if  you say self defense you will be automatically disqualified. That is a fact, I was there when they were making the laws, I spoke with numerous cops about it as well as many members of pistol/shooting clubs which as you may know is a big deal to be apart of and knowing and obeying the firearms laws is a strict requirement.



Yes but what you said was "semi autos" and you can have semi auto non E Cats on your A Cat. We both know the laws are rubbish let's just leave it there.


----------



## pardus (Feb 19, 2014)

SpitfireV said:


> Yes but what you said was "semi autos" and you can have semi auto non E Cats on your A Cat. We both know the laws are rubbish let's just leave it there.



Yes and you addressed that in your first post and I said Id follow that up, then you added a bunch of other stuff that needed to be addressed because it's bollocks. Shit isn't going to be left alone because you dont want to talk about it on this site, accuracy is important regardless of feelings, yours and mine included.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 20, 2014)

*UNITED STATES* and gun control discussion
Wankers!


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 20, 2014)

s20 (2) Arms Act. 



> The holding of a firearms licence shall not in itself entitle any person to have a pistol or a military style semi-automatic firearm or a restricted weapon in that person's possession.



So we go to the interpretation. 



> military style semi-automatic firearm means a firearm (other than a pistol) that is—
> 
> 
> (a)a semi-automatic firearm having 1 or more of the following features:
> ...



So we can see that a firearms licence holder with a semi auto that does not have the features listed above can be owned on an A Cat licence. This means that your initial statement of:



> I originally come from a country where you must _now_ justify why you need a semi auto rifle, if you say self defense you'll be automatically disqualified and may never be allowed to own a firearm of any description again, if your answer is hunting it will be declared an invalid reason.



The fact is, is that when you apply for your initial licence they do not ask you about semi autos because that licence covers such a wide variety of types. They do ask intention but it is not in respect of any particular type of firearm. Hence your statement that hunting is an invalid reason is incorrect because hunting is in fact a valid reason for your A Cat licence. As you can own semi autos on said A Cat licence your statement that you now need to justify having a semi auto is incorrect unless specifically talking about the E Cat MSSAs which you were not. "Want" is also a valid reason to apply for said endorsement as under s29 (2)(b) Applications for Endorsements In Respect of Pistols and Restricted Weapons if you are a collector or want to collect: 



> Any person, being an applicant for a firearms licence or a holder of a firearms licence, may apply at an Arms Office to a member of the Police for an endorsement permitting that person to have possession of a pistol or a restricted weapon (other than an anti-personnel mine or a cluster munition) in his capacity as—
> 
> (a)a member of an incorporated pistol shooting club for the time being recognised by the Commissioner for the purposes of this section; or
> 
> ...



Hence, suck on my baaaaalls Mainlander.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 20, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> *UNITED STATES* and gun control discussion
> Wankers!



We own your country now. Prepare for HM to sit on your colonial faces!


----------



## pardus (Feb 20, 2014)

Thanks for the clarification on the A vs E cat.

When I made my statement about about semi's I was referring to E cat (military style semi auto) though I didn't state that, which was my error.  
Which invalidates your hunting reason crowing, and I will state again "because I want one" is not a valid reason to have an E cat license. You must have a valid reason in the eyes of the law such as you posted. 

Above all that, remember I'm a Mainlander, not a pigislander meaning I will always be right and you'll always be a cunt.

Thanks for looking up the act.



SpitfireV said:


> s20 (2) Arms Act.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 20, 2014)

I know mate, I know. I think it's my middle name in fact.


----------



## pardus (Feb 20, 2014)

SpitfireV said:


> I know mate, I know. I think it's my middle name in fact.



I can't drink that anymore...


----------



## pardus (Feb 20, 2014)

I edited my original post to add "military style" which fixes the last 20 posts in this thread lol


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 20, 2014)

pardus said:


> I can't drink that anymore...



Fuckin' fussy cunt LOL. 

(Summit is OK, the Gold Medal I can't either). 



pardus said:


> I edited my original post to add "military style" which fixes the last 20 posts in this thread lol



Cunnnnt.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 20, 2014)

My analysis of the learned discussion of New Zealand firearms law is that it's fucked up to have to ask the police for permission to have a gun. 

I _like_ civilians owning guns; it tends to make my job easier.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 20, 2014)

Meh, I look at it like a plane or a car personally. I don't have an issue with licencing but some of the laws thereafter are pretty fucked.


----------



## pardus (Feb 20, 2014)

policemedic said:


> My analysis of the learned discussion of New Zealand firearms law is that it's fucked up to have to ask the police for permission to have a gun.
> 
> I _like_ civilians owning guns; it tends to make my job easier.



It is made very clear that a firearms license is a privilege and not a right. 

Guns are seen by "society" as being bad, to the point that gun clubs/right's activists etc... have adopted anti gun rights views in a desperate attempt to be allowed to own and use anything at all.


----------



## CQB (Feb 20, 2014)

It seems even tighter than here ,and that's saying quite a lot.


----------



## pardus (Feb 20, 2014)

CQB said:


> It seems even tighter than here ,and that's saying quite a lot.



You are banned from semi autos 100% though right?


----------



## CQB (Feb 20, 2014)

Pistol grip is the thing I think you're referring to. They're tightly controlled esp. the importation of same but you can have a semi w/o a pistol grip IMO & be ok.  I'd have to find chapter & verse to be accurate but generally it's strict, with background checks to get a license and wotnot but not to the degree of strangulation. To hunt there's a whole new regime come into place, which I'm looking into ATM. 
The National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS) have instigated an eradication programme of feral animals. Y'know we're lousy with them, goats, pigs, foxes, feral cats & dogs, camels & brumbies. There's a lot out there & the NPWS are looking for volunteers, but I digress.
Gun crime has been on a downhill path for about 10 years in NSW but still is in the public eye due to ME crime gangs who brass up each others houses. They bring in measures which seem to affect the average user, not the dickheads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

OK found it, Wiki I know but pretty good look at the differet categories. Cat C is the answer you're after.


----------



## Brill (Feb 20, 2014)

pardus said:


> It is made very clear that a firearms license is a privilege and not a right.



Someone has to look out for the personal welfare of the sheep in NZ!


----------



## Brill (Feb 20, 2014)

Live in DC and want to buy a gun? Easy! Go through any DC FFL. (There aren't any.)

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/19/dc-mom-takes-gun-case-to-supreme-court/


----------



## 0699 (Feb 20, 2014)

Marine0311 said:


> No and your argument is terrible. It doesn't make any sense.
> 
> I am not sure how to answer that. Owning a firearm carries more responsibility than going to church.
> 
> Edit:  racing kitty said it better than me.


 
I'm not arguing, I'm asking a question you didn't answer.  Instead you changed the subject.  Sounds very familiar...

_EDIT: I just want to know what side of the line you stand on._


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 20, 2014)

0699 said:


> Should there be required training before I give a speech in public, or join a church?
> 
> Serious question.  Why should the execution of one right require training, but not others?



No.

This right carries more responsibility than the others.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 20, 2014)

0699 said:


> I'm not arguing, I'm asking a question you didn't answer.  Instead you changed the subject.  Sounds very familiar...
> 
> _EDIT: I just want to know what side of the line you stand on _


_
I answered again above as I can't seem to muti quote. _

I don't know what you mean by "sounds very......"?

What side do I stand on? If I did not answer your question again to your satisfaction let me know and I will answer again in a different way.


----------



## Brill (Feb 24, 2014)

Everything is a test case.  Unregistered ammo??

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2...taschek-washington-dc-one-shotgun-she/?page=1

Holy shit!

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2...essman-faces-two-years-jail-unregis/?page=all


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 24, 2014)

^^^that is crazy.


----------



## pardus (Feb 24, 2014)

Any govt worker and police officer involved in this case should be fucking ashamed to call themselves Americans.
That is absolutely outrageous!
How could a cop participate in something like this and claim to be doing good? That is behavior that Hitler and Stalin would be proud of.




> an empty plastic shells is illegal in D.C. for anyone who is not a registered gun owner. The same goes for spent casings.



^ Are you fucking kidding me? I know a certain someone who has broken that law several times if that's the case.

Bunch of cunts!


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 24, 2014)

This is patently ridiculous.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 25, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> This is patently ridiculous.



And yet, utterly predictable.


----------



## Brill (Feb 25, 2014)

Example of the effects of "gun free zones".

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...om-using-my-gun-to-save-him/?intcmp=obnetwork


----------



## Brill (Mar 21, 2014)

I thought background checks would ban felons from purchasing weapons?

http://m.wbaltv.com/news/3-arrested-in-anne-arundel-county-drug-bust/25089268


----------



## JBS (Mar 21, 2014)

JAB said:


> ^^^that is crazy.





pardus said:


> Any govt worker and police officer involved in this case should be fucking ashamed to call themselves Americans.
> That is absolutely outrageous!
> How could a cop participate in something like this and claim to be doing good? That is behavior that Hitler and Stalin would be proud of.
> 
> ...





Deathy McDeath said:


> This is patently ridiculous.



GOBAMA!


----------



## Dame (Mar 21, 2014)

lindy said:


> I thought background checks would ban felons from purchasing weapons?
> 
> http://m.wbaltv.com/news/3-arrested-in-anne-arundel-county-drug-bust/25089268



Only law abiding felons. 


Oh, wait...


----------



## JBS (Mar 22, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> This is patently ridiculous.


He was raided by 30 LEOs over it.

This is what society would look like when the far Left Liberal agenda gets turned loose.   I just read a story about how a kid was suspended for wearing an NRA t-shirt.   I just shake my head in disbelief; doesn't seem like something that could ever happen in the United States.

http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/loca...eve-school-over-reacted-to-nra-shirt/6306507/



> *STUDENT, 16, SUSPENDED FROM SCHOOL FOR WEARING NRA T-SHIRT
> *
> GRAND ISLAND, NY – The parents of a Grand Island High School sophomore confirm their son was recently made to serve a one day in-school suspension, resulting from his refusal to change clothes after a determination the shirt he was wearing violated the school's dress code.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 22, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Well the kid violated the rules that the school had set forth. Just because it was a gun is no reason to get up in arms. If it was something else that violated the dress code the same punishment would have been enforced.


 

According to the video interview with the father the kid had worn it many times before. Why was it an issue now?


----------



## Dame (Mar 22, 2014)

Don't even LOOK like you might have a gun on your own property in Maine.



> NORRIDGEWOCK — Michael Smith went outside shirtless after being awakened Tuesday morning, yelling at a tree removal company to get off his property.
> 
> The workers thought they saw a gun in his waistband and called police.
> 
> ...


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 22, 2014)

That is an insanely stupid tattoo idea


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 22, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> That is an insanely stupid tattoo idea



Dumb as fuck idea, just as ignorant as the jackasses who called 5-0. But I'm willing to bet this is some bonzo free advertising for the ink slinger. 

"See that? *points to news article* I did that tattoo. So realistic, the cops were called! Who's ready for a tattoo?"


----------



## Brill (Apr 10, 2014)

lindy said:


> Everything is a test case.  Unregistered ammo??
> 
> http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2...taschek-washington-dc-one-shotgun-she/?page=1
> 
> ...



Convicted for having muzzle loader lead...then the tax man shows up too?

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2...vernment-tyranny-destroyed-a-dc-busin/?page=1

Where's the adult supervision?


----------



## surgicalcric (Apr 10, 2014)

Marine0311 said:


> No.
> 
> This right carries more responsibility than the others.



Who then decides what the training consists of? Standards for training? Physical requirements? Political affiliation?

Where does it stop?  

I disagree with adding limitations to any rights, ANY!


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 10, 2014)

surgicalcric said:


> Who then decides what the training consists of? Standards for training? Physical requirements? Political affiliation?
> 
> Where does it stop?
> 
> I disagree with adding limitations to any rights, ANY!



Those standards are already put in place by the states.


----------



## surgicalcric (Apr 10, 2014)

Marine0311 said:


> Those standards are already put in place by the states.



Wow.  Didn't know that, and won't be moving to any of those states.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 11, 2014)

surgicalcric said:


> Wow.  Didn't know that, and won't be moving to any of those states.



Every state has some sort of minimum standard. For example a background check.


----------



## surgicalcric (Apr 11, 2014)

Marine0311 said:


> Every state has some sort of minimum standard. For example a background check.



That isn't training and your original argument was that training should be required to purchase a firearm.


----------



## Brill (Apr 11, 2014)

surgicalcric said:


> Wow.  Didn't know that, and won't be moving to any of those states.



You can't even rent a gun or go to a pistol range without a permit here in MD.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 11, 2014)

surgicalcric said:


> That isn't training and your original argument was that training should be required to purchase a firearm.


 
Ah I see. I re read.

I will modify. To merely purchase a firearm one should go through a background check.  I would consider training to ensure that the buyer knows how to handle said firearm.

To carry one must go through a training course.


----------



## surgicalcric (Apr 12, 2014)

lindy said:


> You can't even rent a gun or go to a pistol range without a permit here in MD.



 I will stick to the redneck states like the one I live in.


----------



## Brill (Apr 12, 2014)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?hpid=z3

The crux of the article, which doesn't make any f'ing sense to me, is based on the premise that the author KNOWS what the framers intended:

As a result of the rulings in _Heller _and _McDonald_, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. *That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen.* As so amended, it would read:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms *when serving in the Militia* shall not be infringed.”


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 12, 2014)

lindy said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?hpid=z3
> 
> The crux of the article, which doesn't make any f'ing sense to me, is based on the premise that the author KNOWS what the framers intended:
> 
> ...



I read this article yesterday, I had two reactions:

1) "Yep; let's just add words into the Constitution to fundamentally change the parts we don't politically agree with!  Where's the harm in that?"  :-/
Don't like the Constitution?  We have a process to change it.  Use the process to make a change, or deal with Constitution as written.

2)  Even if those five ridiculous words WERE added to the 2nd Amendment, there's still that pesky US code that states every military-aged male citizen is part of the militia.  So those five words wouldn't change a thing.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

3)  People like to harp on this "well-regulated" bit.  In this context, "well regulated" doesn't mean "tightly controlled by the government."  While it can mean this, in this instance well-regulated also means "to function properly."  You can't just pick up a gun and use it effectively when the time comes if you haven't been properly trained on its use.  
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulated

So, to recap, every military-aged male citizen (and females in the armed services) are part of either the organized or unorganized militia.  In order to ensure proper function of the militia when it is activated "against all enemies, foreign and domestic," they have to train with firearms.  To train with firearms, the people have to have access to firearms.  Hence, the Second Amendment.


----------



## comrade-z (Apr 13, 2014)

lindy said:


> You can't even rent a gun or go to a pistol range without a permit here in MD.



Maybe I don't fully know exactly what legal situation you are referring to, but I have never found that to be the case.  I have rented pistols before, as have people with me from out of state, at MD shooting ranges with nothing more than a driver's license and a signed form for the rental of a pistol.

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/maryland.aspx - NRA link, saying that MD doesn't require a permit for many things - however no specifics here or on another few sites I saw on the laws about gun rentals at ranges.


----------



## Brill (Apr 13, 2014)

comrade-z said:


> Maybe I don't fully know exactly what legal situation you are referring to, but I have never found that to be the case.  I have rented pistols before, as have people with me from out of state, at MD shooting ranges with nothing more than a driver's license and a signed form for the rental of a pistol.
> 
> http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/maryland.aspx - NRA link, saying that MD doesn't require a permit for many things - however no specifics here or on another few sites I saw on the laws about gun rentals at ranges.



As of Oct 1 2013 you do.  (unless you're military)

"Unless otherwise exempt, as of October 1, 2013, a Maryland resident must possess a valid Handgun Qualification License before he/she may purchase, rent, or receive a handgun."

https://www.mdsp.org/Organization/S...ion/Firearms/HandgunQualificationLicense.aspx

A person may not purchase, rent, or receive a handgun after October 1, 2013 unless they possess a valid Handgun Qualification License (HQL) issued by the Maryland State Police or qualify for exemption status. 

*Exceptions to possession of the HQL License*


A Licensed Firearms Manufacturer.
Active law enforcement officer or a person retired in good standing from a law enforcement agency of the United States, the State, or a local law enforcement agency of the State.
Active or retired member of the United States Armed Forces or National Guard and possesses a valid military identification card.
A person purchasing, renting or receiving an antique, curio or relic as defined in federal law.
Maryland licensed firearms dealers.


----------



## comrade-z (Apr 13, 2014)

.....well f*ck. :wall:


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 24, 2014)

http://rare.us/story/new-unpreceden...citizens-to-arm-themselves-like-never-before/

Governor Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) Wednesday will kick off legalization of House Bill 60, a new gun bill that may go down as the most expansive in history, with an old-fashioned barbecue.

The bill’s signing, which should double as a Second-Amendment rally, will open up gun rights in ways never before imagined in Georgia.

Under the new bill, police officers will not be allowed to ask someone to present a license if they are carrying a firearm; schools will have the option to choose to arm teachers and administrators; guns will now be allowed in many government buildings, bars and churches.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 24, 2014)

So it will be like Texas?


----------



## AWP (Jul 27, 2014)

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/27/justice/washington-gun-ruling/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



> *(CNN)* -- A federal judge ruled that Washington's ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional.
> In a ruling made public Saturday, Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. said that "there is no longer any basis on which this court can conclude that the District of Columbia's total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns is constitutional under any level of scrutiny.
> 
> The defendants cited in the judge's opinion were the District of Columbia and its police chief, Cathy Lanier.


----------



## Brill (Jul 27, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/27/justice/washington-gun-ruling/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



To SCOTUS or not to SCOTUS?


----------



## policemedic (Jul 28, 2014)

lindy said:


> To SCOTUS or not to SCOTUS?



I'll bet a case of Knob Creek the District appeals this ruling.


----------



## compforce (Aug 6, 2014)

surgicalcric said:


> I will stick to the redneck states like the one I live in.



If only your redneck state and my redneck state would collaborate so that our redneck firearms were carryable across the state line...


----------



## Rapid (Aug 7, 2014)

Is it an affront to civil liberties that you need to get a license before you can legally drive a car? After all, it's practically essential to exercise freedom of movement in this day and age.

Have gun owners been hurt by the compulsory tests for concealed carry permits? If not, then why would it be wrong to develop a 'lite' version of such tests -- intended for basic gun ownership?

I suspect that opponents of this idea are mostly worried about the *methods* for implementing it (i.e., the introduction of gun licenses could be used to develop some kind of registry to keep track of 'dangerous' people). But putting all those concerns aside, you have to admit that it makes SENSE to ask people to prove that they have a minimum level of proficiency and knowledge before they can wield something incredibly lethal. You don't join the military and get a loaded weapon on day one... You have to prove that, at the very least, you're not a total tard.

The question isn't if there should be some kind of test, IMO. The question is _how to implement it_ without the possibility that it could be used against gun owners in the future.

That's a much deeper issue, and I don't claim that there's a way to do it (nor do I claim that there isn't a way to do it -- I simply don't have the time to think about it long enough).


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 7, 2014)

What question or comment are you addressing?


----------



## Rapid (Aug 7, 2014)

Marine0311 said:


> What question or comment are you addressing?



No one in particular -- was just reading some recent comments. Mostly just addressing some thoughts I've had about this.

Obviously, there's a concern that 'licenses' or 'tests' could hurt gun ownership, but my POV is that this isn't necessarily obligatory. I'd like to think that there's a way to address this without hurting gun owners. I don't claim to have the solution. Just that it should be thought about in a bit more detail.


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 7, 2014)

Rapid said:


> No one in particular -- was just reading some recent comments. Mostly just addressing some thoughts I've had about this.
> 
> Obviously, there's a concern that 'licenses' or 'tests' could hurt gun ownership, but my POV is that this isn't necessarily obligatory. I'd like to think that there's a way to address this without hurting gun owners. I don't claim to have the solution. Just that it should be thought about in a bit more detail.



I am for universal background checks to purchase to create one more barrier for the criminals or those with a record who should not be able to buy guns. 

I could see a baseline test to ensure one is trained on the weapon. Go to the range at least.


----------



## Brill (Aug 7, 2014)

Which active shooter incident acquired a gun illegally? Conversely, how many criminals acquire guns legally?  (Point being, that background checks don't defer gun violence.  You seriously think a felon would go through the hustle and expense of a check to purchase an over-priced gun vice buy a stolen one from an associate?)

What is the ratio of fatal vehicle accidents of licensed vs. unlicensed drivers? (Training and proficiency are not the same.)

You might as well research how many hijackings TSA has thwarted!   It's all security theater.


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 7, 2014)

I agree.  I wish I had answer!


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 7, 2014)

I think the burden of liability for making sure someone is safe or trained should fall upon the person selling or making the firearm accessible. Background checks and "licences" are stupid and a waste of time IMHO. A convicted felon is not buying at the gun store for his next illegal act. 

Contrary to most on here, I really don't care if convicted felons have guns. I think if the person has been set free and returned to society, they should have their rights restored.

The gang banger, thug, sketchy looking person I already expect to be armed, if they are armed legally or illegally really doesn't matter.


----------



## pardus (Aug 7, 2014)

Rapid said:


> Is it an affront to civil liberties that you need to get a license before you can legally drive a car? After all, it's practically essential to exercise freedom of movement in this day and age.
> 
> *Have gun owners been hurt by the compulsory tests for concealed carry permits?* If not, then why would it be wrong to develop a 'lite' version of such tests -- intended for basic gun ownership?
> 
> ...



I do not have a CCW in the state I live due to the unnecessary, difficult and time restrictions on doing so, and I can legally carry in something like 45 states in the US with a legal CCW.
I am a person who carried a firearm openly for the state govt here, and is both a military and NRA firearms instructor.
So yes Ive been hurt, because I cannot carry without being subjected to a 8-12mth process of digging into my ass unnecessarily as a law abiding citizen, who is also authorised to carry a firearm as part of my job.
Unlike a drivers license, the possession of firearms is an un-infringable RIGHT in this country (or supposed to be at least).

For the record, I'm not opposed to people having to do something reasonable/testable in order to posses a firearm but that is beside the point as it is a RIGHT.


----------



## policemedic (Aug 7, 2014)

@pardus beat me to it.

People often use a driver's license in an attempt to create a corollary to gun licenses, but the effort fails. A driver's license is a privilege; it is not a right.  There are many,many other ways to travel--even long-distance--without a driver's license.

Conversely, owning and bearing arms is a right enshrined in the Constitution of these United States.  There is no comparable means of self-defense; there is no method as effective for preventing tyranny as an armed populace.   That is why the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in one of the foundational documents of this nation.  There is a huge difference between the two.

Other countries may hold a different view as a result of cultural differences.  Canada, for instance.  But the fact remains that licensing/registration is a pathway towards confiscation.

We do not ask people to prove competency--or even eligibility!!--to vote.  I would argue that the exercise of power by the electorate is exponentially more dangerous than a man with a gun.


----------



## compforce (Aug 8, 2014)

JAB said:


> Contrary to most on here, I really don't care if convicted felons have guns. I think if the person has been set free and returned to society, they should have their rights restored.
> 
> The gang banger, thug, sketchy looking person I already expect to be armed, if they are armed legally or illegally really doesn't matter.



I disagree (big surprise).  The prison system is so backed up that people that should NEVER be back on the streets are making parole.  They are returning to their old ways at very high rates.  Why make it easy for them to get a gun and commit new crimes?  Granted, it isn't that hard now, but why make it easier?  If felons were allowed to have guns, the statistics on crimes committed by people carrying legally would go through the roof and give the gun control crowd an inflammatory excuse to take away all guns, including yours and mine...


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 8, 2014)

pardus said:


> I do not have a CCW in the state I live due to the unnecessary, difficult and time restrictions on doing so, and I can legally carry in something like 45 states in the US with a legal CCW.
> I am a person who carried a firearm openly for the state govt here, and is both a military and NRA firearms instructor.
> So yes Ive been hurt, because I cannot carry without being subjected to a 8-12mth process of digging into my ass unnecessarily as a law abiding citizen, who is also authorised to carry a firearm as part of my job.
> Unlike a drivers license, the possession of firearms is an un-infringable RIGHT in this country (or supposed to be at least).
> ...



Agree 100%.  The drivers' license/gun license comparison is a complete fallacy, because as you noted the latter is a Constitutional right and the former is not.

My marriage license is good in every state.  My drivers' license is good in every state.  My right to vote is good in every state.  Why isn't my right to keep and bear arms good in every state?  Why isn't there a nationally-recognize CCW permit?  State-level permits have become de facto gun control because they are so time-consuming, expensive, and onerous to obtain, especially up north.


----------



## Rapid (Aug 8, 2014)

Automobiles weren't really a thing back when they were drafting the Constitution... or there'd probably be something in there about them, too. I don't think cars are comparable with other forms of transport (planes, trains, buses, etc), as you're entirely dependent on someone else in the case of the latter. It's a bit like saying the police can protect you with firearms, so you don't need one yourself. It sometimes works (e.g., UK) but it's pretty damn flawed.

As to the points that have been brought up -- of course, I'm sure there are states where loads of bullshit bureaucratic procedures have hurt gun owners. That doesn't mean they need to be kept -- on the contrary, they should be gotten rid of. Some kind of nationally-recognised permit seems like a good idea too, at the very least.

Basically, forget all the stupid shit that exists today -- try to work towards a brand new, sensible, nationwide system. Gun ownership should remain a right, not a privilege, but all rights come with responsibilities, and no single right has ever been unlimited. So, if just once in your life, you need to show some basic competency with a firearm, to prove that you're not a tard, then IMO, that can only be a benefit to gun owners (provided the system is set up so the government can't abuse it).

In practice, many efforts have been really stupid and have just been a guise to restrict ownership rights. But in theory, it makes sense to work towards a better system. Usually, it's anti-gun crowd who work towards such systems and regulations -- hence why they blow. And that's why I think it's down to the pro-gun owners to come up with something, and to take the lead on this.


----------



## pardus (Aug 8, 2014)

@Il Duce I'm curious as to why you disagree with Marauder's post, would you care to explain?


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 8, 2014)

Pardus, the right to vote is not good in every state - it requires registration and an increasing amount of paperwork, especially where conservatives back 'voter ID' laws.  Further, voting is narrowed by age, felony convictions, and time as voting is done at particular times of the year in controlled circumstances.  I always find this argument that the right for every American to own, carry, and employ as many/much weaponry as they desire as the only thing standing between a constitutional paradise and a despotic dictatorship to be hard to fathom.  Regardless, the restriction of firearms is indeed different from driving, voting, and marriage - all of those activities do not by their nature provide the means to take life as their primary function (insert marriage jokes here). 

That's why I disagreed with the statement.


----------



## Brill (Aug 8, 2014)

We should enact Parenting licenses and background checks before moving to guns.  How many bat shit crazy parents have killed AND WILL KILL their kids?

Would checks, fingerprints, training, etc stop THEM from killing?


----------



## Brill (Aug 8, 2014)

Il Duce said:


> Pardus, the right to vote is not good in every state - it requires registration and an increasing amount of paperwork, especially where conservatives back 'voter ID' laws.  Further, voting is narrowed by age, felony convictions, and time as voting is done at particular times of the year in controlled circumstances.  I always find this argument that the right for every American to own, carry, and employ as many/much weaponry as they desire as the only thing standing between a constitutional paradise and a despotic dictatorship to be hard to fathom.  Regardless, the restriction of firearms is indeed different from driving, voting, and marriage - all of those activities do not by their nature provide the means to take life as their primary function (insert marriage jokes here).
> 
> That's why I disagreed with the statement.



I think you meant those activities provide the means to PRESERVE one's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


----------



## policemedic (Aug 8, 2014)

Il Duce said:


> Pardus, the right to vote is not good in every state - it requires registration and an increasing amount of paperwork, especially where conservatives back 'voter ID' laws.  Further, voting is narrowed by age, felony convictions, and time as voting is done at particular times of the year in controlled circumstances.  I always find this argument that the right for every American to own, carry, and employ as many/much weaponry as they desire as the only thing standing between a constitutional paradise and a despotic dictatorship to be hard to fathom.  Regardless, the restriction of firearms is indeed different from driving, voting, and marriage - all of those activities do not by their nature provide the means to take life as their primary function (insert marriage jokes here).
> 
> That's why I disagreed with the statement.



Sir, are you familiar with the history of gun registration schemes?


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 8, 2014)

Il Duce said:


> Pardus, the right to vote is not good in every state - it requires registration and an increasing amount of paperwork, especially where conservatives back 'voter ID' laws.  Further, voting is narrowed by age, felony convictions, and time as voting is done at particular times of the year in controlled circumstances.  I always find this argument that the right for every American to own, carry, and employ as many/much weaponry as they desire as the only thing standing between a constitutional paradise and a despotic dictatorship to be hard to fathom.  Regardless, the restriction of firearms is indeed different from driving, voting, and marriage - all of those activities do not by their nature provide the means to take life as their primary function (insert marriage jokes here).
> 
> That's why I disagreed with the statement.



I don't know what you mean bro, with absentee voting I can vote anywhere for my elections back home.  My right to vote isn't taken away from me when I cross state lines like my right to keep and bear arms is.  And as far as new registrations go, registering to vote even in a state a bureaucratic as NY takes one form, front and back.  And oh yeah, it's completely free. 

Compare that to the paperwork and expense of getting a gun permit here.  NY only takes NY permits, even though the general requirements are the same as they were in CT (where I also had to get another license, because they don't have reciprocity with any other states) which are the same as the ones in North Carolina.

If the privilege of driving is transferable state to state why isn't my right to keep and bear arms?


----------



## 0699 (Aug 8, 2014)

Marauder06 said:


> My marriage license is good in every state.


 
Depends on what team you're playing for.  If you and Pardus got married in NH and moved to NC... 



Rapid said:


> *Automobiles weren't really a thing back when they were drafting the Constitution... or there'd probably be something in there about them*, too. I don't think cars are comparable with other forms of transport (planes, trains, buses, etc), as you're entirely dependent on someone else in the case of the latter.


 
Nothing in the Constitution about horses or wagons...  And nothing in there about TV or the internet; does that mean freedom of the press doesn't apply to any media invented after 1787?



> It's a bit like saying *the police can protect you with firearms*, so you don't need one yourself. *It sometimes works (e.g., UK)* but it's pretty damn flawed.


 
This part's a joke right?  Your aware that violent crime has gone UP since ya'll banned guns, aren't you?



> Basically, forget all the stupid shit that exists today -- try to work towards a brand new, sensible, nationwide system. Gun ownership should remain a right, not a privilege, but all rights come with responsibilities, and no single right has ever been unlimited. So, if just once in your life, you need to show some basic competency with a firearm, to prove that you're not a tard, then IMO, that can only be a benefit to gun owners (provided the system is set up so the government can't abuse it).


 
Can we apply the same limitations on every other right?  Can we make people pass a competency test before they exercise their freedom of religion?  And don't tell me it's not the same; religion has killed way more people than any gun I've ever owned.  Maybe the government can make sure people NEED their freedom of speech before they're allowed to exercise it.



> In practice, many efforts have been really stupid and have just been a guise to restrict ownership rights. But in theory, *it makes sense to work towards a better system*. Usually, it's anti-gun crowd who work towards such systems and regulations -- hence why they blow. And that's why I think it's down to the pro-gun owners to come up with something, and to take the lead on this.


 
Dude, that's some progressive sounding words there.  How about we enforce EVERY gun law already on the books for ten years, then discuss changes.  When Jim Brady died, the news the next day said that the Brady Law kept over (I don't remember but it was in the millions) of people from buying guns.  If so, why aren't they all in jail?  Because it's against federal law for an unqualified person to even TRY to buy a firearm.


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 9, 2014)

Marauder06 said:


> I don't know what you mean bro, with absentee voting I can vote anywhere for my elections back home.  My right to vote isn't taken away from me when I cross state lines like my right to keep and bear arms is.  And as far as new registrations go, registering to vote even in a state a bureaucratic as NY takes one form, front and back.  And oh yeah, it's completely free.
> 
> Compare that to the paperwork and expense of getting a gun permit here.  NY only takes NY permits, even though the general requirements are the same as they were in CT (where I also had to get another license, because they don't have reciprocity with any other states) which are the same as the ones in North Carolina.
> 
> If the privilege of driving is transferable state to state why isn't my right to keep and bear arms?


 
So, you don't have to be registered to vote?  You don't lose your right to vote if convicted of a felony?  You aren't restricted by age for your vote (18 to vote in the US)?  Paperwork and expense equals the right is denied?  There are not a number of states who have enacted significant restrictions on voting procedures?


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 9, 2014)

lindy said:


> I think you meant those activities provide the means to PRESERVE one's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


 
Nope, did not mean that.  Don't believe the historical record reflects guns, as the individual right to carry them, preserved any of those rights - unless Nat Turner's rebellion, the Black Panthers, the Whiskey Rebellion, or white separatists/militias in the US had a different impact than I'm familiar with.


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 9, 2014)

policemedic said:


> Sir, are you familiar with the history of gun registration schemes?


 
Only in the most general sense, as a consumer of news and public policy, I certainly don't possess any particular expertise or have conducted any serious study on the topic.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 9, 2014)

You should, before you further weigh yourself down with an ill-founded position.  

Your arguments about having to be registered, a specific age, etc to vote versus firearms ownership fall within the realm of flat out derp.

You have to be 18 to purchase a rifle or shotgun
You have to be 21 to purchase a pistol, or ammunition FOR a pistol
You are registered at birth *hi, i'm your friendly social security card*
You are restricted from owning firearms as a felon, just as you are for voting
Your argument about voting times is just flat out inane, considering the purpose of voting is to put someone in charge for a restricted period of time (in sane places, our congress and senate aren't anymore). With that argument you're saying I should be able to go to the range once every 4 years or maybe perhaps 2? 

Then you want to throw qualifications into the mix? So I can shoot once every 4 years, but I have to qualify expert in order to be able to keep my license.  So you're saying we should adhere to USAF small arms standards.... That's grand. Just lovely.

Guess what, drivers licenses don't require a requalification. They barely do that with PILOTS. You want to restrict a right further than a privilege... pure and simple. 

I can get that. 

What you're not getting is that the simple fact that the general population of the united states IS armed, prevents significant tyranny from being able to flourish. Those in power seek to restrict that very right in order to increase reliance upon the state... which then with a disarmed population and the sole monopoly upon the capacity for violence, has little to no actual check nor balance against anything they should choose to do or enact. The simple fact that there's a whole shitton of people THAT ARE ARMED ensures that we are still talking and voting like civilized people.

Never mind life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness being ensured by the barrel of a gun. 

I'm not a cop, yet both MC and myself have been in positions in the nice part of town in fucking small town America, where the deployment of a firearm ensured that we continued our lives with liberty and pursued happiness another fucking day.

I would love nothing more than for me to be able to snap my fingers and all of a sudden you and EVERYONE on this board who's either LEO or Military, is no longer necessary. Unfortunately, I used my genie's lamp as a spitter and he still has a case of the ass... so we get to deal with reality.

There's a whole lotta nice people out there. There's also a good many dipshits, and there's flat out evil mf'ers as well.  I choose to remain prepared and responsible for the safety of my family and myself.... and anyone who chooses to attempt to restrict my rights and abilities to do so can feel free to be the first in line.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 9, 2014)

And with an angry doublepost, 
*H.R.5344 - To prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians, with exceptions.*

Now our congress wants to not only restrict our ability to defend yourself by stopping a threat that falls into a specific ROE, but also restrict our ability to protect ourselves completely passively.

No surprise it's coming out of california.


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 9, 2014)

Ranger Psych, the first part of your argument makes my point.  Firearms ownership is subject to restrictions at the state and federal level – just like a number of other rights, including voting, enshrined in the constitution and bill of rights.  My points on voting were in response to Marauder06’s assertion his constitutional rights were being violated by being subject to differing and more restrictive gun restrictions between states.

I don’t believe I’ve made any assertions on the utility of specific restrictions on firearms, only that those restrictions are a legitimate purview of the state.

To your second point, that “the simple fact that the general population of the united states IS armed, prevents significant tyranny from being able to flourish” couldn’t be more wrong.  I think this is one of the biggest canards rolled out in gun control arguments and it’s just plain false.  There is not a country on the planet protected from tyranny by private gun ownership.

States with flourishing democracies, individual rights, and a distinct lack of tyranny with restrictive gun laws: Great Britain, Ireland, Germany, France, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland – I can keep going down the list of developed countries and get most of them on the list.

States with unrestricted private ownership of weaponry that are failed or failing states: Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, and a few I’m likely forgetting.

The argument for a free society, put forth by John Locke and accepted by the founding fathers (and I will quote an argument put forth by one of grad school professors that might be a quote from another author so heads up, plagiarism follows): “In Locke’s account, we have inalienable rights in a state of nature, but our rights are not secure, because a state of war can break out at any time between any two individuals or groups, in which everything can be taken from us, including our lives. Guns cannot help us in this state — nothing can. We must _leave_ the state of nature to be secure in our rights. Government _secures_ our rights — imperfectly, to be sure. But it establishes a framework of secure rights to be built up and improved on over time.”

If you would like to live in a state of nature, with guns as the guarantor of your individual rights, you have the examples of states where that is the norm above.  I will pass on the NRA paradise of Somalia.

When you look at the history of the US or the world you find revolutionary change, checks on power, or the emergence of tyranny was rarely if ever impacted by private gun ownership.  Wars required an industrial base, political organization, and the employment of forces – minutemen did not win the American Revolution, the Continental Army (with French support) did.  Similarly great social or governmental change is primarily driven through institutions, speech, and political pressure.  The civil rights movement in America was primarily advanced through non-violent protests, political pressure, and judicial action.  The privately armed militias (Black Panthers, etc.) were spectacularly unsuccessful and in fact provoked huge backlashes from the state.

Look, guns are awesome.  I enjoy owning them and shooting them.  I have no idea what gun regulations make sense and which don’t.  When evaluating them I try to utilize some minimally scientific assessment of their proposed and actual effect.  However, making the argument that society will inevitably fall to ‘tyranny’ without unlimited private gun ownership is a ridiculous argument that makes me deeply distrustful of the logic and honesty of those who push it.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 9, 2014)

Yet, in the flourishing democracies with individual rights and a supposed lack of tyranny..... the disarmed citizenry and even law enforcement is stuck in the role of a literal sheep.

Confined without tools (note restrictions on simple pocketknives we use on a daily basis here, vs England as a prime example) unable to defend themselves, and with largely fangless law enforcement should a wolf arrive and behead one of their soldiers....  I would pity the population should a mumbai style event occur there. Never mind that they're likely to be charged themselves should they present any resistance to anyone who impresses force upon them in their own defense! Truly Free!

If you think Somalia is a NRA paradise, you should think again. While as a failed nation its laws go unenforced, it actually has firearms law that is on par with England's restrictions. Effectively all weapons in that nation are by law(while due to a defunct goverment, not effectively) national property. 

Pointing to densely packed, socialistic in government, nations with land areas that are on par with maybe 2 US States and saying "it works there" is wearing rose colored glasses and ignoring all the social and economic differences between the countries. It's not powerpoint, you can't just copy-paste from something else and expect it to be remotely valid in execution.

*Government does not secure our rights. Government gives us a path of recourse should our rights be infringed.  

Government does not prevent:*

*my shit being stolen*
*being unlawfully detained by law enforcement*
*being kidnapped*
*being raped*
*being assaulted*
*my window having a brick through it*
*etc etc etc*
It only provides us with the letter of law that which will punitively punish those who committed the acts, and a civil court course of action for theoretical monetary reimbursement from the transgressing party to the aggrieved party. 

Government, and their proxy Law enforcement, is REACTIVE. Period.  How many murders does LE investigate?  Know why they're investigating it? Because they don't know all the facts because THEY WERE NOT THERE.

You can see this fact specifically by researching the number of conspiracy charges placed against people/groups versus actual law violations. It's a feather versus a freight train.

The laws that are on the books now, as it sits, would work just fricking FINE if they were actually prosecuted.  It's a crime to ATTEMPT to purchase a weapon when you are restricted from doing so, yet the ATF doesn't prosecute damn near any at all... and under the direction of our lovely government you seem to hold so high upon the pedestal, allows illicit guns to be purchased and moved beyond our borders and outside of their ability to track or control them so that our own law enforcement agents can be killed by them. 

Yet there's a 6+ month backlog for people who have to pay an additional tax, submit a full set of fingerprints and photos, get signed off by local law enforcement that they are a normal sane person, and undergo a federal background check as well.... in order to buy a hearing protection device to mount on their firearms that also would end up reducing the annoyance to people who live nearby to firearms ranges (who usually move there AFTER the range has been well established for decades, and then start bitching about it)

Another argument brought up in this thread:  Trying to say that a firearms sales establishment should do some sort of qualification with the weapon and person prior to sale or as condition of sale, is like saying that a dealership should do drivers ed.  It's an inane argument.   The shop that I worked at (albeit for an extremely short time due to issues with the management) did give a quick class of instruction encompassing the 4 rules of firearm safety, and basic operation of the system. 

You want to decrease the amount of firearms accidents? Put it back in school. Don't make a modern TOOL such a mystical item that people inherently do stupid and unsafe things with them.  That would severely reduce the amount of firearms accidents that occur,  especially involving children. Even something as simple as the NRA Eddie Eagle "Don't touch, tell an adult" basic mantra is better firearms education than being totally naive. Some schools still do drivers ed, some unserviceable and filled bore/chamber M1903's from the CMP given to every school for training would literally cost shipping price from CMP to the schools, and be zero hazard to anyone in the class unlike when the DEA goes to do a show and tell.

Then, on top of that, bring school rifle teams BACK.  You pointed at Switzerland as an example of what's right.... guess what they do. They have national holidays for marksmanship competitions. The rifle teams don't have to be mandatory, but it's a highly skill based task that we should hold in high regard rather than shun.  

I mean, fuck, my daughter's FOUR and already knows not to touch the firearms. She helps sort the shotshells and magazines when we're doing monthly maintenance, though.. while supervised. I grew up with the entire family's rack of rifles in MY BEDROOM. I could clean/handle them any time I pleased, provided I asked one of my parents beforehand.  I've never had a negligent discharge with ANY weapon system I have owned or been issued. 

In short:

Enforce the current legislation that is already there
Educate the population as to operation of the tools, and legalities therein. We're teaching them about how to avoid things that can kill them or fuck them up for life (Sex education, drivers education) so why the fuck aren't we teaching them THERE about something that's just as common?  

oh, that's right, it's an evil black rifle that only the government and military should have. But you can have a prius to drive through a peloton.


----------



## AWP (Aug 9, 2014)

Il Duce said:


> Only in the most general sense, as a consumer of news and public policy, I certainly don't possess any particular expertise or have conducted any serious study on the topic.


 
I had a post which has...gone somewhere, but to briefly recap that long diatribe: registration leads to confiscation. This applies across history to both failed and successful states. We can't argue that owning a gun is a right and then accept registration because the two are ultimately incompatible.


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 9, 2014)

Ranger Psych, don’t believe I agree with you that without guns citizens are sheep, in any of the countries mentioned or the US.  Maybe we have different definitions of ‘tyranny’ as well but if European-style socialism is tyranny then we’re likely going to need new definitions for what happens in North Korea, Myanmar, etc.

I also don’t see the argument, if I understand it correctly, that all unarmed individuals are inevitable victims, unprotected by the state.  I think most police and judicial entities would define much of their role as crime prevention, that in fact catching and imprisoning criminals is preventative to further crime.  I would offer as evidence crime rates in countries with restrictive gun laws, I don’t think you’ll find their incidence of burglary, battery, kidnapping, murder, rape, etc. as more than the US – in fact the opposite.  Certainly that’s due to a number of factors but it undercuts the argument, through evidence, that gun ownership deregulation by itself prevents crime – at least on a societal level.

I don’t mean to offer other first world countries as the model of what is proscriptive for the US, merely offer that they provide evidence the ‘guns prevent tyranny and crime’ as being a bogus argument.  If there are counter-examples of societies where extensive gun rights or ownership make societies safer or more law-abiding I’d certainly like to hear about them.  Statistics on the topic are very controversial in the US as congress has instituted a number of restrictions (at the NRA’s urging) on how gun crime and gun regulations relate to crime in the US.  I think it’s a good indicator when you’re afraid of data that the data is not going to back up your argument.

Certainly the criminal justice system is reactive – innocent until proven guilty is a part of our constitutional rights alongside the 2nd amendment.  That’s not the same thing as the government failing to protect citizens.  The social contract Locke talks about is precisely oriented on that question.  Individuals give up some of the freedoms they enjoy in the state of nature in order to enjoy the protections the state provides.  I do not have to spend 80% of my time on kill-or-be-killed zombie apocalypse interactions with my neighbors, I can instead pursue a variety of hobbies and non-killing related work activities as the state’s monopoly on legitimate force relieves me of those responsibilities.

It is absolutely an imperfect system with a variety of weaknesses but I think the democracy our founding fathers put together has evolved and functioned pretty well on the stage of governments.  I don’t think it’s holding ‘our lovely government on a pedestal’ to believe it’s principles, form, and function are sound.  It’s one of the reasons I, like many on the forum, swore an oath to defend it.  I don’t think you get to have a religious devotion to the efficacy of gun rights in securing liberty while dismissing the rest of the constitution as an afterthought.  I’m reminded of an onion headline I saw a few years ago ‘man passionately defends what he imagines the constitution says.’

I’m not sure about the efficacy of current vs proposed gun laws or the benefits of education vs restrictions.  I haven’t seen a great deal of compelling evidence for existing laws as effective in deterring gun crime – as I also am not familiar with the same showing unrestricted access to guns leads to less.

Freefalling, I haven’t seen the earlier post so can’t respond to the evidence presented but the registration inevitably leads to confiscation argument seems misleading.  One of the central purposes behind any registration and accounting by the state is for possible punitive action.  You register to vote, partially to prevent fraud, you declare your journalistic credentials partly so they could at some point be revoked.  Regulating a right does not eliminate the right.


----------



## nobodythank you (Aug 9, 2014)

Il Duce said:


> Ranger Psych, don’t believe I agree with you that without guns citizens are sheep, in any of the countries mentioned or the US.  Maybe we have different definitions of ‘tyranny’ as well but if European-style socialism is tyranny then we’re likely going to need new definitions for what happens in North Korea, Myanmar, etc.


Tyranny by the majority, even in a democracy, is still tyranny. A common problem/issue even in the United States with regards to other social issues. Perhaps not tyranny in the classical sense, but a restriction of rights nonetheless.



> I also don’t see the argument, if I understand it correctly, that all unarmed individuals are inevitable victims, unprotected by the state


That is exactly what he is saying. Which can be supported by case law within the United States.
Warren v. District of Columbia. 444 A.2d 1. District of Columbia Court of Appeals.   1981. _LexisNexis Academic_. Web. is a landmark case in which several women sued the DC Police for failing to provide protection when they were being raped and assaulted. The courts decided that “a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen” (10). In essence, this means you are on your own. The police (and by extension the government) are there to protect the general public, and NOT the individual citizen.



> I think most police and judicial entities would define much of their role as crime prevention, that in fact catching and imprisoning criminals is preventative to further crime.  I would offer as evidence crime rates in countries with restrictive gun laws, I don’t think you’ll find their incidence of burglary, battery, kidnapping, murder, rape, etc. as more than the US – in fact the opposite.  Certainly that’s due to a number of factors but it undercuts the argument, through evidence, that gun ownership deregulation by itself prevents crime – at least on a societal level.


Incorrect, as having been a recent part of this circle, I can tell you that prevention comes through education, preparation, and involvement in the community. Which also includes citizens ability to protect themselves until we arrive on scene.

As to the statement on evidence to show crime rates are lower in more restrictive countries, is incorrect. Seeing as you made the statement, the burden of proof rests upon you for this statement. You have offered zero evidence to support this position. In fact, if you were to look at the United States, the opposite of your statement would be true. Proof:
Chicago has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country. According to crime statistics on the city of Chicago’s website, there were 510 homicides committed in 2012 (City of Chicago). While the city of Houston reported 205 homicides during the same period (Houston Police Department - Crime Statistics). Both of these cities share relatively similar population numbers, but have completely opposite gun laws. While guns are not the sole factor, the ability of citizens to defend themsleves is a contributing factor.
"City of Chicago." _City of Chicago_. City of Chicago, n.d.  <https://data.cityofchicago.org/Public-Safety/Crime-Map-2012/bj7p-98q2>.
"Houston Police Department - Crime Statistics." _Houston Police Department - Crime   Statistics_. City of Houston, n.d. Web.   <http://www.houstontx.gov/police/cs/stats2.htm>.



> I don’t mean to offer other first world countries as the model of what is proscriptive for the US, merely offer that they provide evidence the ‘guns prevent tyranny and crime’ as being a bogus argument.  If there are counter-examples of societies where extensive gun rights or ownership make societies safer or more law-abiding I’d certainly like to hear about them.  Statistics on the topic are very controversial in the US as congress has instituted a number of restrictions (at the NRA’s urging) on how gun crime and gun regulations relate to crime in the US.  I think it’s a good indicator when you’re afraid of data that the data is not going to back up your argument.


Bogus how? Evidence? The restrictions by the NRA, while I think are not necessarily a good idea, are more than likely done in order to stifle efforts by the gun control lobby to introduce legislation meant to confiscate firearms. It is important to note, the figures within the gun control movement, have stated publicly that their effort is not for sensible controls, but for complete and total confiscation.



> I’m not sure about the efficacy of current vs proposed gun laws or the benefits of education vs restrictions.  I haven’t seen a great deal of compelling evidence for existing laws as effective in deterring gun crime – as I also am not familiar with the same showing unrestricted access to guns leads to less.


With respect, you're not sure about a great many things in this conversation. I don't believe many here are advocates for free and unrestricted access to weaponry. Most of us here are of the mind that those who are competent and capable should be allowed to without obstruction or undue difficulty. However, knowing the history and track record of our government when a certain political party comes into power, it is understandable that any restriction or regulation is a further stepping stone to confiscation. Which I will remind you is the stated goal of the gun control lobby. The government cannot be trusted with the power of registration of weapons. Period. Look at the fiasco that was universal health care as just a recent example of the government's ability to cock something up.



> One of the central purposes behind any registration and accounting by the state is for possible punitive action.  You register to vote, partially to prevent fraud, you declare your journalistic credentials partly so they could at some point be revoked.  Regulating a right does not eliminate the right.


In theory you are correct. In practice you are proven wrong. Regulation of your ability to drive, vote, ect... is done so it can be revoked (eliminated) at any time. If the government decided to eliminate private ownership of firearms, it will be done so through severe regulation.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 9, 2014)

ke4gde said:


> ...any restriction or regulation is a further stepping stone to confiscation...the stated goal of the gun control lobby...


 
And thus endeth the lesson.

The Constitution is the Constitution and our rights are written thereupon.  Stop fucking with them. There are enough infringing gun restrictions on the books right now. None need be added. Americans love guns. Gun ownership and shooting are an American tradition handed down from father to son (or daughter) for generations. Guns are in our blood. This ain't some tiny country where everybody is asshole to elbow. We got room to shoot. Take a liberal to the gun range and watch what happens...they discover how much _fucking fun it is!!!  _


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 9, 2014)

Il Duce said:


> Ranger Psych, don’t believe I agree with you that without guns citizens are sheep, in any of the countries mentioned or the US.  Maybe we have different definitions of ‘tyranny’ as well but if European-style socialism is tyranny then we’re likely going to need new definitions for what happens in North Korea, Myanmar, etc.



*Compared to the freedoms both fiscal and personal, the direction they have continually moved in is largely counter-culture of values, ideals, and morals held currently within this nation. Feel free to relocate if you think their ideals are more in line with your vision for society.*



> I also don’t see the argument, if I understand it correctly, that all unarmed individuals are inevitable victims, unprotected by the state.  I think most police and judicial entities would define much of their role as crime prevention, that in fact catching and imprisoning criminals is preventative to further crime.  I would offer as evidence crime rates in countries with restrictive gun laws, I don’t think you’ll find their incidence of burglary, battery, kidnapping, murder, rape, etc. as more than the US – in fact the opposite.  Certainly that’s due to a number of factors but it undercuts the argument, through evidence, that gun ownership deregulation by itself prevents crime – at least on a societal level.



*All unarmed individuals ARE at the whim of any aggressive individuals within society when their ability to protect themselves is redacted, restricted, or otherwise adulterated. What police and judicial entities define their own role as, doesn't matter as self definition is self serving. The definition I go by, is what really happens... and what really happens, is cops are still enroute when your door gets kicked down after you've been on the phone with 911 dispatchers for over 20 minutes as one prime example.  

Even here, in the one city in this county, a 911 call for a Violent Crime (Reporting party, non-involved but was configured to get involved if it became necessary) as per the FBI still took a 10 minute response with my location being within the response area for both State Troopers, Sheriff's Department, and City Police.  As stated by KE4GDE... LE has no legal basis and has case law defending their inaction. THEY ARE PURELY PUNITIVE AFTER THE FACT. What you have on your hip or in your safe is what will keep you safe, at least if you can get at it quick enough. 
*



> I don’t mean to offer other first world countries as the model of what is proscriptive for the US, merely offer that they provide evidence the ‘guns prevent tyranny and crime’ as being a bogus argument.  If there are counter-examples of societies where extensive gun rights or ownership make societies safer or more law-abiding I’d certainly like to hear about them.  Statistics on the topic are very controversial in the US as congress has instituted a number of restrictions (at the NRA’s urging) on how gun crime and gun regulations relate to crime in the US.  I think it’s a good indicator when you’re afraid of data that the data is not going to back up your argument.



*England (as a prime gun freeish nation you seem to espouse as a pinnacle of righteousness) reports crimes significantly differently than the US, but the best breakdown of English statistics to the FBI standard of a "Violent Crime" being murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.*..  *puts the English numbers on the order of >700:100k people vs US of 403:100k.  Murder rate is 1.2:100k vs US 4.8.  I'll take being able to prevent all of the above by being able to defend myself, over the alternative of zero defensive capability.*



> Certainly the criminal justice system is reactive – innocent until proven guilty is a part of our constitutional rights alongside the 2nd amendment.  That’s not the same thing as the government failing to protect citizens.  The social contract Locke talks about is precisely oriented on that question.  Individuals give up some of the freedoms they enjoy in the state of nature in order to enjoy the protections the state provides.  I do not have to spend 80% of my time on kill-or-be-killed zombie apocalypse interactions with my neighbors, I can instead pursue a variety of hobbies and non-killing related work activities as the state’s monopoly on legitimate force relieves me of those responsibilities.
> 
> It is absolutely an imperfect system with a variety of weaknesses but I think the democracy our founding fathers put together has evolved and functioned pretty well on the stage of governments.  I don’t think it’s holding ‘our lovely government on a pedestal’ to believe it’s principles, form, and function are sound.  It’s one of the reasons I, like many on the forum, swore an oath to defend it.  I don’t think you get to have a religious devotion to the efficacy of gun rights in securing liberty while dismissing the rest of the constitution as an afterthought.  I’m reminded of an onion headline I saw a few years ago ‘man passionately defends what he imagines the constitution says.’



*I hold the Constitution in higher regard than the electorate on all sides from the top down that currently is trying to skirt it through multiple means.*



> I’m not sure about the efficacy of current vs proposed gun laws or the benefits of education vs restrictions.  I haven’t seen a great deal of compelling evidence for existing laws as effective in deterring gun crime – as I also am not familiar with the same showing unrestricted access to guns leads to less.



 
*Shotgun and Rifle teams started dissapearing from schools* *in the mid 60's, and are all but gone at this point in no small part due to a byproduct of schools being marked as free fire I mean gun free zones. Oh, school shootings back then (non-accidental murders) also rarely occured, and when they did they rarely ever had more than one victim at that.*


----------



## pardus (Aug 9, 2014)

Il Duce said:


> * but the registration inevitably leads to confiscation argument seems misleading.  One of the central purposes behind any registration and accounting by the state is for possible punitive action.*  You register to vote, partially to prevent fraud, you declare your journalistic credentials partly so they could at some point be revoked.  *Regulating a right does not eliminate the right.*



First of all thank you for your earlier clarification.

As to the bolded quotes above. It is not misleading in the slightest. I've lived through it personally and have seen it enacted in 3 countries that Ive either lived or visited. What you seem to fail to realize is, that after registration comes and the state decides that a firearm is no longer acceptable, then people face the punitive action you speak of. So you are in effect correct except you are not looking at the bigger picture.

Regulating a right does not eliminate that right, correct, it puts in place the means to eliminate it.


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 9, 2014)

Ok, having trouble figuring out how to respond by sections, as ke4gde and Ranger Psych have done.  I know, not a ringing endorsement for my other arguments to display a lack of technical skills.  Below are my section by section responses to ke4gde using old-fashioned quotes:

"Tyranny by the majority, even in a democracy, is still tyranny. A common problem/issue even in the United States with regards to other social issues. Perhaps not tyranny in the classical sense, but a restriction of rights nonetheless."

Tyranny by the majority is a common problem in the US?  I don’t think a different party than the one you favor winning an election and enacting policy equates to tyranny.

"That is exactly what he is saying. Which can be supported by case law within the United States.
Warren v. District of Columbia. 444 A.2d 1. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. 1981. _LexisNexis Academic_. Web. is a landmark case in which several women sued the DC Police for failing to provide protection when they were being raped and assaulted. The courts decided that “a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen” (10). In essence, this means you are on your own. The police (and by extension the government) are there to protect the general public, and NOT the individual citizen."

So, because you can’t sue the police when a crime is committed against you the police and state offer no preventative protection?  The only effective crime prevention is individual gun ownership?  I’m no legal scholar but that does not seem to me to be the key lesson of Warren vs DC.  It strikes me to be much more about financial liability. 
"Incorrect, as having been a recent part of this circle, I can tell you that prevention comes through education, preparation, and involvement in the community. Which also includes citizens ability to protect themselves until we arrive on scene.

As to the statement on evidence to show crime rates are lower in more restrictive countries, is incorrect. Seeing as you made the statement, the burden of proof rests upon you for this statement. You have offered zero evidence to support this position. In fact, if you were to look at the United States, the opposite of your statement would be true. Proof:
Chicago has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country. According to crime statistics on the city of Chicago’s website, there were 510 homicides committed in 2012 (City of Chicago). While the city of Houston reported 205 homicides during the same period (Houston Police Department - Crime Statistics). Both of these cities share relatively similar population numbers, but have completely opposite gun laws. While guns are not the sole factor, the ability of citizens to defend themsleves is a contributing factor.
"City of Chicago." _City of Chicago_. City of Chicago, n.d. <https://data.cityofchicago.org/Public-Safety/Crime-Map-2012/bj7p-98q2>.
"Houston Police Department - Crime Statistics." _Houston Police Department - Crime Statistics_. City of Houston, n.d. Web. <http://www.houstontx.gov/police/cs/stats2.htm>."

So, education and individual preparation and involvement are the elements of crime prevention?  Police, courts, and jails are unnecessary – just concerned and well-armed citizens.  I’d be interested if you can provide an example of that sort of frontier justice being effective anywhere, much less in an urbanized developed country. 
In terms of evidence on crime rates or gun related crime you don’t have to go very far.  I’m surprised there is anyone who does not acknowledge US crime rates, especially with regards to gun violence, are much higher than the rest of the developed world.  Here are a couple of links from a quick google search:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/16/u-s-murder-rate-higher-than-nearly-all-other-developed-countries-fbi-data/
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
"Bogus how? Evidence? The restrictions by the NRA, while I think are not necessarily a good idea, are more than likely done in order to stifle efforts by the gun control lobby to introduce legislation meant to confiscate firearms. It is important to note, the figures within the gun control movement, have stated publicly that their effort is not for sensible controls, but for complete and total confiscation."

Yes, precisely my point.  Restrictions on information and data collection are put in place to prevent that data being used to justify gun restrictions.  Don’t collect the data, as it might present facts that argue against the position.  That’s tyranny if you need an example.  The idea that all advocates of gun control favor total confiscation of all guns is an equally ridiculous straw-man.  I’m sure there are those who favor confiscation, but it’s hardly the majority much less all.

"With respect, you're not sure about a great many things in this conversation. I don't believe many here are advocates for free and unrestricted access to weaponry. Most of us here are of the mind that those who are competent and capable should be allowed to without obstruction or undue difficulty. However, knowing the history and track record of our government when a certain political party comes into power, it is understandable that any restriction or regulation is a further stepping stone to confiscation. Which I will remind you is the stated goal of the gun control lobby. The government cannot be trusted with the power of registration of weapons. Period. Look at the fiasco that was universal health care as just a recent example of the government's ability to cock something up."

Being unsure is the natural position of someone without sufficient data to make conclusions.  With respect, there’s an awful lot of surety from others on the thread who seem to lack a great deal of data as well.
"In theory you are correct. In practice you are proven wrong. Regulation of your ability to drive, vote, ect... is done so it can be revoked (eliminated) at any time. If the government decided to eliminate private ownership of firearms, it will be done so through severe regulation."

Again, this seems like a transparent straw-man argument.  ‘Regulation will be used to take all guns away’ – as evidenced how?  This seems like boilerplate conspiracy theory similar to much I hear about NSA surveillance, health care, and the black helicopters of the great UN invasion headed our way.  Something one of my political science professor's in graduate school said I have always found appropriate to discussions like this (and I am paraphrasing): 'if you want to have a real argument define your opponent's views in a way they would accept, if you don't you're just arguing with an imaginary boogeyman you've created.'  I don't think the majority of those who favor regulations intend disarmament, confiscation, or tyranny.  I think they see the results of poorly regulated guns in the US as increased crime and gun-related deaths and look for solutions within public policy.  They also don't see the 2nd amendment as integral to the fabric of a functioning democracy nor as an inalienable right of every citizen to have any weapon they want with no accountability or oversight.  These views may not be correct but they are genuine, not tyrannical despotism in waiting.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 9, 2014)

We're throwing facts and personal experience as either relevant-experience-holding US citizens, prior citizens of now-disarmed states (and watching the shit happen) or as flat out law enforcement, you're throwing around MI-level best guess bs highlighted with the epitomy of officer-speak non-commital non-attributable strawmanning and redirection.

I'm done.


----------



## AWP (Aug 9, 2014)

Il Duce said:


> Freefalling, I haven’t seen the earlier post so can’t respond to the evidence presented but the registration inevitably leads to confiscation argument seems misleading.  One of the central purposes behind any registration and accounting by the state is for possible punitive action.  You register to vote, partially to prevent fraud, you declare your journalistic credentials partly so they could at some point be revoked.  Regulating a right does not eliminate the right.


 
I've found several lists, but before I post them I'd like to run down the facts or evidence. Given the political bent of the websites I don't wish my points to be "autodiscarded" because of their source(s). So I'll run down the examples and see if sany of them are "leaps of faith."

I will address the inevitable here and then move on.

Nazi Germany

The Weimar Republic placed restrictions of firearms, but particularly legislated registration. When Hitler and the NSDAP came to power several years later it loosened those restrictions. Sort of. See, it loosened them for the good, pure Aryan people, but banned them outright for Gypsies, Jews, etc. The same people who were later executed en masse. I had some info on the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, but couldn't find it.

Here's the thing, if we can quote Locke and others then we have to consider other philisophical views. I think one view which is overlooked is this: would you rather die in a gas chamber or on your feet? I'm not so blind as to think that zero gun registration would equal Hitler's early demise, but an armed uprising would make the world notice. Germany could "stealthily" execute the masses because there wasn't any opposition. So even if we accept (I think we should) the physical reality that guns in the hands of private citizens would not stop Hitler are we willing to accept a mindless death in the gas chamber? Or would we rather go out on our feet? You're in a bad spot and the end isn't in doubt, but if we're a nation of beliefs then why on earth would we accept a quiet subjugation? Why should ANY people on this earth go peacefully into that good night?


----------



## nobodythank you (Aug 9, 2014)

Il Duce said:


> Tyranny by the majority is a common problem in the US?  I don’t think a different party than the one you favor winning an election and enacting policy equates to tyranny.


Really? How delightfully misguided. Do you happen to know what political party I favor? In point of fact I do not care for either party. The one I desire does not exist. Your assumptions are based on bad information all around. Tyranny comes in many forms. Examples of such within the United States (recent times) include Civil Rights discrimination, sexual and marriage equality discrimination, tyranny by the so called majority, and several other forms. Oppression that has occurred on BOTH sides of the political isle. The Democrats are notorious for stomping on religious freedoms, personal freedoms, gun ownership, fiscal responsibility, and much much more. By contrast the Republicans are notorious for stomping on social equality, religious protections (see misguided belief that the US is a Christian nation and the forcing of Christian values on the populace), fiscal responsibility, and much more. So your comment is not only incorrect, but an uninformed one.


> So, because you can’t sue the police when a crime is committed against you the police and state offer no preventative protection?  The only effective crime prevention is individual gun ownership? * I’m no legal scholar* but that does not seem to me to be the key lesson of Warren vs DC.  It strikes me to be much more about financial liability.


I have highlighted the only accurate information in this posting. You are not a legal scholar, and by all accounts (based on the available information you have provided) have not worked in the criminal justice field in this country. Your assessment of this case is again, incorrect. If you had read the case in its entirety, you would have seen that the women called the police several times for help. Each time the police arrived and failed to detect criminal activity, and one of the calls was even mis-classified as to prioritization by the dispatcher. The point of the case was to assign blame onto the the police department for negligence in the performance of their duty.  I highly doubt these women endured several hours of torture, rape, and trauma in order to collect a payday. Let me be clear here, the police are NOT here to protect YOU the individual. Their responsibility is to the general public as a whole. Similar to how in a disaster, the first priority is to the continuity of government, THEN the protection of life and property. For the record, I am speaking form a position as someone who has spent quite a few years interpreting and executing the law as a law enforcement officer (former) and seen how the system works from the side of the courts (bailiff) and from the streets. 


> So, education and individual preparation and involvement are the elements of crime prevention?  Police, courts, and jails are unnecessary – just concerned and well-armed citizens.  I’d be interested if you can provide an example of that sort of frontier justice being effective anywhere, much less in an urbanized developed country.
> In terms of evidence on crime rates or gun related crime you don’t have to go very far.  I’m surprised there is anyone who does not acknowledge US crime rates, especially with regards to gun violence, are much higher than the rest of the developed world.  Here are a couple of links from a quick google search:
> http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/16/u-s-murder-rate-higher-than-nearly-all-other-developed-countries-fbi-data/
> http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list


Yes. As your lack of u understanding in the elements of crime fighting are evident, I will attempt to educate you on these principals. As I said, those are some of the precepts of crime prevention. The concept of community policing is one that is in used by most law enforcement agencies in this country. The concept centers around educating the public on criminal activity, involving law enforcement in the community, and providing for a police presence to proactively deter criminal activity. So much for frontier justice form a civilized nation huh? The implementation of community policing has had a profound positive impact in nearly every community that is has been used in.
The police, courts, and jails are after the fact, punitive efforts made against those that break the established laws. Laws are NOT primarily meant to prevent criminal activity. In fact, they are meant to punish those that break the law. The law can sometimes server as a deterrent, but it is only a happy side effect. As an aside, you mean to tell me that in this discussion, where I have provided sound academic sources, you are going to bring in the Guardian as a source for information on how gun violence works in the States? Really? The media is notorious for putting spin on data. Data that many of their analysts are unfamiliar with interpreting.


> Yes, precisely my point.  Restrictions on information and data collection are put in place to prevent that data being used to justify gun restrictions.  Don’t collect the data, as it might present facts that argue against the position.  That’s tyranny if you need an example.  The idea that all advocates of gun control favor total confiscation of all guns is an equally ridiculous straw-man.  I’m sure there are those who favor confiscation, but it’s hardly the majority much less all.


Again, data being misrepresented to oppress those that wish to maintain their liberties. With the proper spin, the majority can be formed and manipulated. It is not a straw man argument, it is and has been the stated goal by many prominent gun control advocates. On more than one occasion, and in more than one venue. Their execution of this can be seen in the calls for "common sense" reform by the Bloomberg group, Brady group, and several liberal platforms.


> Being unsure is the natural position of someone without sufficient data to make conclusions.  With respect, there’s an awful lot of surety from others on the thread who seem to lack a great deal of data as well.


There is nothing wrong with being unsure and stating so. However, you are arguing a point you are unsure of, and have little understanding of. That doesn't make for a sound or concise argument on your end. You are correct, there is a lot of surety in this thread. Although I cannot speak to anyone else, I know that most of the people on this site do not speak on issues they are not familiar with. Familiarity being more than something they saw on TV or read online. Most of the individuals here speak with real world experience and I trust the sources in most cases. So the lack of data can be excused up to a certain point. In most cases if data is requested, it is provided to support a position.


> Again, this seems like a transparent straw-man argument.  ‘Regulation will be used to take all guns away’ – as evidenced how?  This seems like boilerplate conspiracy theory similar to much I hear about NSA surveillance, health care, and the black helicopters of the great UN invasion headed our way.  Something one of my political science professor's in graduate school said I have always found appropriate to discussions like this (and I am paraphrasing): 'if you want to have a real argument define your opponent's views in a way they would accept, if you don't you're just arguing with an imaginary boogeyman you've created.' * I don't think *the majority of those who favor regulations intend disarmament, confiscation, or tyranny.  I think they see the results of poorly regulated guns in the US as increased crime and gun-related deaths and look for solutions within public policy.  They also don't see the 2nd amendment as integral to the fabric of a functioning democracy nor as an inalienable right of every citizen to have any weapon they want with no accountability or oversight.  These views may not be correct but they are genuine, not tyrannical despotism in waiting.


Again, not a straw-man argument. Confiscation is the next logical step after registration. Again bolded. You don't think, based on what evidence? This is why the District of Columbia gun ban and registration were defeated in the courts. As will the mandatory registration of weapons in Connecticut will be shot down as being unconstitutional. It is also why a national firearms registry has not been created. Again I don't see anyone here in favor of anyone having any weapons they want. In fact, speaking as a former law enforcement officer, there are several laws in place that sufficiently address the issues involved in gun ownership. I can also tell you that in many cases, prosecution is being waved against people that have committed gun and other crimes.
Based on my own real world interactions, the majority of the populace is scared and uniformed on the topic of carrying firearms. It is not until they are educated on the topic do they reverse their fears and misunderstanding on the topic. Many are conditioned to be sheep as was mentioned earlier in the thread. Of course in an academic or theoretical setting we can laugh at the absurdity of the government abusing their authority over the populace. However, in practice this can be seen through the use of NSA surveillance to spy on American citizens, tax scandals with the IRS, and many other scandals that have hit the current administration.


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 10, 2014)

So, I believe I’ve heard three major arguments put forward for why gun restrictions are a bad idea and possibly/definitely unconstitutional.

1.  Guns are the only means of protecting your person, property, and family as the state is not obligated to do so and anyone without a gun is a victim waiting to happen.  If I have understood Ranger Psych and ke4gde positions correctly.

I still don’t find this argument convincing.  There are copious examples in communities in the US and other developed countries where gun ownership and victimhood do not correlate with this maxim – else why wouldn’t countries with severe gun restrictions be over-run with criminality?  If this were the case why wouldn’t mandatory gun ownership replace law-enforcement almost in it’s entirety?  Further, it doesn’t seem to be a good argument against gun regulation, only against the prohibition of guns.  If citizens can be armed for self-defense wouldn’t more restrictions on criminal’s ability to gain guns, or anyone’s ability to gain weaponry and ammunition enough to conduct a sustained attack be a good thing?  After all, you need much less in the way of weaponry and ammunition to defend your home and person against intruders than you would to assault another’s home.

2.  Guns prevent tyranny, their presence which provides the ability of the populace to rebel and/or resist the state acts as a check on the state’s power to prosecute tyranny against it’s citizens.  Believe Ranger Psych, ke4gde, and Freefalling put forth this argument – again if I am understanding it correctly.

I haven’t seen any evidence in this forum or elsewhere to support this assertion.  In our own history armed resistance to the state has never brought redress or alleviation of perceived tyranny – in fact the opposite.  Those taking up arms to assert their rights against the state are almost always repressed with significant force.  I think you can point to the same in most other developed countries.  I can absolutely see how arms can protect you from fellow citizens but I can’t think of any situation where sufficient arms, ammunition, training, and organization have been sufficient to protect you from the state.

3.  Restrictions on guns, including registration and the collection of information on owners, manufacturers, and the weapons themselves can (or will inevitably) lead to the confiscation of guns and the loss of rights guaranteed by the constitution.  Pardus and Freefalling put this argument forward but I would imagine most others agree.

I think I do buy this argument, not that it is inevitable, but certainly that it sets the stage for the loss of gun rights.  If you believe any encroachment, or possible future encroachment, on gun rights is an affront to the constitution and must be resisted then I think you have a case.

I don’t view gun rights that way and believe many who favor restrictions and regulation do not as well.  I think the same argument made for registration/regulation can be made for NSA surveillance, prayer in school, subpoenaing journalists to testify in leak cases – each could be a step towards a big-brother surveillance state, state-sanctioned religion and the loss of religious liberty, and the dissolution of freedom of the press respectively.  I personally don’t think that’s what those decisions are leading to, though I have to acknowledge the possibility.  Instead, I believe they are reasonable encroachments on valuable constitutional rights that a free society must make to protect the liberty and safety of it’s citizens.

One thing that has always puzzled me about the guns-rights movement – or perhaps it is just my perception of the gun-rights movement – is the passionate conviction in the sanctity of the 2nd amendment but the seeming ambivalence on the others.  You don’t see many open-carry rallies getting together to support the ACLU, mosque openings, or the occupy movement.  The rise of Hitler’s Germany saw the restriction of a number of liberties including religion, press, assembly, and others.  Why aren’t these liberties as critical to the prevention of tyranny as the right to bear arms – especially considering those liberties, without the right to bear arms, are present in a variety of developed countries where the right to bear arms alone does not seem to have provided any examples of states with an abundance of liberty.

In terms of my lack of knowledge or use of best-guess MI BS I don’t think I’m as far away from the rest of the posts as ke4gde and Ranger Psych imagine.  We’re discussing public policy with a wide range of views from a host of individuals and groups who have studied this problem more than anyone on the forum.  I’m not offended if folks disagree, dispute my facts, or draw different conclusions.  I hope others feel the same way with my comments.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 10, 2014)

Il Duce said:


> 1.  Guns are the only means of protecting your person, property, and family as the state is not obligated to do so and anyone without a gun is a victim waiting to happen.  If I have understood Ranger Psych and ke4gde positions correctly.
> 
> I still don’t find this argument convincing.  There are copious examples in communities in the US and other developed countries where gun ownership and victimhood do not correlate with this maxim – else why wouldn’t countries with severe gun restrictions be over-run with criminality?



I call.

Show your hand, where's your citations for your supposed examples? We're bringing facts, you're bring us something we should take at face value and by your word. 

Your word supports the registration and following confiscation of something protected by our constitution, and you have even tried to state that you support and defend that very document when your statements show otherwise. 

Why should we trust that at all? 



Il Duce said:


> If this were the case why wouldn’t mandatory gun ownership replace law-enforcement almost in it’s entirety?  Further, it doesn’t seem to be a good argument against gun regulation, only against the prohibition of guns.



See criminal statistics of England Vs US I cited above that you chose to waffle past and ignore.

There is also a lack of tracking of incidents within this nation as far as statistics for involvement of a firearm in the defense of person or property. Extrapolation from things that barely scratched the surface such as the National Crime Victimization Survey shows REPORTED incidents in the 300k range. 

I can state as a fact that those numbers are obviously low because of the fact that out of the two incidents my household has been in, only one was reported to police. My wife, Medicchick on here, had to draw down on an individual who refused to leave, continued to advance, and who's actions put her in fear of her physical safety. He ran away, and as a matter of fact SHE didn't even call police. Her on-the-ball loss prevention co-workers at the store she worked at and was departing from shopping at saw what was occuring on CCTV and called the police as they were responding to the parking lot themselves, albeit unarmed. I can say with certainty that she was lenient in her trigger press compared to what I would have done. 

He was apprehended later by local law enforcement AFTER THE ATTEMPTED ASSAULT TOOK PLACE (gee, where were the cops to stop it from happening, oh wait, they're nearly solely reactive)



Il Duce said:


> If citizens can be armed for self-defense wouldn’t more restrictions on criminal’s ability to gain guns, or anyone’s ability to gain weaponry and ammunition enough to conduct a sustained attack be a good thing?  After all, you need much less in the way of weaponry and ammunition to defend your home and person against intruders than you would to assault another’s home.



You obviously know little to nothing about how to conduct manual breaching nor how to actually perform a defense. Not surprising, given my experience with a respective population sample in military schools.



Il Duce said:


> 2.  Guns prevent tyranny, their presence which provides the ability of the populace to rebel and/or resist the state acts as a check on the state’s power to prosecute tyranny against it’s citizens.  Believe Ranger Psych, ke4gde, and Freefalling put forth this argument – again if I am understanding it correctly.
> 
> I haven’t seen any evidence in this forum or elsewhere to support this assertion.  In our own history armed resistance to the state has never brought redress or alleviation of perceived tyranny – in fact the opposite.  Those taking up arms to assert their rights against the state are almost always repressed with significant force.  I think you can point to the same in most other developed countries.  I can absolutely see how arms can protect you from fellow citizens but I can’t think of any situation where sufficient arms, ammunition, training, and organization have been sufficient to protect you from the state.



Erm, armed resistance to _"the state"_ are what brought this country to fruition...  You chose to put forth that the minutemen of long ago did not win the revolutionary war. I counter that very statement with the fact that given the choice of fighting alone or with a limited number of men, or with a supported military that is fed, funded, armed and coordinated.. against the same enemy... which would you choose?


But, we can bring some things into the discussion.
Or some more.
Or some more.
Want me to keep going?




Il Duce said:


> 3.  Restrictions on guns, including registration and the collection of information on owners, manufacturers, and the weapons themselves can (or will inevitably) lead to the confiscation of guns and the loss of rights guaranteed by the constitution.  Pardus and Freefalling put this argument forward but I would imagine most others agree.
> 
> I think I do buy this argument, not that it is inevitable, but certainly that it sets the stage for the loss of gun rights.  If you believe any encroachment, or possible future encroachment, on gun rights is an affront to the constitution and must be resisted then I think you have a case.



It IS inevitable, and it provides the specific framework that every other nation on this planet that has confiscated or otherwise required the surrendering of arms, has used.

Not 
That
It's 
Fucking
Happening
NOW

or anything...



Il Duce said:


> I don’t view gun rights that way and believe many who favor restrictions and regulation do not as well.  I think the same argument made for registration/regulation can be made for NSA surveillance, prayer in school, subpoenaing journalists to testify in leak cases – each could be a step towards a big-brother surveillance state, state-sanctioned religion and the loss of religious liberty, and the dissolution of freedom of the press respectively.  I personally don’t think that’s what those decisions are leading to, though I have to acknowledge the possibility.  Instead, I believe they are reasonable encroachments on valuable constitutional rights that a free society must make to protect the liberty and safety of it’s citizens.
> 
> One thing that has always puzzled me about the guns-rights movement – or perhaps it is just my perception of the gun-rights movement – is the passionate conviction in the sanctity of the 2nd amendment but the seeming ambivalence on the others.  You don’t see many open-carry rallies getting together to support the ACLU, mosque openings, or the occupy movement.  The rise of Hitler’s Germany saw the restriction of a number of liberties including religion, press, assembly, and others.  Why aren’t these liberties as critical to the prevention of tyranny as the right to bear arms – especially considering those liberties, without the right to bear arms, are present in a variety of developed countries where the right to bear arms alone does not seem to have provided any examples of states with an abundance of liberty.



The ACLU doesn't support the 2nd amendment:

The ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.  The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. 

Wonder why we say Fuck Off to the ACLU? They say it to the entirety of an amendment that they choose to interpret in their own manner. Just like you do.

Islam's stated framework is to destroy or subjugate all people and other religions, and continues it, to this day......and the occupy movement wishes to gain from others hard work.  

None of those mesh with the views of 2nd amendment supporters, and that is one quick reason why you won't see us getting our arms and joining their defense. 

There's a fact you're also obviously either completely oblivious of, glossing over, or outright ignoring.

What do you do when those other rights are restricted?  You can't talk. You can't publish it in the press. You can't vote. You can't express your religion as you see fit.

What backs up all these other rights? 

I find it laughable that you're willing to give up or sustain restrictions upon any of your rights, let alone the most important one that ensures the others can exist. 

*You probably don't even realize it, but by doing so you specifically commit to become wholly reliant on a government apparatus which under the very rule of law they uphold, is not legally required to protect you nor is liable or punishable for that lack of protection.  *


----------



## AWP (Aug 10, 2014)

Il Duce said:


> So, I believe I’ve heard three major arguments put forward for why gun restrictions are a bad idea and possibly/definitely unconstitutional


 
Have you read the rest of this thread? You only address points and persons from the last two or three pages.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 10, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Have you read the rest of this thread? You only address points and persons from the last two or three pages.



Not like it's an 80 page thread or anything...


----------



## 8654Maine (Aug 10, 2014)

Il Duce, how would you go about fixing the problem?  

I think some of the rancor stems from the way you write (I've never met you so I couldn't say "talk").  Your reference to your professor and the way you expound remind me of academics who believe that they are enlightening the unwashed and the uneducated.  I wouldn't count RP, FF, Ke4dge, Pardus or Mara in that company.

I like the way you've boiled down some of the "Pro 2A" arguments to 3 bullets.  **Get it** 

BTW, I've lived in some of these "Tyranny-free zones" and was a citizen of one.  I gave them up and became a citizen of this country and would never go back.  Poor sample size (n=1).

I don't mind hearing alternatives.  If I am ignorant, then educate me.

So instead of showing how ignorant some here are, how would YOU fix it?


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 10, 2014)

8654Maine, I've definitely spent a great deal of time in academia - and I'm an MI bubba - so I can certainly see that's how I 'talk.'  I certainly do not mean to come across as though others are ignorant or uneducated.  The only member I know personally is Mara but I do not believe he, nor anyone else on the forum is unenlightened or uneducated.  One of the main motivators for me to monitor this thread was to gain education for myself.

I will say there are a number of 'facts' I've cited or failed to failed to prove in some member's estimation I do not believe are controversial in the least.  I've got it that rightwing.org says guns are the only thing that ensured the success of the revolution, civil rights movement, etc. - but that's kind of like providing a link saying there's no such thing as climate change.  They're out there and sincere people believe it, but it's definitely not in the main stream of social science or scholarship.  Not trying to refute Ranger Psych here, just saying I might have a different baseline of what I think is mainstream in terms of scholarship.

To answer your specific question, I have no idea.  I have not read every post in this 80 page thread (to answer Freefalling's question) but I have been monitoring it for about the last 50 pages or so.  My main purpose was to gain some insight and information on gun control policy - I did not intend to comment until Pardus caught me failing to keep my clicker off the disagree button.  I consider myself, as you might have guessed, a liberal in terms of my political leanings.  However, I've found liberal policy proscriptions in terms of gun control to be entirely unsatisfying.  I do not have an issue with gun control legislation in principle but I've seen very few examples of gun regulations that seem to do much to get after their purported purpose - the decrease of crime, gun violence, and/or accidental deaths.  Could be because we haven't found the right policies, could be NRA-backed obstructionism - but it could also be because gun restrictions are flawed in principle. 

So, yeah, I have no alternative to offer although I too am looking for education on the topic.  I have found some on the forum but there has been a great deal I have found not at all convincing as my trip down blogwar lane here has probably shown.

One thing I do think helps in the discussion is intellectual honesty and clarity of purpose.  I think you have to look at information and sources with as close to a lack of bias as you can manage.  You also have to acknowledge up front the things you take on faith.  If in your view gun rights are an inalienable part of being a citizen it's not going to matter what stats are rolled out in front of you - gun restrictions are not going to be legitimate.  If you're searching for the most effective means of deterring crime, defending life/liberty/property you have to be willing to acknowledge evidence that does not agree with what you'd like to be true.  I think there is a host of information sources, largely on the right, in terms of gun policy and history that are deeply misleading.  I think an intellectually honest conversation about guns ignores them.

But, totally get it if that comes across as dismissive or insulting.  That's not how I mean it, if that makes any difference.  It's for that reason I've 'ignored' some of the 'facts' presented in the discussion.  Because I don't think they are facts.  But I'm not going to be able to provide a link or a citation that will be meaningful to those who already believe such evidence could never exist.

So, there's 300 words to answer your question that could have been done in 3 - if that doesn't prove my academic credentials I don't know what will :)


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 10, 2014)

So you're not going to cite sources, facts, and skirt the actual questions asked?

Sounds good. Sounds Liberal.


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 10, 2014)

Ranger Psych, I'll get it.  But if you think the civil rights movement in the US rested on the use of firearms and the articles proposing that hypothesis are scholarship nothing I'm going to cite or say will make any difference to you.


----------



## 8654Maine (Aug 10, 2014)

Il Duce, thank you for the clarification.

I appreciate the honesty.

"* I consider myself, as you might have guessed, a liberal in terms of my political leanings. However, I've found liberal policy proscriptions in terms of gun control to be entirely unsatisfying. I do not have an issue with gun control legislation in principle but I've seen very few examples of gun regulations that seem to do much to get after their purported purpose - the decrease of crime, gun violence, and/or accidental deaths. Could be because we haven't found the right policies, could be NRA-backed obstructionism - but it could also be because gun restrictions are flawed in principle.*"

I think you hit it with that one.  None of the gun restrictions, regulations or gun control legislation seem to do what they purport.


----------



## Brill (Aug 10, 2014)

Why are members of Congress and others in the Executive branch afforded more rights to personal defense than I? Pelosi and other anti-gunners travel around DC and into MD with PSDs who are armed...why can I not be? Threat of criminal trespass is still the same.

Either we ALL have guns or NOBODY has guns.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 10, 2014)

As far as PSDs...if you can pay for it, go ahead.


----------



## 0699 (Aug 10, 2014)

ThunderHorse said:


> As far as PSDs...if you can pay for it, go ahead.


 
By which you mean "all animals are equal, but some animals are MORE equal".  Well said.


----------



## nobodythank you (Aug 11, 2014)

Il Duce said:


> 1.  Guns are the only means of protecting your person, property, and family as the state is not obligated to do so and anyone without a gun is a victim waiting to happen.  If I have understood Ranger Psych and ke4gde positions correctly..


Obviously this conversation has entered a faulty logic loop. You are either twisting my words to your own purpose (likely), or you do not comprehend what was written (unlikely). No where in any of my posts did I say, or otherwise imply, that anyone without a gun is a victim OR that the state is not obligate to protect you. What I did say is that the state is not required to protect the individual, but instead is required to protect the public. Case law and examples were provided to you from reputable academic sources. The state cannot protect everyone all of the time.

It is the individual's choice on whether to exercise their right to be armed or not. Many are intelligent enough to know they are not prepared for that awesome responsibility. Though they do not begrudge others their rights. Before you twist that statement, every person that carries is not a cowboy cop wanting to shoot some urban folk.

Oh, and as I am beginning to suspect, +1 for trolling.


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 11, 2014)

Ranger Psych, not attempting to be fact-free, dodge your questions, or fail to respond to facts just believe the way we interpret facts and sources is going to be so significantly different that the facts I cite and my interpretation is not going to satisfy what you’re looking for – just as many of your arguments have not convinced me.

If you look at the link on gun ownership and gun homicides provided in an earlier post you find the US has a homicide rate by firearm of 2.97 per 100k.  The UK has one of 0.07, Germany 0.19, France 0.06 and so on through most first world countries.  Here it is again: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

Even accounting for differences in population it’s still a much higher rate of gun homicides.  Similarly, the homicide rates by country link: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5 show the US murder rate of 5 per 100k people is significantly higher than that of France (1), Germany (1), the United Kingdom (1) and most other developed countries.

Certainly the factors that go into crime, including homicide, are complex and there are a variety of factors impacting – not just gun laws.  However, my point should still be acknowledgeable as within the realm of possible – that if private gun ownership is the means to secure personal safety then there are a number of places where gun restrictions have not impacted that personal safety negatively.

Here is an article comparing the US and UK on that point:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-24/u-k-gun-curbs-mean-more-violence-yet-fewer-deaths-than-in-u-s-.html
It argues the rates of violence are actually greater in the UK, but gun laws have reduced homicides significantly below that of the US.

The statistics I was able to find on the UK vs US with my cursory googling were from 2010 but indicated 12,996 murders in the US vs 638 for the UK.  8,775 of those in the US were by firearms while 58 of the UK’s were.  Even accounting for population differences that’s very significant in terms of just straight up where are you more or less likely to get murdered, especially by a firearm.  Links:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls - murders in US – 12,996 in 2010
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls - murders by firearms in US – 8,775 in 2010
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/homicides-firearm-offences-and-intimate-violence-2010-to-2011-supplementary-volume-2-to-crime-in-england-and-wales-2010-to-2011 - murders in UK – 638 in 2010
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/homicides-firearm-offences-and-intimate-violence-2010-to-2011-supplementary-volume-2-to-crime-in-england-and-wales-2010-to-2011 - murders by firearm in the UK – 58 in 2010

That’s awesome your wife was able to defend herself and her coworkers.  Glad she is safe from the encounter.

My point on self-defense within the home was vs home invasion, robbery, or assault within normative criminal behavior.  Understand if you are going to defend against a deliberate attack by preparing a fortified position you’re going to need a great deal of additional items.  I’m not aware of that type of assault being a significant concern to most homeowners.

Here is a good list of books on the American Revolution.  I think you’ll find the authors by-and-large credit the formation, organization, leadership, and logistics of the continental army with military victory – though certainly the militia played an important role.  Private gun ownership, while it certainly a boon to the baseline skills of many recruits, was not the critical factor in throwing off a tyranny.

http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/2565.Best_Books_About_The_American_Revolution

Your first link on the civil rights movement and the role of firearms in my estimation is significantly off the mark in terms of the mainstream of scholarship.  Here is a list of books I think a little more on the mark:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/08/25/215377849/the-books-that-bring-the-civil-rights-movement-to-life

The other links, to me, are equally unconvincing.  The first details local political violence where the National Guard RESTORED order.  The second sounds like a pretty horrific episode of racial violence against African Americans in the reconstruction South.  Unless you’re imagining a revisionist history where the freedmen were armed and supplied sufficiently to defend themselves it seems like a terrible example.

The examples I’d point to of significant political change in the US and the advancement of rights where private gun ownership were not the deciding factor are:

The Revolutionary War
The Civil War
Universal Suffrage – both African Americans and Women respectively
Evolution of the labor movement – Unions
The Civil Rights Movement

With respect, there is no way you – or I for that matter – have any idea what is inevitable and what is not.  You make a judgment based on your best analysis of past similar events and how you interpret current activity.  But it is still a judgment – mine just happens to be different from yours.

For the last portion you’re making my point.  If one doesn’t support your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and it is an interpretation just as mine is, then they don’t deserve support.  The interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the anchor point for all other opinions.  Freedom of religion, sure, but not for religions I don’t agree with like Islam; Freedom of assembly, great, but it’s got to be people I agree with assembling.

There is no way the 2nd amendment makes all the other rights possible.  The reason I know that is there are dozens of countries where the rights to free expression, religion, assembly, unreasonable search and seizure, etc. exist without the right to bear arms.

Look, I’ve got it, you disagree 100% with everything I’m saying.  That’s fine, what I’m expressing are my opinions informed by my own biases and interpretation of facts.  There are many facts I’m unaware of that may change my views in the future.  My beliefs don’t necessarily mean yours are wrong at all.  I do not understand the vitriol with which you insist my opinions MUST be wrong and yours MUST be the correct and only interpretation of what are some pretty complex issues with a great diversity of opinion in this country and others.  Believe me, nothing I’m saying or have said is meant to insult you or your beliefs.

Freefalling.  I have kept up with the discussion for about 2/3rds of the entries but have not read the entire thread in detail.  I have responded to the last few pages as I interpreted most of the comments to be directed at things I had posted.  I definitely didn’t feel equipped to take on the rest of the 80 pages.  Some might think I’m not equipped to take on the items I did comment on :).

Ke4gde.  It was not my intention to twist your words nor am I attempting to be a troll on this thread.  I’m happy to slip back into monitoring mode but didn’t want people to think I have no sources or facts and was attempting to ‘skirt the actual questions asked.’


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 11, 2014)

Il Duce said:


> *blah blah raa raa uk laws r better bla bla*


* 
This
IS
NOT
THE UK OR EUROPE
*
we have more people, we have more land mass, we have a different type of government. We have different laws. We report crimes differently. 

If you have such high regard for how they run stuff, Have at it.




Il Duce said:


> My point on self-defense within the home was vs home invasion, robbery, or assault within normative criminal behavior.  Understand if you are going to defend against a deliberate attack by preparing a fortified position you’re going to need a great deal of additional items.  I’m not aware of that type of assault being a significant concern to most homeowners.



2012 statistics:


3,783 burglaries a day
135 Robberies a day
1.8 of those robberies resulted in murder

75% of those burglaries and 17% of those robberies occurred at home
3,038 forcible entrys a day
Not that anyone's counting.




Il Duce said:


> bla bla books about revolutionary war bla bla



That's all well and good, but, umm, how does your view about the revolutionary war really mesh with the fact that militia numbers exceeded the continental army's numbers, and even when the continental army was comprised still contributed a third of the combat force utilized by the fledgling United States... and were the whole combat force of the colonies prior to the continental army's formation anyway?

But we don't have to quibble over that. 

Plus, once again, you're IN the army. You obviously chose being fed/supplied/housed/armed by the army, over having to bring your own rifle, ammo, chow, and tent.  So did everyone who ponied up INTO the continental army. 

Gee! Hard question... like the idea of independence? Get paid fighting for it when you'd be fighting anyway?  

That's like wondering why so much SOF jumped ship to work as contractors for a bit. Getting paid 10 times as much, doing the same job?



Il Duce said:


> For the last portion you’re making my point.  If one doesn’t support your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and it is an interpretation just as mine is, then they don’t deserve support.  The interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the anchor point for all other opinions.  Freedom of religion, sure, but not for religions I don’t agree with like Islam; Freedom of assembly, great, but it’s got to be people I agree with assembling.



I don't see how I'm making your point at all. They are free to do as they wish. I'm not stopping them. It's within their rights to assemble and protest within the law, and pray. 

I am under NO obligation to go help hoist their holy screaming penis, nor go march alongside them when it's not a cause that I believe in nor support. I think it's absurd that you think I should be going and doing that. 

Are you a member of the NRA? Do you go to rights rally's and protests for the 2nd amendment? 

The very argument you pose, you fall under your supposed own point.  Give me a fucking break.




Il Duce said:


> There is no way the 2nd amendment makes all the other rights possible.  The reason I know that is there are dozens of countries where the rights to free expression, religion, assembly, unreasonable search and seizure, etc. exist without the right to bear arms.



Sure they do.

What recourse do they have, should their government prove overbearing and decide that those rights no longer exist?

But you'll just dismiss fact as fiction.



Il Duce said:


> Look, I’ve got it, you disagree 100% with everything I’m saying.  That’s fine, what I’m expressing are my opinions informed by my own biases and interpretation of facts.  There are many facts I’m unaware of that may change my views in the future.  My beliefs don’t necessarily mean yours are wrong at all.  I do not understand the vitriol with which you insist my opinions MUST be wrong and yours MUST be the correct and only interpretation of what are some pretty complex issues with a great diversity of opinion in this country and others.  Believe me, nothing I’m saying or have said is meant to insult you or your beliefs.



You're totally biased and you use your bias to interpret everything presented to you. Your views won't change, no matter what is presented to you specifically because:

You ignore that gun law currently enacted is unenforced by the federal government
You ignore that guns actually save lives of people
You ignore every factual historical statement brought forward about gun control

You ignore every first person account about the benefits of firearms
Attempting to cover the desire to restrict and/or remove my rights with "but I'm your friend" boilerplate does not make less of the fact that 

you DO want to restrict my rights

you most likely participate with or in organizations designed with the intent to restrict and ultimately remove my rights
A quote from Patrick Henry comes to mind, considering your demeanor and obvious intent:



> *Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.*


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 11, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list


----------



## Grunt (Aug 11, 2014)

SOTGWarrior said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list


 
The number that initially shocked me the most out of those statistics is the fact that India is second only to the US in the number of civilian owned weapons, if I am reading it correctly, followed by China.


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 11, 2014)

Agoge said:


> The number that initially shocked me the most out of those statistics is the fact that India is second only to the US in the number of civilian owned weapons, if I am reading it correctly, followed by China.



And that number is still only 4.2 guns per 100 capita (ranked at 110th on that list, China being 102nd).


----------



## Rapid (Aug 12, 2014)

0699 said:


> Nothing in the Constitution about horses or wagons...  And nothing in there about TV or the internet; does that mean freedom of the press doesn't apply to any media invented after 1787?



Because horses and wagons aren't metal boxes which can reach hundreds of miles per hour, thus having far _more_ potential to be a devastating weapon (a horse can be too, but nowhere to the same extent). Also, there was a lot more common sense back then, so it probably never occurred that someone would ever try to regulate something as essential and nearly harmless as a horse -- and to their credit, I don't think anyone did. I'm not aware of a horse license (at least not in the UK), are you? I believe restrictions vary from state to state, but from what I understand, riding a horse often largely comes down to just respecting conventional traffic laws (which is a big duh).



0699 said:


> This part's a joke right?  Your aware that violent crime has gone UP since ya'll banned guns, aren't you?



I'm not in favour of the gun ban or gun politics in the UK, but this type of 'pop culture' misinformation is just flawed and misleading.








1) *Prior* to the spike, you can already see that homicide rates vary slightly year-by-year anyway. In 2010, they were actually lower than the year of the handgun ban. "The strangely high figure for 2002/2003 took into account the 173 people killed by Dr Harold Shipman over the previous 20 years. The [...] figure of 765 for 2005/2006 (which includes the 52 people killed in the 7 July bombings of 2005) represents a fall of 12 per cent on the previous year."

So a huge part in the 'increase in violence' was down to a mass murderer and the London bombings. You can see for yourself that the figures drop down after that, back to pre-ban levels.

2) "in 2010, according to the FBI, the reported rate of violent crime in the US was 403 incidents per 100,000 people–the 466 figure comes from 2007. Second, and more importantly, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. *The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime.* The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” _including_ simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts _aggravated assaults _and “_forcible rapes._”

When you look at how this changes the meaning of “violent crime,” it becomes clear how misleading it is to compare rates of violent crime in the US and the UK. You’re simply comparing two different sets of crimes. In 2009/10, for instance (annual data is from September to September), British police recorded 871,712 crimes against persons, 54,509 sexual offenses, and 75,101 robberies in England and Wales. Based on the 2010 population of 55.6 million, this gives a staggeringly high violent crime rate of 1,797 offenses per 100,00 people.

But of the 871,000 crimes against the person, _less than half_ (401,000) involved any actual injury. The remainder were mostly crimes like simple assault without injury, harassment, “possession of an article with a blade or point,” and causing “public fear, alarm, or distress.” And of the 54,000 sexual offenses, only a quarter (15,000) were rapes." http://blog.skepticallibertarian.co...e-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/



0699 said:


> Can we apply the same limitations on every other right?  Can we make people pass a competency test before they exercise their freedom of religion?  And don't tell me it's not the same; religion has killed way more people than any gun I've ever owned.  Maybe the government can make sure people NEED their freedom of speech before they're allowed to exercise it.



If you're going to make a comparison, make sure it's comparable. How would you even check/enforce/regulate religion? Mind control hasn't exactly been perfected yet. Besides, religion only provides the pretext to kill. It's still down to individual will. The freedom of speech example is even sillier. Speech is part of human nature. You could never enforce a ban on it but you can regulate it in certain contexts -- as we currently do. So, yes, all your rights already DO carry limitations -- not against how you use them, but rather how they could infringe on other people's rights.

Try to scream that you've got a bomb whilst flying on a plane, and see how far your rights get you. Try to slander someone, and see how long it takes before lawyers take you to court. Try to post on facebook about how you want to kill such-and-such President, and see how long before the Secret Service pays you a visit. You've got natural rights, but there are contexts where they cross other people's rights. That's where justice draws the the line.

Why not explain this -- if sensible restrictions work for your other unalienable rights, why can't they work for gun ownership? I'm not talking about what's been done in practice up until now (there have been loads of retarded things, like the 'assault weapon' ban), so no need to bring that up. I'm saying, in theory, wouldn't it be sensible to have sensible checks and balances? If there would be a way to prevent it from being abused, then who would it hurt? Assuming a perfect system could be implemented, one which couldn't backfire, how could it do anything but benefit the image and status of gun owners?



0699 said:


> Dude, that's some progressive sounding words there.  How about we enforce EVERY gun law already on the books for ten years, then discuss changes.



I don't see the point in that when everyone is mostly saying how crappy existing regulations are.

Review everything. Throw out the bad. Come up with some good.

If gun owners don't want to take the lead on this, then the hippy anti-gun activists will forever continue to do so. To me at least, it seems like they are gaining more and more traction with each new generation of young adults. Which seems pretty sad.


----------



## 0699 (Aug 12, 2014)

Rapid said:


> Your post.


 
Okay.  Thank you.


----------



## pardus (Aug 12, 2014)

Rapid said:


> I don't see the point in that when everyone is mostly saying how crappy existing regulations are.
> 
> Review everything. Throw out the bad. Come up with some good.
> 
> If gun owners don't want to take the lead on this, then the hippy anti-gun activists will forever continue to do so. To me at least, it seems like they are gaining more and more traction with each new generation of young adults. Which seems pretty sad.



Very interesting post with the UK crime stats, that was a new perspective that I haven't seen before.

If existing regulations/laws were followed it would negate a lot of these new and upcoming laws from being "needed".

The problem with the pro 2nd A "side" proposing gun laws is that it will not put things to rest but will only hasten the slide to loosing the right to own guns (at least in the manner which we do currently).  Anti gunners will be emboldened that the other side is giving ground.
IMO, we are on the back foot despite several gains in recent years. I believe education is the key to our future success.


----------



## AWP (Aug 12, 2014)

Comparing UK to US crime rates then becomes difficult because of the widely varying definitions. No worries. Unless I'm mistaken, the UK crime data also doesn't show an appreciable change in crime before or after the handgun ban. It did nothing to curb crime by the UK's definition. That's interesting.

I have looked at the FBI data, a few years ago I even dropped it into a spreadsheet and everything, then compared the FBI's data to states with strict gun laws and those without. With a few exceptions, states with strict gun laws had higher rates of violent crime according to the FBI. Statistically speaking in the US, you are safer in a right to carry state.


----------



## nobodythank you (Aug 12, 2014)

pardus said:


> I believe education is the key to our future success.


This. I have changed more hearts and minds through this, and example of how a lawful citizen should behave while carrying than any amount of rhetoric. Well said.


----------



## AWP (Aug 12, 2014)

Huh..I found the spreadsheet.

Anyway, for those who are bored or curious, Table 5  is what I used. The current published data is from 2012. 2013's isn't fully populated.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/violent-crime

My data was from 2010 and I pulled together a few lists for Right to Carry states.

If you want specific weapons data, Table 20 is where to go:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2012.xls

Remember that "Rifles" will include AR's, AK's and the like alongside bolt action rifles. However, you can see that rifles account for a very small percentage of weapons used.


----------



## Brill (Aug 12, 2014)

Wonder how many crimes were STOPPED, thus unreported, due to "victim" having a weapon and protecting themselves?


----------



## pardus (Aug 12, 2014)

lindy said:


> Wonder how many crimes were STOPPED, thus unreported, due to "victim" having a weapon and protecting themselves?



Stopping a crime and not reporting it is retarded (unless there's a body that you have to make disappear of course :-").


----------



## 104TN (Aug 12, 2014)

And then you have this little gem.
Federal Judge Ruling: AR-15′s and AK-47′s Not Protected by 2A

The judge's opinion appears to be based upon the (incorrect) assumption that the 2nd amendment is intended solely to ensure access to firearms for self-defense in the home while overlooking their more important utility in ensuring those who make and enforce laws (real or imagined) aren't able to impede rights.


----------



## pardus (Aug 12, 2014)

rick said:


> And then you have this little gem.
> Federal Judge Ruling: AR-15′s and AK-47′s Not Protected by 2A
> 
> The judge's opinion appears to be based upon the (incorrect) assumption that the 2nd amendment is intended solely to ensure access to firearms for self-defense in the home while overlooking their more important utility in ensuring those who make and enforce laws (real or imagined) aren't able to impede rights.




A quote from the judge in the article linked... 




> Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons *fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual*.



Holy FUCK!

Again this is about education. If a judge is this fucking ignorant what hope have we got to maintain our freedom in the long run? I'm not just referencing the 2nd A in that either, I mean *freedom*.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Aug 12, 2014)

To get it out the way, let me say that I am a strong advocate of the 2A, opposing bans on ARs, high-cap mags, etc. Though I believe they are a constitutional right, I usually point out that banning ARs & mags over 10 rounds would have essentially zero impact on gun violence. I will get to the statistical stuff in a later post. For this post I wanted to present something that I recently found while reading up of firearm history in the U.S.
​First, I think the evidence is fairly clear that the 2A was clearly meant to be an individual right, not a collective one. I detail the reasoning behind this somewhere in the previous 82 pages. However, I found some interesting tidbits during recent research: Originally, the Bill of Rights (BoR) were largely seen as restraints on the federal government, and not the states themselves (as demonstrated in Barron v. Baltimore). The BoR became forced on the states in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and was called the Incorporation. Prior to that, the states were seen as having the right to do things that the federal government could not constitutionally do. An example would be the fact that many states had "state churches" well into the mid-1800s.

With that in mind, I looked at early state constitutions and laws regarding firearms. No surprise- most acknowledged the individual right to bear arms, and some even made it a requirement. Some, however, did not. Most gun regulation in early America, as far as I can tell, was at the state level. Some regulations imposed by the states in our early history:
-NJ allowing armed assemblies to be disarmed by the police
-Some states had laws to keep track of firearms
-Some states banned firearms from certain locations and events (for example, PA & NY had laws banning the use of firearms on New Year's)
-PA, Mass, and NY passed laws regulated how and where gunpowder could be stored
-Some states banned firearms from free blacks
-Mass had a law requiring white adult males to swear an oath of loyalty or be banned from owning firearms (Quakers were exempt)
-Kentucky banned concealed carry weapons in 1813
-Between 1813 and 1859, the following states passed laws banning concealed weapons: Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Virginia & Georgia.
-VA's concealed carry law was so strict that you could still be charged even if you used the weapon in self defense
-Some of the state courts overturned these laws, while others (like TN) upheld them
-Arkansas appears to be the first state to interpret the right to bear arms as a collective right in 1840s
-US v Cruikshank states that the 2A "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."

Of course, this is all moot nowadays because the BoR has been imposed onto the states for about a century now, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2A is a individual right. I just thought I'd bring it up to show the complexities of this debate. If we, as 2A supporters, embrace "original intent," we should understand what that intent was: that the states may very well have the power to restrict firearms in one fashion or another. No matter how you can it, the federal government has no authority to infringe on 2A rights. 

Personally, I think restricting firearms is an effort in futility. Gun violence is a symptom, not a cause. Attacking a type of firearm (ARs) that accounts for far less than 3% of all gun homicides, or banning mags over ten rounds when revolvers are the firearm of choice, does nothing but provide a false sense of security to those who don't know any better. To date, I have never read a single study that demonstrated banning of a type of firearm has any net effect on violence. If we as a society are serious about curbing violence, we will start focusing on our criminal justice system, education, poverty, mental health, and (possibly) population density. Of course, those issues are not easy fixes, and I have little hope they will be pursued in a logical manner.

I have a bunch more to say regarding comparing the US vs other countries, statistics, etc. but for now I'll just close with a quote from Jeff Cooper:



> Weapons compound man's power to achieve; they amplify the capabilities of both the good man and the bad, and to exactly the same degree, having no will of their own. Thus we must regard them as servants, not masters - and good servants to good men. Without them, man is diminished, and his opportunities to fulfill his destiny are lessened. *An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.*



Sources:
§ 2, 1799 N.J. Laws at 562; § 1, 1797 N.J. Laws at 179
Act of June 26, 1792, ch. X, 1792 Mass. Acts 208,
Act of Apr. 13, 1784, ch. 28, 1784 NY Laws 627,
Acts of Dec. 6, 1783, ch. CIV, 1783 pa. Laws 161, ch. MLIX, 11 Pa. Stat. 209
A Collection of all the Laws of the Province of Pennsylvania:Now in Force 13, 39-40, 85, 197-200, 315-17 (1742)
Act of Feb. 4, 1806, 1805-1806 Va. Acts ch. XCIV, at 51
Act of Mar. 14, 1776, ch. VII, 1775-1776 Mass. Acts 31
Act of Apr. 1, 1778, ch. LXI, §§ 2, 5, 1777-1778 Pa. Laws 123, 126
Act of Mar. 18, 1859, 1859 Ohio Laws 56
1838 Va. Acts ch. 101 at 76.
Bliss v Commonwealth, 1822
State v. Buzzard, 1842
US v Cruikshank

Article covering most of this stuff (I don't agree with everything in the article fyi). I have a bunch more if someone wants more reading:


----------



## JBS (Aug 14, 2014)

At the end of all this, I arrive at the same conclusion.

Count me among the many thousands of true believers who, when faced with the anti-gun frenzy, simply state "come and get them".

I ain't giving up shit.  End of story.   

That's what I need.  A new t-shirt with crossed rifles and that statement, screwed grammar and all.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 18, 2014)

Something to consider.
Ferguson MO.  Those claiming weapons are no longer needed should look here and see how well "To serve and Protect" is working out.
Families and Store owners are using the 2nd Amendment to protect their stores, homes and families.
You want to face those mobs with 7 rounds or 30?
I'll take 30 thank you.


----------



## nobodythank you (Aug 18, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Something to consider.
> Ferguson MO.  Those claiming weapons are no longer needed should look here and see how well "To serve and Protect" is working out.
> Families and Store owners are using the 2nd Amendment to protect their stores, homes and families.
> You want to face those mobs with 7 rounds or 30?
> I'll take 30 thank you.


Exactly. As I quoted earlier.... as established by case law, the police are NOT required to protect the individual. ONLY the general public. That means when the police fail, you are on your own. All the liberal tears and memorials after the fact won't save you or your family.

Proof (granted it is from Fox News, but still enough legitimacy to show what happened):
*'There are no police': Ferguson store owners guard businesses; cite lack of police response*


> Two store owners, standing outside their business holding guns, told Fox2Now.com that when they called 911, they were sent from one police agency to another, and got no response.
> 
> One of the owners, with a large black gun resting on his shoulder, told the station that police were lined up blocks from the looting, and did not engage looters making off with large boxes from these stores.
> 
> "There's no police," he said. "We trusted the police to keep it peaceful; they didn't do their job."


----------



## compforce (Aug 21, 2014)

The guy on the left is CNN Anchor Don Lemon, the guy on the right is self-proclaimed communist Van Jones and the guy in the center is Conservative radio host Ben Fergueson.  Which one do you think actually knows the difference between semi automatic and automatic firearms?


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 21, 2014)

compforce said:


> The guy on the left is CNN Anchor Don Lemon, the guy on the right is self-proclaimed communist Van Jones and the guy in the center is Conservative radio host Ben Fergueson.  Which one do you think actually knows the difference between semi automatic and automatic firearms?



Yeah, to say that Don Lemon made himself look to be every bit the uneducated, sycophantic arse that we believe him to be is just a weeeeeeeeee bit of an understatement.


----------



## 8654Maine (Aug 21, 2014)

"No one is saying we should take away someone's 2A rights, but we should examine it".

Couple that with that ding bat's (Lemon) "semantics" and we get the perfect recipe for removal of a Right.

What an ignoramus.


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 22, 2014)

http://www.guns.com/2014/08/22/swat-team-responds-to-college-staff-member-carrying-umbrella-video/ Sigh.


----------



## pardus (Aug 23, 2014)

SOTGWarrior said:


> http://www.guns.com/2014/08/22/swat-team-responds-to-college-staff-member-carrying-umbrella-video/ Sigh.



Those cops are fucking retards for going full retard and the person who called them needs to be beaten in the head with a fucking brick. 
I would be fucking pissed if some asshole was pointing an AR at me in a situation like this, totally unnecessary.


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 23, 2014)

SOTGWarrior said:


> http://www.guns.com/2014/08/22/swat-team-responds-to-college-staff-member-carrying-umbrella-video/ Sigh.



It's California.  Were it any other state of the union, I'd have launched into a diatribe questioning the paternity of the initial complainant as well as his mother's obsessive predilections for biblically proscribed intimate contact with deceased, slightly decomposed reptiles.  However, since it's the land of nuts and fruits, I can't even feign shock and dismay.  I don't even think San Fran-on-the-Hudson has achieved that level of brain dead to where such an erroneous identification is possible.  

The SWAT guys were only responding to what they were told by dispatch.  I'm not going to jump in on them unless I knew at what point they figured out it was NOT a firearm, and how soon afterwards did their treatment of the teacher change with respect to that, especially since the teacher was apparently quite cooperative.


----------



## Rabid Badger (Aug 24, 2014)

Some Dems should not engage in gun debates.....most (not all) end up sounding like Dim Limon.

pew - pew - pew LEGAL SEMI AUTO (state dependent).

PEWPEWPEWPEWPEWPEWPEWPEWPEWPEWPEWPEWPEWPEWPEW - Crowd pleaser but not legal UNLESS YOU HAVE PERMISSION FROM BATFE TO LEGALLY OWN AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON - usually all it takes is the ATF Tax Stamp (state dependent) - full auto

There are caveats and fortunately 1st you need to understand the difference between Semi-Auto and Automatic, unfortunately DimLim does not.


----------



## Dame (Aug 24, 2014)

pardus said:


> Those cops are fucking retards for going full retard and the person who called them needs to be beaten in the head with a fucking brick.
> I would be fucking pissed if some asshole was pointing an AR at me in a situation like this, totally unnecessary.



What the fuck are they wearing?


----------



## AWP (Aug 24, 2014)

Dame said:


> What the fuck are they wearing?


 
I'd imagine they were at home or the gym or wherever and had a call out. You know how many guys here have fought in their boxers and shower shoes?

While I'm hardly a gunfighter even I know enough to say homeboy in the faded camo shorts needs to be slapped for pointing the weapon and that AWESOME stance. I can't fathom what that dude is doing and why.


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 24, 2014)

I hope all these new laws get rolled back during the 16 elections.


----------



## pardus (Aug 24, 2014)

Marine0311 said:


> I hope all these new laws get rolled back during the 16 elections.



I don't think President Clinton will do that...


----------



## 8654Maine (Aug 24, 2014)

Pardus, you deserve that.

But, fuck, you may be prescient.


----------



## pardus (Aug 24, 2014)

8654Maine said:


> Pardus, you deserve that.
> 
> But, fuck, you may be prescient.



Trust me, I'd hate that post myself if I could...


----------



## JBS (Aug 24, 2014)

compforce said:


> The guy on the left is CNN Anchor Don Lemon, the guy on the right is self-proclaimed communist Van Jones and the guy in the center is Conservative radio host Ben Fergueson.  Which one do you think actually knows the difference between semi automatic and automatic firearms?


Dipshit grinning on the right.   These idiots that want to dictate what everyone else can (or cannot) do should be deported.  If you don't like a free society, get the f*** out.


----------



## Dame (Aug 24, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> I'd imagine they were at home or the gym or wherever and had a call out. You know how many guys here have fought in their boxers and shower shoes?



I figured. But being in your boxers and flip flops in a war zone, backing up your buddies, is awesomeness.




The SWAT guy with the awesome stance pointing his gun at a guy who just turned himself in for carrying an umbrella? :-/  Not so much.   ($.02)


----------



## AWP (Aug 24, 2014)

pardus said:


> I don't think President Clinton will do that...


 
Yup. She'll be far worse than the current guy. Fresh political capital to spend, no health care to spend it on...unless she's reminded of the political cost, I think she'll make a run at the 2A.


----------



## medicchick (Aug 24, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> I'd imagine they were at home or the gym or wherever and had a call out. You know how many guys here have fought in their boxers and shower shoes?
> 
> While I'm hardly a gunfighter even I know enough to say homeboy in the faded camo shorts needs to be slapped for pointing the weapon and that AWESOME stance. I can't fathom what that dude is doing and why.


I do love the uniformed cop walking past him giving him the hairy eyeball like "What the fuck are you doing boy?"...lol



Dame said:


> What the fuck are they wearing?


You get the call you go.  There have been too many active shooter calls to mess around (I know this wasn't one but who knows what dispatch told them).  You change if/when more guys show up to relieve your position.  Unless it's a department who has SWAT on regular duty rotation they are a special unit and can work at different times.  The AST SRT includes members of most if not all PD's up there.  I saw Anchorage PD, AST, Wasilla PD, Palmer PD and AST Wildlife Troopers when I launched them out one night.


----------



## JBS (Aug 24, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Yup. She'll be far worse than the current guy. Fresh political capital to spend, no health care to spend it on...unless she's reminded of the political cost, I think she'll make a run at the 2A.



The moment she announces her candidacy, watch the immediate impact on the price of ammo and weapons.   I'm already buying with that outlook/expectation.

The difference now and mid 1990's (the last time there was a genuine threat to the 2A) is that the population and culture has changed just enough to allow for popular support of a whole host of bans and restrictions that would never have flown even a decade ago.   Now a combination of mass uncontrolled illegal immigration (unassimilated, uneducated, lacking loyalty to the origin of this nation) plus ever spiraling liberalization of schools and educators equals a huge influx of people who would support all kinds of new anti-gun laws.


----------



## Rabid Badger (Aug 24, 2014)

@JBS  This goes back 2 decades but is relevant to your post and the 2A / Billary:



> *What the Fight Over Clinton's 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Can Teach Obama*
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/bill-clinton-assault-weapon-ban-newtown-shooting


----------



## AWP (Aug 24, 2014)

JBS said:


> Now a combination of mass uncontrolled illegal immigration (unassimilated, uneducated, lacking loyalty to the origin of this nation)


 
I agree with your post except for this. I think we agree on the outcome but maybe not the path. I think in 5-10 years you'll be correct, but I think the current issue is the loss/ weakening of Blue Dog Democrats. For years these were the guys and gals who opposed anti-2A measures; they were the pro-gun sub-faction of the Democrats. The polarization of our political system has eroded that group and that's why I think we're on shaky ground. Unchecked, that group goes away entirely and then we're facing the immigration issue you describe above.


----------



## pardus (Aug 25, 2014)

Wait until the Democrats give 11 + million illegals green cards... citizenship. We can kiss the America we all know now goodbye.The slip into socialism will be rapid and the Republican party will be as relevant as the Whigs are today.
Guns? Doomed. If Hillary doesn't do it, the next POTUS will, or the one after that, or the one after that...


----------



## JBS (Sep 1, 2014)

Am I the only one just finding out Obama banned AK-47's?

I can't find one in stock anywhere.    What a shocker.


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 1, 2014)

JBS said:


> Am I the only one just finding out Obama banned AK-47's?
> 
> I can't find one in stock anywhere.    What a shocker.



I heard that somewhere.


----------



## JBS (Sep 1, 2014)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/24/ak-47-sales-russia-sanctions_n_5610909.html

not a joke.


----------



## pardus (Sep 1, 2014)

Russian AK47s are banned from import as part of the sanctions. AK47s are not banned.


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 1, 2014)

I feel frustrated.  I don't know what else i can do to stop this left agenda.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 2, 2014)

The russian ones are arguably some of the worst, anyway.... and it's AK's, so nothing of value was lost in the first place.


----------



## JBS (Sep 2, 2014)

Some of you have a positive way of looking at this.

I myself am angered continually by one leftist move after another to attempt to disarm the law abiding American public.

Yes they were banned from importation,  not banned from possession,  but the impact is severe, and ripples across the entire spectrum of weapons in this class.  AK's that were plentiful at $600 are now fetching 200% of that.  Other non-Russian AK'S are priced higher too.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 2, 2014)

It's a ban from importation of Russian weapons, which is in turn lumped into a pile of other sanctions that Russia has on them thanks to deciding FUCK THIS WE OWN UKRAINE.

Why is it such a big deal about banning that specific piece of sheet metal from one.specific.country that just happens to be engaging in an aggressive action against a democratic state on the planet?

Try to buy a Siyavash or a PC-9 ZOAF sometime. Tell me how far you get.

Just bend your own flats if it's that big a deal. it's not like an AK requires heavy jigging and drill presses like an 80% lower.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 2, 2014)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine


----------



## pardus (Sep 2, 2014)

JBS said:


> Some of you have a positive way of looking at this.
> 
> I myself am angered continually by one leftist move after another to attempt to disarm the law abiding American public.
> 
> Yes they were banned from importation,  not banned from possession,  but the impact is severe, and ripples across the entire spectrum of weapons in this class.  AK's that were plentiful at $600 are now fetching 200% of that.  Other non-Russian AK'S are priced higher too.



I'm sure the White House was very happy indeed to have a legit reason to legislate anything anti-gun into effect. As Americans and gun owners we should be very worried indeed with the direction things are going with regards to gun ownership.
However your obfuscation of the facts will not go unchallenged on this site. Stop with that shit!


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 20, 2014)

I joined my states biggest gun group. They have meetings and weekend events.


----------



## AWP (Sep 25, 2014)

So Bill Clinton's at it again... :wall:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/24/politics/bill-clinton-nra/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



> "I think we have enhanced the risks by changing the environment, basically, because it seems we bought the NRA's theory that we would all be safer if everybody in this audience had a gun that was a concealed weapon," Clinton said. "Then if one of them felt threatened by another, they could stand up right here and stand their ground. And we could watch the whole saga unfold. That is what happens."


 
Then he actually says something I agree with, but misses the point of WHY this is the case.



> "I actually think we're less racist, less sexist, less homophobic than we used to be," Clinton said. "*I think our big problem today is we don't want to be around anybody who disagrees with us*. And I think that in some ways can be the worst silo of all to be held up in."


 
I'm onboard, but the problem is we surround ourselves with like-minded people and eschew those who aren't like us because of the politically correct nature of society. Where everyone is a potential victim and in some circumstances where everyone is a potential lawsuit, why SHOULD we be around those who are different than us? Even in cases where I shouldn't feel threated I find myself holding my tongue because of how polarized our society's become. I refuse to discuss some topics because of their nature and the emotional reactions they elicit.

But then he follows it with...



> The former president later added, "I think whenever people are insecure, they tend to return to home base psychologically. We tend to want to be with our own, however we define that. ... I think that's what is really at the root of many of our problems today."


 
Nicely done, Bill. You open the door for at least one solid point and then shut it with that statement. "Here's some dialgue for the country, but you're insecure and that's why you act like that. Checkmate."

Asshole.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 25, 2014)

In other news, everyone's favorite AG is set to be replaced

*Attorney General Eric Holder to step down*
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...25/attorney-general-eric-holder-to-step-down/


> President Obama will announce Thursday Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is stepping down from his post as soon as a successor is confirmed, according to White House officials.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 25, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> In other news, everyone's favorite AG is set to be replaced
> 
> *Attorney General Eric Holder to step down*
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...25/attorney-general-eric-holder-to-step-down/


Dems must really be worried about losing the Senate.


----------



## AWP (Sep 25, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Dems must really be worried about losing the Senate.


 
Maybe, but Holder will remain around until after the elections. I haven't found a confirmed name to replace him, just a bunch of speculation. I'm too skeptical to think a moderate will take his place. I'm glad to see Holder leave even if it is 6 years too late, but it won't change much.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 26, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Maybe, but Holder will remain around until after the elections. I haven't found a confirmed name to replace him, just a bunch of speculation. I'm too skeptical to think a moderate will take his place. I'm glad to see Holder leave even if it is 6 years too late, but it won't change much.


True, but they have "He's leaving" as a counter argument to any Republican attacks on him.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 26, 2014)

Some fucker in Oklahoma beheads a woman and stabs another worker.  Boss stops him with some well-placed rifle shots.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-woman-beheaded-oklahoma-workplace-25778135
*Police: Woman Beheaded at Oklahoma Workplace*



> A man fired from an Oklahoma food processing plant beheaded a woman with a knife and was attacking another worker when he was shot and wounded by a company official, police said Friday.
> 
> Moore Police Sgt. Jeremy Lewis says police are waiting until the 30-year-old man is conscious to arrest him in Thursday's attack and have asked the FBI to help investigate after co-workers at Vaughan Foods told authorities that he recently started trying to convert several employees to Islam.



Now, before you start focusing on that last word in the news excerpt, understand the following:
-The guy had a long prison record with a string of violent offenses
-He had JUST been fired
-He is described as a recent convert

Taking all that into consideration, I think it's fair to say that his status as a psychopathic asshole had more to do with this than his religion.


----------



## Brill (Sep 26, 2014)

Imagine how many people would be alive today if CCW were allowed nationwide?


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 26, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Some fucker in Oklahoma beheads a woman and stabs another worker.  Boss stops him with some well-placed rifle shots.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-woman-beheaded-oklahoma-workplace-25778135
> *Police: Woman Beheaded at Oklahoma Workplace*
> ...


Boss man needs shooting lessons.


----------



## pardus (Sep 26, 2014)

I love that he has Christian tattoos.


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 27, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Taking all that into consideration, I think it's fair to say that his status as a psychopathic asshole had more to do with this than his religion.



Yes and no, Deathy.  There was an article I read several months ago that addressed psychopathic murderers and a seeming connection to their having turned to Buddhism/meditation at some point before they committed murder (it was an established mainstream newspaper's online edition, I want to say it was LA Times or Dallas Morning News, but I can't recall). In it, they used the example of a recently arrested murderer having worked in a Thai restaurant, coming to Buddhism and meditation through the acquaintances that he made at the Thai restaurant, then committing his crimes not long after he stopped coming to the meditation center.  The hypothesis was that psychopaths often turn to Buddhism and/or meditation to try to find the inner peace that is characteristically missing from their senses of being, and when that fails they go flying off the rails and into newspaper headlines.  

What it looks like to me in the OK beheading, is that we have an adult male, most likely raised in the Christian tradition by an African American family (with an above average likelihood that they were members of an A.M.E. Zion or some other "gospel" church, as his God-fearing tattoos are likely a symbol of "where he came from"), who fell into the trappings of criminal life like many other African American males in America, and most likely had been self-aware of his psychopathic tendencies since his teens.  Instead of turning to Buddhism, he turned to Islam, which has a well-earned reputation for violence in the modern historical era (Barbary Pirates ring a bell?), especially with the Wahhabi sect, Al Qaeda, ISIS standing behind such verses in the Quran as 2:191-3 "And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them from whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter.  And fight them not at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you there, then slay them.  Such is the rewards of disbelievers.(191)  But if they desist, lo Allah is forgiving, merciful (192)  And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers. (193)"  

Instead of attempting to find an inner peace that quelled an unquellable urge, he embraced it wholeheartedly by adopting an ideology that praises such traits.  One could make the argument that religion as a whole is a magnet for crazy people, but how many turn to a faith to try to find peace and conform to the standard of what is right, versus how many turn to a faith that holds up violence and barbarism as the standard for what is right?  I am not saying that Islam caused him to be crazy.  He just found in the Quran his validation for the crazy that he could find in no other religious text.  This was the bug light that he couldn't help but fly towards.  Had he not turned to Islam, he'd probably have just shot someone (perhaps again?), then marched off to jail saying "Can't nobody but Jesus judge me, so fuck all y'all."  He wouldn't have gone digging into the Old Testament to find a single verse to validate his psychopathy, as he'd have had to read through too much condemnation.  Instead, he turned to a sect that is several centuries overdue for a reformation of any kind and got the green light that he had been searching for.  

To say that Islam was not related to this is disingenuous.  It is not the cause, but it is most certainly an influence.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 27, 2014)

Is there an increase in Muslim converts in US prisons?  I know it's an issue up here and seems like a great place for Jihadi recruitment.


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 27, 2014)

RackMaster said:


> Is there an increase in Muslim converts in US prisons?  I know it's an issue up here and seems like a great place for Jihadi recruitment.



It has been on the upswing here for a few years, but I don't have time to go chasing down the data at the moment.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 27, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> It has been on the upswing here for a few years, but I don't have time to go chasing down the data at the moment.



Thanks.  I figured if it was a trend up here than it must be there.


----------



## 0699 (Sep 29, 2014)

A story on NPR this morning, related to the AG's resignation, was talking about how the political climate isn't right to make changes to our nation's gun laws.  I find it interesting that they aren't talking about making changes to our nation's free speeech laws. :wall:


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 29, 2014)

0699 said:


> A story on NPR this morning, related to the AG's resignation, was talking about how the political climate isn't right to make changes to our nation's gun laws.  I find it interesting that they aren't talking about making changes to our nation's free speeech laws. :wall:



I don't understand?


----------



## AWP (Sep 29, 2014)

Marine0311 said:


> I don't understand?


 
We need to teach you the difference between a period and a question mark.


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 29, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> We need to teach you the difference between a period and a question mark.



Haha shut up! I should have said " I don't under your point here?"


----------



## 0699 (Sep 29, 2014)

Marine0311 said:


> I don't understand?


 
It was a poor attempt to comment on how some people believe the 2nd should be changed because it is outdated, but if you make that comment about any other ammendment, they think it's crazy.  Whenever people propose new gun laws, I change gun to speech, then ask if the idea still makes sense.


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 29, 2014)

0699 said:


> It was a poor attempt to comment on how some people believe the 2nd should be changed because it is outdated, but if you make that comment about any other ammendment, they think it's crazy.  Whenever people propose new gun laws, I change gun to speech, then ask if the idea still makes sense.



I have never thought of it that way.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 29, 2014)

That's actually the best way to think about it. Words start wars, and as long as I have a gun to stop you with, you can't shut me up.  Some liberals don't get that fact and refuse to accept it, which is perfectly fine since it lets me know who's actually stupid. Especially when they're in the business of violence.


----------



## 8654Maine (Sep 29, 2014)

I think there was a logical reason for the order of the first 2 Amendments of the BOR.  Freedom of religion, speech, assembly and redress of grievances mean diddly squat without the teeth of the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Dame (Sep 29, 2014)

LOL. Yup. That was a big, "and don't get any ideas about trying to take those cuz this one's next. Booyah!"


Er, you know. If they said booyah back then.


----------



## Totentanz (Sep 29, 2014)

0699 said:


> A story on NPR this morning, related to the AG's resignation, was talking about how the political climate isn't right to make changes to our nation's gun laws.  I find it interesting that they aren't talking about making changes to our nation's free speeech laws. :wall:



Because the only reason to leave the 2A alone is because it's politically inconvenient...:wall::wall::wall:


----------



## 0699 (Sep 30, 2014)

Totentanz said:


> Because the only reason to leave the 2A alone is because it's politically inconvenient...:wall::wall::wall:


 
Every time it's been tried it bit them in the ass.  I love it how "they" talk about it's the right thing to do, but it's blatantly obvious that the great unwashed mass of us regular Americans have no interest in gun control.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 30, 2014)

0699 said:


> Every time it's been tried it bit them in the ass.  I love it how "they" talk about it's the right thing to do, but it's blatantly obvious that the great unwashed mass of us regular Americans have no interest in gun control.



But now they have Bloomberg throwing cash at their agenda...  just like killing slurpees and large sodas and mega-meals in NYC....

Not that the NRA has done a lot to include most Americans on the pro 2-A side of the house...  hell I'm a gun owner and most of their political rhetoric and strong-arm tactics makes me wonder what the hell they're up to.


----------



## Brill (Oct 3, 2014)

I saw this first thing this morning and now it's all over the airwaves.


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 3, 2014)

I want to see how the NY governors race will turn out. The Republicans have someone up who seems to be pro 2A.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 3, 2014)

lindy said:


> I saw this first thing this morning and now it's all over the airwaves.


That's one of the goofiest attack ads I've ever seen


----------



## pardus (Oct 4, 2014)

Larry Hogan wants to eat your children, with steak sauce. Don't vote for Larry Hogan. 




*paid for by the liberal, fuck Larry Hogan fund.


----------



## Brill (Oct 4, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> That's one of the goofiest attack ads I've ever seen



People in MD eat that stuff up...well, most anyway.


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 4, 2014)

What do NYers think of the Republican candidate for governor?


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 4, 2014)

Marine0311 said:


> What do NYers think of the Republican candidate for governor?


No idea.  I have not heard anyone talking about the election.  I've only seen one attack ad (online), which attacked Astorino for giving jobs to friends and relatives.  That's kind of a silly issue to attack a candidate on when you consider that literally every politician does that.  Oh, apparently the NRA decided NOT to donate any money to his campaign, instead spending a few million just on anti-Cuomo ads.  
This election is weird.


----------



## pardus (Oct 4, 2014)

Marine0311 said:


> What do NYers think of the Republican candidate for governor?



He's not Cuomo which is good. However he's still a NY politician which is generally not good. I'll be voting for him rather than that prick Cuomo though.


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 8, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> No idea.  I have not heard anyone talking about the election.  I've only seen one attack ad (online), which attacked Astorino for giving jobs to friends and relatives.  That's kind of a silly issue to attack a candidate on when you consider that literally every politician does that.  Oh, apparently the NRA decided NOT to donate any money to his campaign, instead spending a few million just on anti-Cuomo ads.
> This election is weird.




Eh. I don't see any changes in the gun laws up there then.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 22, 2014)

Stories like this are the reason that I do not like to comment on investigations until they're finished.  The narrative that we are getting from the official (leaked) autopsy report supports officer Darren Wilson's account of the day's events.  This case, and many others like it, have sparked unnecessary anger because everyone jumped to fucking conclusions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...l-brown-may-have-gone-for-darren-wilsons-gun/
*Did Michael Brown have his hands up when he was shot? (my note: Probably not)*



> In protests held in Ferguson, Mo., for more than two months, some said 18-year-old Michael Brown had his hands up when he was killed by police officer Darren Wilson. Hence the clarion call: “Hands up, don’t shoot.”
> 
> But a forensics expert says Brown’sofficial county autopsy suggests the teenager may not have had his hands raised after all when he was slain on Aug. 9, according to a story in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
> 
> ...




Please note that I am STILL reserving judgement on this one.  The report suggests that Michael Brown probably reached for the officer's gun, which I can buy.  The actions pursuant to that, however, are still pretty murky.  Eyewitness testimony is all over the place and the leaked details from this report really only address the shooting that took place at officer Wilson's car.  An independent examiner did say that it seemed that Brown did not assume a surrender position based on wound tracks, but I will wait for the official report to come out.


----------



## Brill (Oct 22, 2014)

Fully agree however most folks that rioted will undoubtedly say the system is rigged against them.


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 24, 2014)

http://m.fayobserver.com/news/crime...73a-ed15-5d00-8683-7c9dddedd3c5.html?mode=jqm

G2g.

http://www.wbtw.com/story/26851008/...mpted-rape-of-teen-granddaughter-sheriff-says


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 31, 2014)

"America has never been defined by fear," said the President during a recent press conference. Here is the POTUS caught in another lie, because him and tens to hundreds of millions of American's are fearful of a rifle that is black and scary looking.


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 1, 2014)

0699 said:


> Every time it's been tried it bit them in the ass.  I love it how "they" talk about it's the right thing to do, but it's blatantly obvious that the great unwashed mass of us regular Americans have no interest in gun control.


 
I wish more people were involved.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 2, 2014)

I renewed my NRA membership for 5 years. They have a special going on right now. 5 years for $100.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 2, 2014)

Marine0311 said:


> I renewed my NRA membership for 5 years. They have a special going on right now. 5 years for $100.


They called me yesterday, were amazed when I told her I was a life member, fail...


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 2, 2014)

SOWT said:


> They called me yesterday, were amazed when I told her I was a life member, fail...



Haha.

I aim for a life membership also. I may  not agree with everything they do but it's the power and influence that works.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 2, 2014)

LaPierre makes me uncomfortable, he's just not the kind of cat I'd want to go pig hunting with; the hysterical diatribes every month are a bit annoying, although I understand the marketing aspects of that kind of approach, i.e., donations increase proportionate to the amount of panic we can generate; and what can I say about Ted Nugent? I could probably handle pig hunting with Ted Nugent but I'm not sure he's the guy I want to represent my 2A Rights. 

And yet I renew yearly, obediently, because there ain't nobody else with that much clout.


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 2, 2014)

Ocoka One said:


> LaPierre makes me uncomfortable, he's just not the kind of cat I'd want to go pig hunting with; the hysterical diatribes every month are a bit annoying, although I understand the marketing aspects of that kind of approach, i.e., donations increase proportionate to the amount of panic we can generate; and what can I say about Ted Nugent? I could probably handle pig hunting with Ted Nugent but I'm not sure he's the guy I want to represent my 2A Rights.
> 
> *And yet I renew yearly, obediently, because there ain't nobody else with that much clout.*



Agree entirely, especially with the bolded part.

IMO, the most in-touch, well-spoken voice for the Second Amendment has been Colion Noir.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 2, 2014)

Totentanz said:


> Agree entirely, especially with the bolded part.
> 
> IMO, the most in-touch, well-spoken voice for the Second Amendment has been Colion Noir.



I am not familiar with Noir.


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 2, 2014)

Marine0311 said:


> I am not familiar with Noir.


https://www.youtube.com/user/MrColionNoir

An example video:


----------



## Grunt (Dec 2, 2014)

He speaks more common sense than many are ready to accept.

I have always liked his videos and continue to recommend them. He explains things in ways that even the "non gun-friendly" or those who don't have a clue about the 2nd Amendment can understand.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 9, 2014)

Gun related: a police officer stopped an active shooter in texas with a *shot at 100 yards with a service pistol*.  Yes folks.  100 yards, center mass, *one-handed*, with a bog-standard M&P .40
That's some crazy skills

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/0...ntcmp=ob_article_footer_text&intcmp=obnetwork


> *Austin cop's sure shot stopped crazed gunman*


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 9, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Gun related: a police officer stopped an active shooter in texas with a *shot at 100 yards with a service pistol*.  Yes folks.  100 yards, center mass, *one-handed*, with a bog-standard M&P .40
> That's some crazy skills
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/0...ntcmp=ob_article_footer_text&intcmp=obnetwork


While he was holding the reins to two horses.

We're better in TX.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 7, 2015)

I renewed my NRA for 5 years for $100. They have a special going on now.

Also I feel the need to arm myself to the teeth given all theses shooting lately.

Please everyone stay frosty out there.


----------



## pardus (Jan 7, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> I renewed my NRA for 5 years for $100. They have a special going on now.
> 
> Also I feel the need to arm myself to the teeth given all theses shooting lately.
> 
> Please everyone stay frosty out there.



Dude, get a fucking lifetime membership. You can pay it off.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 7, 2015)

pardus said:


> Dude, get a fucking lifetime membership. You can pay it off.



That is going to be my next gift to myself.


----------



## AWP (Jan 18, 2015)

Another concealed carry success story with an awesome twist.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article6391560.html



> Holton, wearing a ski mask and sunglasses, *told Farmer to pull down his pants *during the attempted robbery.
> Detectives said *Farmer was able to reach for his own gun* and shoot Holton. Holton was rushed to the hospital where he died.


 
Holton practically commited suicide."Sure, let me put my hands at my waist" and PEW, PEW, PEW.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 18, 2015)

Fuck it.  I bought an NRA Life Membership this morning -


----------



## CDG (Jan 18, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Another concealed carry success story with an awesome twist.
> 
> http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article6391560.html
> 
> ...



Good riddance Holton, you fucking piece of shit. Got what you deserved.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 18, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Another concealed carry success story with an awesome twist.
> 
> http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article6391560.html
> 
> ...



HA HA HA SUCK IT HARD!


----------



## pardus (Jan 18, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> HA HA HA SUCK IT HARD!



Says @Marine0311 to his boyfriend.


----------



## x SF med (Jan 19, 2015)

pardus said:


> Says @Marine0311 to his boyfriend.



Marine0311 Hoist by his own petard....  with help from the kiwi....


----------



## Brill (Jan 19, 2015)

An oldie but goodie debate about liberal "gun grab".  The part about the "cop killer" ammo...classic!


----------



## pardus (Jan 19, 2015)

Totentanz said:


> Agree entirely, especially with the bolded part.
> 
> IMO, the most in-touch, well-spoken voice for the Second Amendment has been Colion Noir.



I agree with you, and I followed Noir... Until he became BFFs with james "runaway" yeager. I haven't listened to a thing Noir said since.
He blew his credibility with me.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 19, 2015)

pardus said:


> I agree with you, and I followed Noir... Until he became BFFs with james "runaway" yeager. I haven't listened to a thing Noir said since.
> He blew his credibility with me.



Interesting.  That would carry a lot of "fuck you" weight in my book.  Where would I find the details of that particular relationship?


----------



## pardus (Jan 19, 2015)

Totentanz said:


> Interesting.  That would carry a lot of "fuck you" weight in my book.  Where would I find the details of that particular relationship?


----------



## AWP (Jan 19, 2015)

Anyone supporting Handbrake Yeager is either misguided or an idiot. Even setting aside his "heroics" in Iraq, he's done enough after that fiasco to warrant ostracization.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 19, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Anyone supporting Handbrake Yeager is either misguided or an idiot. Even setting aside his "heroics" in Iraq, he's done enough after that fiasco to warrant ostracization.


Other than Iraq, what fuck ups has he been involved in?


----------



## pardus (Jan 19, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Other than Iraq, what fuck ups has he been involved in?



Yeager on gun control... 

_“If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”_


http://www.wbir.com/news/article/24...ndgun-carry-permit-after-making-video-threats


----------



## AWP (Jan 19, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Other than Iraq, what fuck ups has he been involved in?


 
He had a Youtube video where he placed a cameraman between targets while students shot them. There was the "Pack your Bags" video where he said he'd start killing people if Obama enacted gun control. Those are two I remember. He's had other gems out there.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 19, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Other than Iraq, what fuck ups has he been involved in?



This, amongst other general internet/Youtube assclownery.  Dude's a clown to the core; there's absolutely no way I'd affiliate myself with anything he's involved in.

I'll give Noir a tentative pass for now; he's done enough good that I'd let one or two slide.  If this continues to develop into a trend, I'll write him off.  It's a shame; he has a LOT of potential to reach out with a moderate, reasonable voice.  Siding with assclowns like Yeager will completely negate that - not only in MY eyes, but in the eyes of anyone of moderate bent who might otherwise listen to him.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 19, 2015)

Is he involved with a gear company?  S.O.E.?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 20, 2015)

who, Yeager? No, nobody with a brain will affiliate with him.  Unfortunately, Noir either in an attempt to introduce contraversy and views or simply being uninformed has chosen to put some stock in that market. Too bad the bottom fell out and he just dropped his overall value from it.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 6, 2015)

Another year, another bill to regulate "high-capacity" magazines.  http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-l...azines-introduced-by-congressional-democrats/

Govtrack.us gives it about a 2% chance of passing.  Sounds about right.


----------



## AWP (Feb 6, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Another year, another bill to regulate "high-capacity" magazines.  http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-l...azines-introduced-by-congressional-democrats/
> 
> Govtrack.us gives it about a 2% chance of passing.  Sounds about right.


 
It is like our elected officals walk into work one day..."Alright, let's do this! Leeeeeeroooooyyyyy Jeeeennnnkinssssss!" Ohmigod, he introduced the bill. Stick to the plan, guys, stick to the plan!"


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 6, 2015)

This bill is so in poor form.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 8, 2015)

Better ban those ammunition magazine clips before we have any more "military-style shootouts." :wall:


----------



## Brill (Feb 14, 2015)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/12/us-usa-court-handguns-idUSKBN0LG02Z20150212

*Judge rules federal interstate handgun transfer ban unconstitutional*

Saw this comment on another site but agree: interesting how same sex marriage ban was ruled unconstitutional by Federal judges and marriage licenses were flying out of the county clerk's office yet when same action applies to firearms..."well, let's see how this plays out." is the norm.

If a Federal judge says X...why is it not so???


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 14, 2015)

lindy said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/12/us-usa-court-handguns-idUSKBN0LG02Z20150212
> 
> *Judge rules federal interstate handgun transfer ban unconstitutional*
> 
> ...



I hope this trend continues. Do you think so?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 14, 2015)

Does no good when the ATF just up and decides that you can't get ammo anymore:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150213/batfe-to-ban-common-ar-15-ammo


----------



## JBS (Feb 14, 2015)

*This should be its own thread.*



Ranger Psych said:


> Does no good when the ATF just up and decides that you can't get ammo anymore:
> 
> https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150213/batfe-to-ban-common-ar-15-ammo


----------



## JBS (Feb 14, 2015)

*In a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” The decision continues Obama’s use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.*

It isn’t even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated “manufacturing” of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered “pistol.” Now, BATFE has released a “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”, which would eliminate M855’s exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible. 

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150213/batfe-to-ban-common-ar-15-ammo


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 14, 2015)

There goes all the ammo.

Sucks to be us as a RINO won't overturn the ban.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 14, 2015)

It has come to the point where I am no longer shocked by any "negative law" passed concerning firearms legislation in these times. 

What aggravates me the most, is that many of these laws will be forgotten about and will just stay where they are rather than be repealed by new administrations.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 14, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> Does no good when the ATF just up and decides that you can't get ammo anymore:
> 
> https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150213/batfe-to-ban-common-ar-15-ammo



Yep...who needs to worry about gun control when they can enact ammo control.


----------



## AKkeith (Feb 14, 2015)

Sorry @JBS I can't even bare to read that without the Hate boiling over.


----------



## CDG (Feb 14, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> Does no good when the ATF just up and decides that you can't get ammo anymore:
> 
> https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150213/batfe-to-ban-common-ar-15-ammo



Wow.  The ATF falls right there with the TSA as far as I'm concerned.  I'm sure there are good agents, but I think the vast majority are way too impressed with themselves and the leadership seems to think they have carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they want, Constitution be damned.


----------



## CDG (Feb 14, 2015)

This is complete and utter bullshit.  I hope the NRA takes meaningful action against this move.  BTAFE shouldn't even exist.


----------



## Totentanz (Feb 14, 2015)

_ATF Ammo Ban thread merged into the U.S. Gun Control thread. _


----------



## Brill (Feb 14, 2015)

JBS said:


> *In a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” The decision continues Obama’s use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.*
> 
> It isn’t even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated “manufacturing” of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered “pistol.” Now, BATFE has released a “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”, which would eliminate M855’s exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible.
> 
> https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150213/batfe-to-ban-common-ar-15-ammo



COP KILLER ammo!!!  Think of the children you heartless bastard!!!

Honestly, this will end up at "The Bench" and will surely be decided along the same vein as DC's handgun "law" that stated a firearm, while lawfully possessed in the home must be inoperable (or along those lines).  The Court has upheld a person has the right to defend themselves in their homes.  The State cannot determine what weapon is permissible for that purpose.

BUT...Obama has clear disregard for the document so who knows what kind of EOs will come out.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 14, 2015)

Time to stock up on ammo then?


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 14, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> Time to stock up on ammo then?


It's always been time to stock up.

Be wary of buying ammo from guys on forums.
I had one good sale, and then got screwed by a guy on M4carbine.net


----------



## Gunz (Feb 14, 2015)

Agoge said:


> It has come to the point where I am no longer shocked by any "negative law" passed concerning firearms legislation in these times.
> 
> What aggravates me the most, is that many of these laws will be forgotten about and will just stay where they are rather than be repealed by new administrations.


 

They can't outright repeal 2A without igniting a firestorm so they nibble away at it. We tend to think it's a victory when we defeat some outrageous piece of legislation, but it's never a clear win, it's just a finger in the dike. Our 2A rights rarely get _less _restrictive. At best it's one step forward two back.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 14, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> I hope this trend continues. Do you think so?



Here's a good article on the topic: http://bearingarms.com/holder-defea...rstate-handgun-transfer-ban-unconstitutional/

Basically, the government needs to appeal the decision (which they will), then fight it out at the 5th circuit court.  As pointed out by the article, this ramifications of this decision will be very interesting for the firearms economies of states with restrictive handgun laws (e.g. California and Massachusetts).


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 14, 2015)

lindy said:


> COP KILLER ammo!!!  Think of the children you heartless bastard!!!
> Honestly, this will end up at "The Bench" and will surely be decided along the same vein as DC's handgun "law" that stated a firearm, while lawfully possessed in the home must be inoperable (or along those lines).  The Court has upheld a person has the right to defend themselves in their homes.  The State cannot determine what weapon is permissible for that purpose.
> .


That's not how the DC law works.  It was amended post-Heller and now only provides for penalties should something occur with a minor and an unsecured firearm.

The post-Heller amended code looks like this


> (c) Section 702 (D.C. Official Code § 7-2507.02) is amended to read as follows:
> “Sec. 702. Each registrant shall keep any firearm in his or her possession unloaded and either disassembled or secured by a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device, except that this requirement shall not apply to:
> “(1) Law enforcement personnel described in section 201(b)(1);
> “(2) A firearm that is kept at the registrant’s place of business and not the registrant’s home; 3
> ...



The “Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008".

EDIT: If any of you have some time, check out these really interesting analyses of the past few years of federal gun control legislation: 2013 and 2011-2013
The Federation of American Scientists put out some great reads.

The BLUF is that there has been very little movement, federally, regarding gun control.  Obama's 23 proposed changes haven't gotten a lot of traction and the prevailing political winds (still) say that gun control is a losing issue.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 14, 2015)

Fuck BATFE.  And Pakistan.

What we need is to have the unconstitutional sporting purposes clause stricken from the books.  The Second Amendment wasn't penned to allow hunters and target shooters to own guns; its purpose is to allow the populace to defend themselves...from all enemies, foreign and domestic.


----------



## Brill (Feb 14, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> That's not how the DC law works.  It was amended post-Heller and now only provides for penalties should something occur with a minor and an unsecured firearm.



Didn't SCOTUS determine via Heller that the original law (circa 1975) was illegal?  I believe the BATF horse pucky will follow a similar fate.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 14, 2015)

lindy said:


> Didn't SCOTUS determine via Heller that the original law (circa 1975) was illegal?  I believe the BATF horse pucky will follow a similar fate.


I believe that they rejected parts of it, instead of the entirety of the law.  That would at least explain why DC passed patchwork amendments instead of an entirely new resolution.

As to the potential BATFE regulation....we can only hope.  On the face of it, it seems silly that a copper-jacketed bullet with a lead and steel core would even be considered armor piercing and require an exemption, but that's the government for you.  The paper says that BATFE is soliciting comments for the next 30 days, so let's hope that there's a big enough "WTF" from everyone that they decide to back down.

Here's the full text of the proposed rule changes: http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fi..._primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf
Comments can be submitted to APAComments@atf.gov until March 16th


----------



## Brill (Feb 14, 2015)

How many cops have been killed by m855 ammo?


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 14, 2015)

lindy said:


> How many cops have been killed by m855 ammo?


Either none or some very low number


----------



## policemedic (Feb 14, 2015)

I could look it up, but I suspect it's a minuscule number.  Truth is, any centerfire rifle ammo will penetrate soft armor.  Going after M855 is purely a move to fuck AR shooters.  It'll drive up prices, and other rounds like M193 will be harder to find.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 14, 2015)

It'll take 4-5 years moving through the court system, just like all his other bull shit EA's/EO's.  That's the plan, issue and drag through the court systems making it too costly to fight.


----------



## Totentanz (Feb 14, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> It'll take 4-5 years moving through the court system, just like all his other bull shit EA's/EO's.  That's the plan, issue and drag through the court systems making it too costly to fight.



Using taxpayer $ to finance the defense...:wall:


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 14, 2015)

Totentanz said:


> Using taxpayer $ to finance the defense...:wall:


Yep, just like we fund all their damn vacations.


----------



## Totentanz (Feb 14, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Yep, just like we fund all their damn vacations.



The vacations are an annoyance. I'm much more bothered (on a basis of principle) with legislators and executives (not restricted to body, agency, or party) using my own money to strip rights by passing laws they KNOW aren't constitutional, and knowing that they have a bottomless war chest supplied by the victim with which to entrench themselves...


----------



## Grunt (Feb 14, 2015)

Totentanz said:


> ...using my own money to strip rights they KNOW aren't con



They are the same nimrods that don't know the nomenclature of the very weapons they are banning. I don't expect them to know much about the Constitution or its true meaning.

They do what they are told and what will get them re-elected and a 20+ year pension.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 14, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> It'll take 4-5 years moving through the court system, just like all his other bull shit EA's/EO's.  That's the plan, issue and drag through the court systems making it too costly to fight.


It's difficult to get an accurate gauge as to how long it will take to move through the courts since the SCOTUS barely touched 2A cases in the 20th and most recent centuries.  _DC v Heller_ took about four years between initial filings and final ruling, but that was due to stumbles in the lower court as well as the large number of amicus briefs that were filed once the case got to SCOTUS.  _McDonald v Chicago_, building upon the foundations of _DC v Heller_, took only two years to make it up there.

This case could potentially invoke previous cases regarding the commerce clause, of which there have been a few in the past 20 years or so, though those took around 2-3 years a piece.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 14, 2015)

Agoge said:


> They are the same nimrods that don't know the nomenclature of the very weapons they are banning. I don't expect them to know much about the Constitution or its true meaning.
> 
> They do what they are told and what will get them re-elected and a 20+ year pension.



I've had conversations with my elected officials and clearly they don't know. I've had to explain to them where they are wrong and right. I don't expect my Congressman to be an SME on the specs of an AR 15 but at least know 1 or 2 BASIC things.


----------



## pardus (Feb 14, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> I've had conversations with my elected officials and clearly they don't know. I've had to explain to them where they are wrong and right. I don't expect my Congressman to be an SME on the specs of an AR 15 but at least know 1 or 2 BASIC things.



All you need to know is that they are ghost guns that fire 30 magazine clips a second!


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 14, 2015)

pardus said:


> All you need to know is that they are ghost guns that fire 30 magazine clips a second!



I swear I have heard some stupid things come out of their mouths. 

In other news I upped my NRA membership to 7 years for an extra $25.


----------



## Totentanz (Feb 14, 2015)

pardus said:


> All you need to know is that they are ghost guns that fire 30 magazine clips a second!



They're made out of porcelain, don't show up on x-Ray machines, and cost more than you make in a month.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 15, 2015)

pardus said:


> All you need to know is that they are ghost guns that fire 30 magazine clips a second!


No IDIOT!  It's the thing that flips up to your shoulder!


----------



## AWP (Feb 15, 2015)

Cynically I have to wonder if proposals like this are meant to gauge our response. One could also argue they are meant to siphon funds away from the NRA, expending them to fight another anti-gun proposal. You could also use it to see how the media will react; any form of press or major discussion.

Throw it out there, response is minimal, it slides under the radar and passes. OR Throw it out there, people loos their minds, now you have a barometer which tells them how far they can/ can't go.


----------



## Brill (Feb 15, 2015)

How is this different than The Crown making a decree that it would be illegal to own led balls back in 1774?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 15, 2015)

The NRA's not running short of any money, unfortunately there's some things they'll never touch (Examples being NFA, specifically cans)


----------



## pardus (Feb 15, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> The NRA's not running short of any money, unfortunately there's some things they'll never touch (Examples being NFA, *specifically cans)*



That is about the most ridiculous restriction on firearms I've ever seen.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 15, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> The NRA's not running short of any money, unfortunately there's some things they'll never touch (Examples being NFA, specifically cans)



Why wont they touch it?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 15, 2015)

Here's the thing with NFA... there's a huge amount of rich dicks that have NFA. In the hypothetical scenario of NFA reduction and/or just going flat away...

All of a sudden, that $150,000 Colt lower isn't worth literally anything.  There's a large vested interest especially in the deep pocket people that have picked these up, and their groups specifically give NO fucks about weapons as long as they get to keep theirs... if I need to, I'll re-dig back into it but specifically in the past NFA oriented groups have specifically screwed the common man in firearms law.

Same with Cans, same with basically any of the tax-stamped bits. There's false value added due to forced rarity. Even out of Inconel or other unobtanium metals, the profit margin on a can (specifically a standard circular design can) is ludicrous once you do the minimal amount of design actually needed to make something with baffles and 2 f'ing holes, one of which is threaded.  I can support something like an Osprey costing a bit more since it's not tube-baffle stack-endcaps DONE like the rest of the shit.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 25, 2015)

Alert:

NRA had life memberships for $500 right now.


----------



## pardus (Feb 27, 2015)

This was sent to me by Wideners.com ammo company...
It's a ridiculous proposed restriction and an obvious underhanded assault on our 2nd A rights.

*

Contact ATF: 
Oppose 5.56 M855 Ball Ammunition Ban*

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) unexpectedly announced that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as "armor piercing ammunition." The decision continues Obama's use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress. Use the sample letter below to write the ATF and voice your opposition to this ban! BE COURTEOUS AND DO NOT
USE PROFANITY. If you do write a letter with bad language, the ATF will rightfully ignore your comments.


ATF will accept comments on this proposal until March 16, 2015. Email or write ATF today and tell them you oppose this unnecessary, misguided and damaging ban on commonly used ammunition for America's most popular sporting rifles.  Additional information can be found at https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150218/your-action-urgently-needed-to-prevent-batfe-from-banning-common-rifle-ammunition.

*Email: *APAComments@atf.gov
*Fax:* (202) 648-9741.
*Mail: *Denise Brown, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.



*Feel free to use or edit the following sample letter, which can be emailed or mailed to the ATF:*

Your Name
Address
Address
City, ST ZIP
Your phone number (optional)
Your email address (optional)


ATTN: AP Ammo Comments

Dear Sir or Madam:

I oppose an ATF ban on 5.56 M855 ball ammunitions.

It has come to my attention that the ATF is seeking public input on a proposed ban on 5.56 M855 ball ammunitions. I am contacting you today, to tell you I solidly oppose this ban.

Law-abiding American citizens have been using 5.56 ball ammunition for sporting purposes for decades, so this legislation appears to be a case of the government arriving at a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist.

Through this proposed ban, ATF disproportionately focuses on how criminals might use sporting ammunition in a handgun. Classifying criminals as a “consumer group” in the ATF’s white paper on this topic is also disturbing, as it further implies that the industry purposely sells firearms and ammunition to this element.

I urge the ATF to permanently drop the proposed ban of 5.56 M855 ball ammunition.

Sincerely,


Your Name, Title


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 27, 2015)

pardus said:


> This was sent to me by Wideners.com ammo company...
> It's a ridiculous proposed restriction and an obvious underhanded assault on our 2nd A rights.
> 
> 
> ...


This one faxes to your elected reps and the BATFE

http://www.savem855.com/


----------



## JBS (Feb 27, 2015)

Awesome link. Thank you


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 27, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> This one faxes to your elected reps and the BATFE
> 
> http://www.savem855.com/


This is really cool.  Since I'm a CA resident, I don't know how much this will help, but I'll send it in regardless.

According to the site, a little over 19k people have used the feature so far!  Nice job.


----------



## Brill (Feb 28, 2015)

@pardus, do you really think that the ATF (and the Executive Branch) cares what the American people think?  It's been my experience that IF an authority feels it necessary to say X, then the situation is completely opposite.  Beware the supervisor or company that says "We really care about our employees." because it's 100% total bullshit.  If they care, the employees/subordinates already know by the actions of the authority.

From the ATF framework document:

VI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
ATF will *carefully consider all comments*, as appropriate, received on or beforeMarch 16, 2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before
March 16, 2015.
ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments. 

I strongly believe this is a check in the box and the ATF will claim that the overwhelming majority of comments were in favor of this ammo ban.  Hell, I bet the the ink is already dry on the press release!  This action will be just as transparent as ACA and DAPA.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 28, 2015)

We the people need to to do more.


----------



## CDG (Feb 28, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> This one faxes to your elected reps and the BATFE
> 
> http://www.savem855.com/


Done.


----------



## pardus (Feb 28, 2015)

Sadly I agree with you. They will do what ever the fuck they want. 



lindy said:


> @pardus, do you really think that the ATF (and the Executive Branch) cares what the American people think?  It's been my experience that IF an authority feels it necessary to say X, then the situation is completely opposite.  Beware the supervisor or company that says "We really care about our employees." because it's 100% total bullshit.  If they care, the employees/subordinates already know by the actions of the authority.
> 
> From the ATF framework document:
> 
> ...


----------



## Brill (Feb 28, 2015)

pardus said:


> Sadly I agree with you. They will do what ever the fuck they want.



"I have a phone and a pen...that I use to rewrite the Constitution."


----------



## policemedic (Feb 28, 2015)

The problem lies with rulemaking authority and the concept of administrative law.  The bureaucrats who create these rules are either political appointees and therefore they know they're short-timers, or they are civil service employees who couldn't care less what the electorate thinks.

We have to change the rulemaking process. 

Right now, our best bet--such as it is--is to pressure our elected representatives to exert whatever influence they can on the BATFE.  If the rule is adopted then it must be spun as another Democratic Party action to infringe upon the Second Amendment.


----------



## JBS (Mar 2, 2015)

This kind of shit is why we have a "Tea Party".

Regardless of your opinion of the Tea Party (mine happens to be a positive opinion), it's fear of a mass of hundreds of thousands of human bodies, bristling with AR-15's demonstrating and protesting all over American cities that becomes the ultimate check on a runaway government.


----------



## The Accountant (Mar 2, 2015)

I can't add any more to this subject that wasn't already said. I do think some of you would enjoy this however.


----------



## Brill (Mar 2, 2015)

If you support owning M855 rounds, you support killing cops?

*White House says ammo ban will save cops’ lives*

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/2/white-house-says-ammo-ban-will-save-cops-lives/

Mr. Earnest added, “This seems to be an area where everyone should agree that if there are armor-piercing bullets available that can fit into easily concealed weapons, that it puts our law enforcement at considerably more risk.”

In their letter to Mr. Jones, lawmakers disputed the administration’s claim that a ban would provide added protection for police.

“Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet the ATF has not even alleged, much less offered evidence, that even one such round has been fired from a handgun at a police officer,” they wrote.

A top official with the firearms industry’s trade association called the White House’s argument “bogus.”

“All rifle ammo made with lead ammo is able to penetrate a soft body ‘vest’ because of the high velocity of rifle rounds,” said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “So banning M855 does not advance law officer safety. No police officer has ever been shot and killed with a so-called ‘armor piercing’ bullet fired from a handgun that penetrated a vest.”


----------



## policemedic (Mar 2, 2015)

Ummmm......AR pistols are easily concealable?


----------



## AWP (Mar 3, 2015)

lindy said:


> “All rifle ammo made with lead ammo is able to penetrate a soft body ‘vest’ because of the high velocity of rifle rounds,” said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “So banning M855 does not advance law officer safety.”


 
The ammo ban came up in our shop the other day. The resident gun "experts" were railing against..well, everything, and totally missed the point above. I had to point it out and remind them that most LEO's had soft vests. They went back to railing against The Man and everything else.

We need to remind people, particularly those in the middle, of this ban's "factual shortcomings."


----------



## Brill (Mar 3, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> We need to remind people, particularly those in the middle, of this ban's "factual shortcomings."



Like the Admins claims how Keystone won't carry US oil and the Canadian oil will be refined OCONUS?

"You lie!"


----------



## Brill (Mar 3, 2015)

Isn't it already illegal to shot AT a cop regardless of ammo used?:-/


----------



## policemedic (Mar 3, 2015)

We'd like to think so but the actions of some jurists are often contrary to that premise.

There also seems to be a growing segment of society that believes violence against police officers is socially acceptable.

I don't know any cops who are concerned about M855.  We're all well aware of the limitations of our armor systems, so one type of rifle ammo doesn't generate a greater reaction than any other.


----------



## Brill (Mar 3, 2015)

policemedic said:


> There also seems to be a growing segment of society that believes violence against police officers is socially acceptable.



Perhaps there needs to be more internal "Hey fuckface, knock it off." instead of the apparent cops do no wrong.  Stories like below where "The city police union defended Pulley's action as reasonable use of force, saying Diamond was resisting arrest." do not help.

http://m.wbaltv.com/news/School-police-officer-charged-with-assault-of-3-students/31567264


----------



## Grunt (Mar 3, 2015)

policemedic said:


> We'd like to think so but the actions of some jurists are often contrary to that premise.
> 
> There also seems to be a growing segment of society that believes violence against police officers is socially acceptable.
> 
> I don't know any cops who are concerned about M855.  We're all well aware of the limitations of our armor systems, so one type of rifle ammo doesn't generate a greater reaction than any other.



To be honest, I haven't thought one time about it in 26 years. My objective is to not get shot by anything. I have never put any thought into the rounds specifically.

Maybe some have, but I have not.


----------



## Brill (Mar 3, 2015)

Here's another fine example how gun control works in the very blue state of Maryland.

http://m.wbaltv.com/national/report-shots-fired-near-nsa-in-maryland/31596696


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 10, 2015)

The ATF is backing down...for now

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/atf...bullet-ban-in-big-win-for-nra/article/2561312


> *ATF waves white flag, kills AR-15 bullet ban in big win for NRA*


----------



## Blizzard (Mar 11, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> We the people need to to do more.


We the people did...
http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2...-piercing-ammunition-exemption-framework.html

Well done.


----------



## pardus (Mar 11, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The ATF is backing down...for now
> 
> http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/atf...bullet-ban-in-big-win-for-nra/article/2561312



I'm stunned! I really didn't think that they'd drop this.


----------



## 8654Maine (Mar 11, 2015)

The ATF and the anti-2A's are like crocs in the river crossing.  Just biding their time for the next strike.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 15, 2015)

Blizzard said:


> We the people did...
> http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2...-piercing-ammunition-exemption-framework.html
> 
> Well done.



Good!  I signed the petition. 

I wish I could do more.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 16, 2015)

Well, we're almost three months into the 114th Congress and I'm happy to say that everyone's favorite swamp monster, Dianne Feinstein, has yet to introduce a new Assault Weapons Ban!  Hurray!

*HOWEVER -* check this shady business out https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s551
S.551, or the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015" or "DFEDTA2k15" (as it is referred to in more-hip circles), is an initially innocuous-sounding piece of legislation.  "Hell yeah, I don't want terrorists getting explosives.  Especially not *DANGEROUS* terrorists!!"  you might say.  You might even think that maybe ol' Feinstein isn't so bad after all.  But then you read the text of the bill:



> SEC 922A.
> 
> Attorney General's discretion to deny transfer of a firearm
> 
> ...





> *determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism; and*
> 
> *(2)**has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism*.




HMMMMMMM.....looks a bit suspicious!  That's an awfully open-ended interpretation, don't you think?  But then she goes and inserts a little rider explaining just what "terrorism" is.  Let's take a look.



> (36) The term terrorism includes international terrorism and domestic terrorism, as defined in section 2331 of this title.



GODDAMNIT DIANNE STOP MAKING ME DO OUTSIDE RESEARCH!!! YOU KNOW I HATE THAT!!

Anyway, go ahead and look up "18 US code CH113B" and head over to "definitions" (section 2331): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113B

Ah, here we go!



> (5)the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
> *(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;*
> *(B) appear to be intended—*
> *(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;*
> ...



Damnit Dianne you're being really vague again!!  I don't wanna be alarmist but this KINDA sounds a stealthy way to grant the AG more leeway in restricting guns!


----------



## 8654Maine (Mar 17, 2015)

Aren't veterans considered "terrorists" or "risks" by DHS and Napolitano?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 17, 2015)

Yep.


----------



## Totentanz (May 4, 2015)

Posts pertaining to the recent attack on the "Draw Mohammed" event in Texas have been moved to the thread that @Kraut783 started (due to chronology, it shows @Deathy McDeath as the author of the first post).  Please continue discussion of that topic in that thread, and keep this thread for topics pertaining to Gun Control and Second Amendment issues.

"Draw Mohammed" thread link: https://shadowspear.com/vb/threads/bad-guys-come-to-texas-got-more-than-they-bargained-for.23007/


----------



## Marauder06 (May 4, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Well, we're almost three months into the 114th Congress and I'm happy to say that everyone's favorite swamp monster, Dianne Feinstein, has yet to introduce a new Assault Weapons Ban!  Hurray!
> 
> *HOWEVER -* check this shady business out https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s551
> S.551, or the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015" or "DFEDTA2k15" (as it is referred to in more-hip circles), is an initially innocuous-sounding piece of legislation.  "Hell yeah, I don't want terrorists getting explosives.  Especially not *DANGEROUS* terrorists!!"  you might say.  You might even think that maybe ol' Feinstein isn't so bad after all.  But then you read the text of the bill:
> ...


This would make a great article.


----------



## x SF med (May 4, 2015)

8654Maine said:


> Aren't veterans considered "terrorists" or "risks" by DHS and Napolitano?



"Real" Americans need to start validating their creds by the number of watch lists they currently inhabit, last count I was at 23...  and I still get in the TSA re-check lane.  Guess the Air Marshalls don't want to alone on a plane full of sheep and terrorists.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 3, 2015)

*Man raises eyebrows carrying rifle through Atlanta Airport*






LoL, guy has balls I'll give him that. From a citizen standpoint the officer needs to be reeducated on her jurisdictions laws and how to better handle citizen contacts. She certainly wasn't rude, but could have gotten more of the info she wanted with a little more sugar. From an officer standpoint, I can understand them wanting to follow him out and ensure no other citizens try to aggravate the situation and to fill our an FIR (Field Interview Report for those that aren't familiar with the terminology).


----------



## compforce (Jun 3, 2015)

ke4gde said:


> *Man raises eyebrows carrying rifle through Atlanta Airport*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just another idiot that's setting back efforts to support the 2nd amendment in his attempt to gain personal celebrity.  He went there specifically to cause a spectacle and video it, not because he had a reason to carry openly.  Honestly, I'm as pro-gun as they come.  I carry concealed all the time and think we should be able to carry anywhere with a permit.  There are only two possible outcomes to his actions.  1) nobody cares and he has his 2 minutes of fame OR 2) The legislature gets all hot and bothered and adds the airport to the very short list of places you can't carry in Georgia.  How does either of those two outcomes move the conversation forward?


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 3, 2015)

@compforce I agree he was attention whoring. Academically speaking it doesn't really help move the conversation forward much other than to show his ability to exercise his rights. Is it a smart move? No probably not, but one he is perfectly justified doing. We all have the right to be idiots :wall:


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 3, 2015)

He was trying to provoke her.  She isn't the sharpest cop around, but I didn't find her questions out of line.  

Escort him out and tell him to be safe, and have a nice day.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 3, 2015)

I put these guys right up with the fuck-sticks who do the same think in Starbucks. Get off my side.


----------



## AWP (Aug 30, 2015)

Ugh. I feel for their loss, but we have another group of emotional do-gooders out to push their cause. You know, because they were so vocal about it before....

Alison Parker's parents addresses gun control - CNN.com


> (CNN)—It's been less than a week since murder set their lives onto a new course, into roles they never wanted to take on and into a battle they never planned to fight.
> 
> But only five days in, Andy and Barbara Parker -- the parents of slain television journalist Alison Parker -- speak about gun control with a passion as if they'd spent their lifetimes fighting for it.



What frightens me is this quote, because you know they aren't alone.



> "There are people out there whose minds we will never change," she said. "If you are a parent, if you are a mother, if you have children -- how can you look your child in the eye and say we are willing to allow you to be collateral damage *in order to keep what some people perceive to be their constitutional rights*? If we as a society are willing to accept that, what kind of society are we?"



To hell with mental illness or any one of several ways this could be prevented, let's go after your "perceived" Constitutional rights. If people were serious about this, they'd go after the Constitution and change it, but good luck with that. Instead, we'll bend or break the rules because our politicians are too weak to do the "right" thing.

Our perceived rights...bloody hell.


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 31, 2015)

This is sad. I understand wanting to do something buy any attack on the Constitution will lead down a slippery slope.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 31, 2015)

I carry nearly everywhere I go, my 9mm Glock goes with me; even church. It conceals well, and I dress in a manner to keep it that way. It is my belief, that 90% + who carry and have had some training, would act to stop many of the shootings that happen. There is far more safety in being among people who are armed, and well trained, than in a place where weapons are banned. My $.02 from a bit north of Roanoke,Va.


----------



## pardus (Aug 31, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> This is sad. I understand wanting to do something buy any attack on the Constitution will lead down a slippery slope.



It's not sad, it's fucking treasonous!


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 31, 2015)

This genuinely made my head hurt after reading this.  Apparently, the Honolulu PD doesn't trust their firearms vendors. 



> Many departments, like the Hawaii County Police Department are doing the same conversion, but they are getting some money for turning in the old weapons.
> 
> "Going to a vendor, the vendor takes all the weapons in bulk and gives them credit for each weapon," says Law Enforcement expert Tommy Aiu, "And then when they buy the new Glock weapon, they get credit for that which saves the county money."
> 
> ...



I find their lack of faith (and common sense) disturbing.


----------



## Totentanz (Aug 31, 2015)

racing_kitty said:


> I find their lack of faith (and common sense) disturbing.



The stupid, it burns....


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 4, 2015)

Question for all:

Which candidates do you think have the best record pertaining to the 2A?


----------



## Gunz (Sep 4, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> Question for all:
> 
> Which candidates do you think have the best record pertaining to the 2A?


 
Bro, here's a link that lets you click on a candidate's name to get their basic stance on 2A issues.

Gun Control: 2016 contenders' views


----------



## AWP (Sep 7, 2015)

I took the FBI's Violent crime data from 2012 and 2013 and compared that the Guns and Ammo Best States for Concealed Carry list for 2013. Yeah, the latter might not be the best source, but "best" is subjective and I had to start somewhere.

Prelim. results: Generally speaking, the "better" a state is for concealed carry the lower the rates of murder and violent crime per citizen. Blips exist in the data for both pro- and anti- 2A perspectives, but generally speaking concealed carry lowers crime rates.

State with the most murders AND the worst CCW rating? California. When you make the same argument for murders per person then you have North Dakota and Iowa, 9th (2012) and 16th (2013) respectively. CA then clocks in 18 and 22 on the list for 2012 and 2013.

I'll post some other prelim. numbers tonight.


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 7, 2015)

This is the type of shit that pisses me off. 

More than 51,000 assault rifles registered in state

I like those stats @Freefalling and yet people still don't understand.


----------



## AWP (Sep 7, 2015)

I used Tables 5 (crime stats by state) and 20 (weapons data) for my info. The FBI admits that it doesn't have all of the data for Table 20, so the yearly numbers are off by about 2000 in 2012 and 3000 in 2013. With that said, we still have a pretty solid idea behind what weapons are used and how much.

2012: 12711 homicides. 8813 committed by firearms. 6,343 by handguns, 320 by rifles, 302 by shotguns, and 1,848 are of an unknown type. 69.3% of all homicides are with a firearm, 71.9 % with a handgun, 3.6 for a rifle, 3.4 with a shotgun, and 20.9 are unknown.

2013: 12,127 homicides, 8,357 with a gun, 5,738 handgun, 284 rifle, 307 shotgun, and 2,028 are unknown. 68.9% of all homicides are with a firearm, 68.7 of firearm-related homicides are with a handgun, 3.4 rifle, 3.7 shotgun, and 24.3 are unknown.

That means 2.51% of all 2012 homicides are committed with a rifle and 2.34% of homicides in 2013 are with a rifle. That doesn't distinguish between a hunting rifle or an AR/ AK style rifle. Remember that the next time someone's telling you about the evils of the little black rifle.


----------



## AWP (Sep 12, 2015)

Finally finished those numbers. I've attached the top ten and bottom ten for concealed carry, broken down by murder and violent crime. These are further broken into the number of crimes per person and their rank within the US. This allows you to compare the states. I'm not a statistician, I just did some basic math, but the process is pretty straightforward. I've attached the results as a .JPG.

In a nutshell, and with only two years to compare. Murders and murder rates are down in the top ten, up in the bottom ten. Violent crime is the complete opposite.  Why? No bloody clue. If you look at individual states the general pattern is the top ten has more single digit states than the bottom ten. We also have to remember there's a 2k disparity in 2012 and 3k disparity in 2013 between reported crimes and crimes where the weapon is known. The weapons types speak for themselves. (#blackriflesmatter)At the end of the day, if you can't trust the FBI's statistics then maybe we should solve that problem before tackling guns. If we're going to use numbers in support of our arguments, they need to be trustworthy or else our arguments are invalid.

2012:
 

2013:


Weapons:


----------



## x SF med (Sep 12, 2015)

@Freefalling ...  there is a disconnect in your numbers:
in 2012 WY has 19.3mm people, but in 2013 it has .6mm people
in 2012 UT has .6mm people, but in 2013 it has 2.9mm people
in 2012 HI has 1.6mm people, but in 2013 it has 10mm people

something is funny about the population numbers - that's just a sample... there are more

murder/person is way off...  over 22K pp?  violent crime pp at >200pp?

sanity check is needed.  (that's what I get for being a data and finance geek)


----------



## AWP (Sep 12, 2015)

x SF med said:


> @Freefalling ...  there is a disconnect in your numbers:
> in 2012 WY has 19.3mm people, but in 2013 it has .6mm people
> in 2012 UT has .6mm people, but in 2013 it has 2.9mm people
> in 2012 HI has 1.6mm people, but in 2013 it has 10mm people
> ...




Good catch. I missed that.

I didn't compare the total population of the state and those numbers are pulled directly from the FBI's website. Table's 5 and 20. You make a great point, but it underscores one of my premises: if we can't trust the data and yet EVERY side quotes "the numbers" then why is this a discussion? As you well know if we don't have hard numbers or some type of facts then we're left with guesses? Emotions? "Bro logic?" I wouldn't support changing any law if those were the reasons, much less the Constitution.

People bring up background checks and how, if the system is overwhelmed, one can still purchase a gun. If the system doesn't return a hit you can still buy a gun. Ok, fine.

Where are the calls to fix THAT before they go for guns?

I know I'm largely preaching to the choir, but this whole debate, a very important one at that, hinges on BS, bad numbers, emotions, and whatever whargarbl we can dredge up than...you know, actual things that can be fixed.

I missed that level of detail, but it came straight from the FBI. If we can't trust the information provided by the top law enforcement arm in this country, then who can we trust? CNN? Fox? Some celebrity?

Nonsense.


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 12, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Good catch. I missed that.
> 
> I didn't compare the total population of the state and those numbers are pulled directly from the FBI's website. Table's 5 and 20. You make a great point, but it underscores one of my premises: if we can't trust the data and yet EVERY side quotes "the numbers" then why is this a discussion? As you well know if we don't have hard numbers or some type of facts then we're left with guesses? Emotions? "Bro logic?" I wouldn't support changing any law if those were the reasons, much less the Constitution.
> 
> ...



Can I use what you posted in the future?


----------



## AWP (Sep 12, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> Can I use what you posted in the future?



The charts above?


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 12, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> The charts above?



Yes. Like in conversation and such.


----------



## AWP (Sep 12, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> Yes. Like in conversation and such.



The info's all public domain. All I did was copy-paste and do the math. Have at it.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 13, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> Yes. Like in conversation and such.


J.   those numbers suck, there are huge errors in the methodology just look at my post above, the data are screwy. (yes, that is correct; data are, datum is)


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 13, 2015)

x SF med said:


> J.   those numbers suck, there are huge errors in the methodology just look at my post above, the data are screwy. (yes, that is correct; data are, datum is)



I see. I'll continue to do more research then.


----------



## AWP (Oct 1, 2015)

And we have a shooting at a college in Oregon. 10 confirmed dead so far.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 1, 2015)

Here we go again


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 1, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> And we have a shooting at a college in Oregon. 10 confirmed dead so far.


Guess the no guns allowed policy wasn't enforced (yes, it's sarcasm).

Dems will be demanding extra gun laws by 10PM tonight.


----------



## AWP (Oct 1, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Dems will be demanding extra gun laws by 10PM tonight.



And more and more in the middle will join them and the Constitution will be legislated into irrelevance.


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 1, 2015)

I'll  continue  the fight because  I  know I  am going  to hear about this from the gun control  nuts I  know.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 1, 2015)

Can we give it a day before we start talking about gun control?  Can we do that this time?

At least 10 people are dead.  I, for one, don't give a shit about guns right now.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 1, 2015)

Unfortunately -- and sadly so -- colleges and universities have become the soft targets of anyone with angst against anything or any body and for any cause.

Rest In Peace to the fallen and prayers out for their families!


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 1, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Can we give it a day before we start talking about gun control?  Can we do that this time?
> 
> At least 10 people are dead.  I, for one, don't give a shit about guns right now.


No, because we know one side will view this as an opportunity.


----------



## TH15 (Oct 1, 2015)

There are unconfirmed reports that the shooter was asking victims about their religion before shooting them. Christians (allegedly) received a shot to the head, everyone else got a shot to the leg(s).

Link:
The UCC Shooter Made His Victims Answer Just One Horrifying Question Before Taking Their Lives


----------



## AWP (Oct 1, 2015)

I would take every preliminary report with a grain of salt.
#handsupdon'tshoot


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 1, 2015)

I give it a good 8 hours  before accurate  reports come out.

Rest in peace  to those that lost their lives.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 2, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Can we give it a day before we start talking about gun control?  Can we do that this time?
> 
> At least 10 people are dead.  I, for one, don't give a shit about guns right now.



We could, because we're decent people. 

Obama, on the other hand, was more than happy to jump in and spout the gun control talking points before the sun had set on this tragedy.


----------



## Rapid (Oct 2, 2015)

Fuck people in mainstream media. Worthless cunts.

Edit: mirror, in case CNN takes it down.

The Hypocrisy Of How The Media Covers Mass Shootings


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 2, 2015)

If only the media could return to the profession of journalism. The only spin we really need, is the one that gives us night and day.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 2, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> If only the media could return to the profession of journalism. The only spin we really need, is the one that gives us night and day.



Yes sir...I too wish it would. However, the MSM has now become a "business for profit" rather than a business for reporting the facts as they are...and not how they want them to appear.

It is simply another sign of the times...a time where integrity and personal responsibility has been thrown out the window for money.


----------



## pardus (Oct 3, 2015)

Rapid said:


> Fuck people in mainstream media. Worthless cunts.
> 
> Edit: mirror, in case CNN takes it down.
> 
> The Hypocrisy Of How The Media Covers Mass Shootings



This angers me to the point that I want to crush skulls.


----------



## CDG (Oct 3, 2015)

Fuck that blonde cunt.  And fuck the MSM.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 4, 2015)

ShadowSpear said:


> In other news....
> 
> http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/385705/man-stabs-22-children-in-china-authorities#.UMvfhHdPO8A


Should probably consider a ban on knives and spoons as well. They are going to have to try and ban my nine iron next. Politicians I can live without them. The rights we fought for and continue to fight for shall not be infringed.

School shootings suck big time but people are going to continue to kill other people no matter how many laws are passed. I mean those college folks were in a gun free zone. What happened? The shooter couldn't read? Nah, you take away the rights of good people and law abiding citizens and bad shit like this is going to happen. Arm everyone who wants to be armed and less bad shit will happen. That is my opinion. YMMV


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 4, 2015)

Implied gun free zone, that's the best part.

Oregon CCW holders were on site and were convinced by campus staff to not try and go stop the shooter.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 4, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> Implied gun free zone, that's the best part.
> 
> Oregon CCW holders were on site and were convinced by campus staff to not try and go stop the shooter.


Was it not a gun free zone? I didn't know that. I don't think some "campus staff" could convince to not intervene in a active shooter situation.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 4, 2015)

Want to buy an edit button.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 4, 2015)

Bypass said:


> Want to buy an edit button.



It is a factor of vetting. Once you are "Verified Military", the edit option will open up for you. It can take about a week or so for all the staff to go over your application, and any documents that have been uploaded. As for now, it pays to go slow at first. Learn the site and it's members by reading threads and member profiles. The best advice I can give you, is to read more and post less.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 4, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> It is a factor of vetting. Once you are "Verified Military", the edit option will open up for you. It can take about a week or so for all the staff to go over your application, and any documents that have been uploaded. As for now, it pays to go slow at first. Learn the site and it's members by reading threads and member profiles. The best advice I can give you, is to read more and post less.


Roger that, I like to chat though. I will try to post less and read more as you say.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 4, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> Implied gun free zone, that's the best part.
> 
> Oregon CCW holders were on site and were convinced by campus staff to not try and go stop the shooter.



Do you have a cite for that? I'd love to be able to point to that in talks.


----------



## AWP (Oct 4, 2015)

policemedic said:


> Do you have a cite for that? I'd love to be able to point to that in talks.



One article states he was "locked" in another room which presumes school officials did that.

Debate, and Confusion, Over Oregon's Gun Rules After Deadly Shooting



> The 36-year-old Air Force veteran became the human face of the concealed carry debate by giving numerous network interviews Thursday in which he said that he had his handgun with him on campus that morning but was not in a position to use it — he was locked down in the school's veterans center several hundred yards away from the science hall where the shooting took place.



Then you have this with an infuriating title and premise. It leads one to believe he made the decision to not engage and was subsequently "hustled into a classroom."

Armed vet destroys gun nuts’ argument on mass shooters by explaining why he didn’t attack Oregon killer



> “Luckily we made the choice not to get involved,” he explained. “We were quite a distance away from the building where this was happening. And we could have opened ourselves up to be potential targets ourselves, and not knowing where SWAT was, their response time, they wouldn’t know who we were. And if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think that we were bad guys.”
> 
> Parker noted that he was hustled into a classroom with other students by a professor who asked if anyone was armed. He said he raised his hand and said he would attempt to protect his fellow students if they came under attack.



Then there's this which states he was talked out of it.

Hundreds gather for candlelight vigil in Roseburg: Mass shooting victims 'will live forever in our hearts'



> John Parker's immediate impulse after hearing there was an active shooter on campus was to leave the shelter of the school's veterans' center to try to help.
> 
> The 36-year-old veteran and a few others have concealed carry licenses, Parker said, but a school employee talked them out of leaving.
> 
> ...



That implies he want wanted to go, was talked out of it by a school official and agreed with the decision to stay away.

Somewhere in there is the truth and a real timeline.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 4, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> One article states he was "locked" in another room which presumes school officials did that.
> 
> Debate, and Confusion, Over Oregon's Gun Rules After Deadly Shooting
> 
> ...


Can I quote you on another site I am a member on? It is a gun trading website called Southeast Traders That is a lot of good information that I think needs to get out there.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 4, 2015)

Sources provided, use those.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 4, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> Sources provided, use those.


Good point.


----------



## AWP (Oct 4, 2015)

Bypass said:


> Can I quote you on another site I am a member on? It is a gun trading website called Southeast Traders That is a lot of good information that I think needs to get out there.



No. Reading those stories I have my own opinion and with the links readers can make their own conclusions. Write it up however you like, just don't quote me. Thank you.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 4, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> One article states he was "locked" in another room which presumes school officials did that.
> 
> Debate, and Confusion, Over Oregon's Gun Rules After Deadly Shooting
> 
> ...



Thanks!


----------



## pardus (Oct 4, 2015)

Bypass said:


> *Should probably consider a ban on knives* and spoons as well. They are going to have to try and ban my nine iron next. Politicians I can live without them. The rights we fought for and continue to fight for shall not be infringed.
> 
> School shootings suck big time but people are going to continue to kill other people no matter how many laws are passed. I mean those college folks were in a gun free zone. What happened? The shooter couldn't read? Nah, you take away the rights of good people and law abiding citizens and bad shit like this is going to happen. Arm everyone who wants to be armed and less bad shit will happen. That is my opinion. YMMV



Becareful what you say! 

*ER doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.*


----------



## Raptor (Oct 4, 2015)

Scissors and pencils are next, I'm sure. Those pointy ends can be dangerous!!!


----------



## Grunt (Oct 4, 2015)

pardus said:


> Becareful what you say!
> 
> *ER doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.*



Who needs comic sections of the newspapers or comic books when we have articles like that!

Real, true-to-life comedy!


----------



## x SF med (Oct 5, 2015)

pardus said:


> Becareful what you say!
> 
> *ER doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.*



Britain HAS already started on the ban in the quoted article....


----------



## Bypass (Oct 5, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> No. Reading those stories I have my own opinion and with the links readers can make their own conclusions. Write it up however you like, just don't quote me. Thank you.


Roger that.



pardus said:


> Becareful what you say!
> 
> *ER doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.*


No doubt.


----------



## Rapid (Oct 5, 2015)

x SF med said:


> Britain HAS already started on the ban in the quoted article....



It hasn't. Yes, a few stupid doctors called for a ban on kitchen knives, but that was it. Here's what's actually banned.

Buying and carrying knives: the law - GOV.UK



> *Banned knives*
> There is a ban on the sale of some knives:
> 
> 
> ...


Still pretty stupid, but what do you expect...


----------



## x SF med (Oct 5, 2015)

So you could own a Sebenza or a Spartan Folder.... as long as it met certain criteria.


----------



## AWP (Oct 17, 2015)

CNN and Fox's take on Hillary appearing to support gun confiscation. I think the headlines alone speak volumes.

NRA slams Hillary Clinton - CNNPolitics.com

NRA slams Hillary Clinton, claims she supports confiscating guns

Clinton suggests she'd consider mandatory gun buy-backs, sparking fears of ‘confiscation’

Clinton suggests she'd consider mandatory gun buy-backs, sparking fears of ‘confiscation’

The hilarious part is that CNN does nothing to refute Clinton's statement, but they turn it into an NRA bashing article. If nothing else, reading the links is worth it to see how the different "news" organizations handle the same story.


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 17, 2015)

It is disturbing to say the least. I am wary of anything that woman says about guns and gun control. You would think from listening to her she wants us peasent folk to to back to living in huts.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 17, 2015)

A mandatory "gun buyback" IS CONFISCATION. You can't buy "back" property you never fucking owned.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 18, 2015)

I have....

Edit by Freefalling.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 18, 2015)

And look at the "quality" firearms that end up in the gun buy-back bin at your local PD. It's like the Island of Misfit Toys. And for each piece of malfunctioning junk the incentive is enough cash to what, buy a case of beer? Good luck with that, Mrs. Clinton.


----------



## AWP (Oct 18, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> I have....
> 
> Edit by Freefalling.



You have lost your Goddamn mind, that's what you have. You are an Active Duty officer implying (I'm feeling charitable) that you'd assassinate a presidential candidate or that she needs to be assassinated? What are you thinking?

To those of you, including my fellow staff who had their posts soft-deleted, I think you see why but if you don't let me know and we'll discuss it.

---

I think for many of us if she dropped dead right this second our thoughts would be something like "Hillary's gone? Wow. Crazy ending to the Michigan State game yesterday!" I have a hard time believing most of us are sitting at home or work hoping she'll take a bullet. I could be wrong, but we will not advocate that on this forum for any candidate....except for guys like Putin or Karzai.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 18, 2015)

That was a crazy ending to the Michigan game.


----------



## Brill (Oct 18, 2015)

Funny that this is the same "lady" who bashed Sanders for looking at Denmark but she herself is looking at Australia??

RE: gun buybacks; what's the point to outlaw guns on the streets?  Get guns off the streets so they cannot kill people?  Who's doing the killing?  Law-abiding citizens, criminals, unstable people???

Let's look at MD, a state with some pretty fricken strict gun laws.  It is a "may issue" state but actually ONLY issues CCW permits to a special class of people (LEOs, business owners, and the rare exception of self-protection (need actual court documentation)) but absolutely bans average Joe from carrying a weapon off their property.

Why has murder rate in Baltimore skyrocketed post riots?  It's already illegal for Joe to carry a gun in MD...so how/why gun violence so high?  Criminals in MD don't abide by the state's gun laws but the Progressives think they'll follow a Federal law to buy back/confiscate?

Hillary's plan will simply dearm the law abiding populace and open us to MORE violence.  Just imagine the entire US being a gun free zone where only criminals and police have weapons.  Oh, this would be the same place where "non-violent" offenders get reduced (if any) jail time so more people who disregard laws would be put back on the streets.

So is the REAL idea to stop the mentally unstable person's access to guns?  Is that REALLY such a threat that requires a Constitution change???

:blkeye:


----------



## Bypass (Oct 18, 2015)

lindy said:


> Funny that this is the same "lady" who bashed Sanders for looking at Denmark but she herself is looking at Australia??
> 
> RE: gun buybacks; what's the point to outlaw guns on the streets?  Get guns off the streets so they cannot kill people?  Who's doing the killing?  Law-abiding citizens, criminals, unstable people???
> 
> ...


Dearm? Sounds like a skin irritant. J/K bro. While I totally agree with most of what you said, I think we need to arm more people instead of looking at implementing new laws. There is already a law which bans mentally unstable people from owning or possessing firearms. People who want to kill other people will find a way to do it regardless of whether or not firearms are easily accessible. We should make a law against murder and enforce that. Oh wait? I guess laws don't prevent criminals from committing crimes after all.

In answer to your question. It is absolutely not a threat that requires a constitution change.


----------



## AWP (Oct 18, 2015)

lindy said:


> Is that REALLY such a threat that requires a Constitution change???
> :blkeye:





Bypass said:


> In answer to your question. It is absolutely not a threat that requires a constitution change.



When my rabid, unrepentant liberal, gun-hating friends chime in about "sensible gun control" I tell them I'm 100% on board. Once they find enough Congressmen and States to ratify a change to the Constitution, I'll sign off. They look utterly crushed because they know that will never happen. Their entire goal is to sidestep the Constitution through legislation and avoid an ugly, losing fight. Charge into the ambush and it takes the wind out of their sails.

There are other points one can make, but changing the 2nd Amendment tends to shut them down.


----------



## Brill (Oct 18, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> When my rabid, unrepentant liberal, gun-hating friends chime in about "sensible gun control" I tell them I'm 100% on board. Once they find enough Congressmen and States to ratify a change to the Constitution, I'll sign off. They look utterly crushed because they know that will never happen. *Their entire goal is to sidestep the Constitution* through legislation and avoid an ugly, losing fight. Charge into the ambush and it takes the wind out of their sails.



I fully expect an EO (he has a pen you know) in the waning days of this presidency followed by implementation (if a Democrat takes over the office) or a court battle (if a Republican takes over).

I wonder when they will tie guns to the black lives matter "cause"?  Perhaps they should disarm the police so young black men wouldn't be blatantly murdered by police?  Would Micheal Brown have been killed if the policeman WAS NOT armed???  Would Gray be dead if Baltimore PD didn't have a paddy wagon???

(a stupid argument and I'm only trying to make a point via "progressive" logic...is there such a thing????)


----------



## CQB (Oct 18, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> A mandatory "gun buyback" IS CONFISCATION. You can't buy "back" property you never fucking owned.


No, it's not confiscation, it's voluntary, if the Australian model is followed. This means you get a dollar value for a gun you have, no questions asked. I say it again: we have not had a mass casualty shooting for some time.


----------



## Totentanz (Oct 18, 2015)

CQB said:


> No, it's not confiscation, it's *voluntary*, if the Australian model is followed. This means you get a dollar value for a gun you have, no questions asked. I say it again: we have not had a mass casualty shooting for some time.



voluntary and mandatory would seem to be a contradiction of terms...


----------



## CQB (Oct 18, 2015)

Too true, the trick played here was it was promoted quite heavily, so it had the appearance of being compulsory when it was in fact voluntary. If perchance something does occur where you are, check the fine print. 
BTW I went to the local LEO shop over something and had the pleasure of the guy at the front desk in front of me saying he had something to hand in. It was a LEO issued 12 gauge pumpy, beautiful, silver grey etc; when asked where he got it he said I'm only handing it in, I don't have to tell you how I got it.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 18, 2015)

CQB said:


> No, it's not confiscation, it's voluntary, if the Australian model is followed. This means you get a dollar value for a gun you have, no questions asked. I say it again: we have not had a mass casualty shooting for some time.



That may be true, but that doesn't mean you can attribute it to gun control measures. Australia is an entirely different country with several different variables that affect why and how things happen-or don't.


----------



## Quant (Oct 18, 2015)

CQB said:


> No, it's not confiscation, it's voluntary, if the Australian model is followed. This means you get a dollar value for a gun you have, no questions asked. I say it again: *we have not had a mass casualty shooting for some time*.



It's interesting to also note that there had only been a few (I think 8 in the previous 100 years) mass casualty shootings previous to that anyways. And from what I looked up, I think there has been 3 mass casualty shootings since the laws. So do I think it could be implemented with success in the U.S.? Most likely not.


----------



## Brill (Oct 18, 2015)

CQB said:


> I say it again: we have not had a mass casualty shooting for some time.



That's very good to hear!

Does Australia have the "have an ill, take a pill!" mentality like we do?  There are so many medications (advertised on TV) with the disclaimer "may cause suicidal tendencies".

I personally think there is a link between the crap Americans are taking and recent volumes of fucked up shit on the nightly news.


----------



## digrar (Oct 18, 2015)

There is a perception from outside looking in that the US has some sort of medical/pharma industry driven mass hypochondria, we're not at that point.

We also run a totally different type of gun culture. People have guns because they're primary producers, they're issued one for work, they're sporting shooters, or they have illegal weapons because they're crims. Outside of those groups weapon ownership is near on zero. 

Mass murders in Australia since 96 have been more likely to happen from a building fire (x3), hammer strike (family domestic) or stabbing (family domestic).


----------



## Brill (Oct 18, 2015)

digrar said:


> Mass murders in Australia since 96 have been more likely to happen from a building fire (x3), hammer strike (family domestic) or stabbing (family domestic).



Well that's interesting! Blunt force trauma and stabbing someone kill more Americans than firearms (per FBI crime stats).


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 19, 2015)

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Connecticut Gun Law


The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday upheld Connecticut's ban on assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines, both of which were core provisions of the sweeping gun control law enacted after the December 2012 Newtown school shootings.

"New York and Connecticut have adequately established a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines and the important — indeed compelling — state interest in controlling crime," U.S. Circuit Judge José A. Cabranes wrote in the decision published Monday, ruling that the post-Newtown gun laws enacted in both states do not violate the Second Amendment right to individual gun ownership.



:wall:


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 19, 2015)

Off it goes before the Supreme Court again, think they could call all the Federal Judges and tell them to knock it off?


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 19, 2015)

policemedic said:


> That may be true, but that doesn't mean you can attribute it to gun control measures. Australia is an entirely different country with several different variables that affect why and how things happen-or don't.



I think culture  would be one?


----------



## CQB (Oct 20, 2015)

Quant said:


> It's interesting to also note that there had only been a few (I think 8 in the previous 100 years) mass casualty shootings previous to that anyways. And from what I looked up, I think there has been 3 mass casualty shootings since the laws. So do I think it could be implemented with success in the U.S.? Most likely not.



The three you speak of would be Strathfield in Sydney, Hoddle Street in Melbourne and Port Arthur in Tasmania, which occurred _before _the laws and the three events were the reason the laws were implemented. There haven't been any since.


----------



## x SF med (Oct 20, 2015)

CQB said:


> The three you speak of would be Strathfield in Sydney, Hoddle Street in Melbourne and Port Arthur in Tasmania, which occurred _before _the laws and the three events were the reason the laws were implemented. There haven't been any since.



With your proximity to largely Islamic states, that have shown a marked increase in violence, rhetoric, covert action and have an eye on OZ/NZ, should a covert or overt incursion happen, what would be the chance of the 'normal citizen' to carry out his/her own defense prior to the arrival of Police or military assistance?

Not baiting you, just wanted to get another country's SOF guy's perspective, especially since you understand the UW/GW methodologies involved, and understand the behaviors of the planners and the doers.  

After all these years, I finally formed a cogent and germane question to ask you where others can benefit from it.


----------



## digrar (Oct 20, 2015)

Overt storming the North? Fuckers would all be dead inside 3 months. Just from nature.
Covert, cell based terror stuff is getting picked up on a fairly regular basis now. It's just the teenage kids who snap who are getting anywhere. And we're a long way from the populace thinking it would be a good idea to carry and start snapping off rounds at shifty looking 15 year old Habibs.


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 20, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Off it goes before the Supreme Court again, think they could call all the Federal Judges and tell them to knock it off?



I can only  hope that would be the case. This doesn't look good. I want to see  the fallout first.


----------



## CQB (Oct 20, 2015)

x SF med said:


> With your proximity to largely Islamic states, that have shown a marked increase in violence, rhetoric, covert action and have an eye on OZ/NZ, should a covert or overt incursion happen, what would be the chance of the 'normal citizen' to carry out his/her own defense prior to the arrival of Police or military assistance?
> 
> Not baiting you, just wanted to get another country's SOF guy's perspective, especially since you understand the UW/GW methodologies involved, and understand the behaviors of the planners and the doers.
> 
> After all these years, I finally formed a cogent and germane question to ask you where others can benefit from it.



Of course it could happen, but in the scheme of things it would be high probability, low consequence. But the guys who wish to do this are a very minute section of the population (as they are elsewhere). Muslims are about 1.8% of our total  population, the bad guys are a minute percentage of that. How is the problem dealt with? It's the old duck on the pond scenario. A duck glides across the pond, you don't see the feet paddling furiously underneath. Google Operation Appleby and Operation Pendennis to see how it's done here.

To answer the second part of your question, the answer is virtually nil, di nada, bupkis, sweet fuck all. The problem is, do you arm a population to contain a low consequence threat? No, you don't, for terrorism is in reality just another crime, murder really and more people get killed in domestic violence attacks here than terrorism.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 20, 2015)

CQB said:


> ... terrorism is in reality just another crime, murder really and more people get killed in domestic violence attacks here than terrorism.



We used to think that too.  In fact, although President Clinton issued directives indicating that terrorism was a national security problem, he treated it mainly as a law enforcement issue.  Many other people saw it that way.

Then 9/11 happened.  And although far more people get killed by Americans in any given year than by terrorists, I think we all know what happened after.  

Sometimes terrorism isn't "low consequence."


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 20, 2015)

Yeah crime isn't either. CT is a funny one. It's a sliding scale on who deals with it, IMO.


----------



## CQB (Oct 21, 2015)

Agreed, CT is difficult in a lot of ways.


----------



## Brill (Oct 21, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> We used to think that too.  In fact, although President Clinton issued directives indicating that terrorism was a national security problem, he treated it mainly as a law enforcement issue.



You used past tense there...and wrong President too.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 21, 2015)

Seriously, I don't think most of us are armed because we think we're going to run into terrorists or even crime. I think a lot of non-Americans (and many Americans, too, unfortunately) forget how deeply-rooted the traditions of gun-ownership and shooting are in this country, handed down from father-to-son (or daughter) for generations. We have the geography for it, plenty of places to shoot. It's extremely precious to us, it's a symbol of our independence...and when we hear threats to increase gun restrictions or even ban them it only strengthens our resolve and defiance. Americans love to shoot because shooting is _fun. _

My sister-in-law is a flaming Boston Leftist, a card-carrying pinko commie socialist bolshevik. A couple of years ago I took her down to my range with a Ruger 10-22 and taught her how to use it, gave her the patented Ocoka One gun-safety lecture, strictly supervised her every molecule...and she had a _blast. _ Her whole attitude on guns changed. It was like Gandalf hit her on the head with a magic rock.


----------



## pardus (Oct 21, 2015)

CQB said:


> No, it's not confiscation, it's voluntary, if the Australian model is followed. This means you get a dollar value for a gun you have, no questions asked. I say it again: we have not had a mass casualty shooting for some time.



So you're saying that that it's legal to own a semi auto rifle in OZ? e.g. an SLR?


----------



## CQB (Oct 21, 2015)

The short answer is yes, but it comes with conditions, that type is restricted to collectors and they have a particular class of license. You have to fight the paper war. The following applies to New South Wales:

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data...ms_Collection_FACT_Sheet_-_7_January_2014.pdf


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 22, 2015)

I'll keep my guns, thanks.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 22, 2015)

CQB said:


> The short answer is yes, but it comes with conditions, that type is restricted to collectors and they have a particular class of license. You have to fight the paper war. The following applies to New South Wales:
> 
> http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data...ms_Collection_FACT_Sheet_-_7_January_2014.pdf


 
_That _was interesting. "Paper war" indeed. I guess _"I like guns because they're fun"_ would never qualify as a "Genuine Reason" in NSW.  I appreciate you sharing it because it shows what could happen in this country if our Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms is _infringed _any more than it already has been.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 22, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> _That _was interesting. "Paper war" indeed. I guess _"I like guns because they're fun"_ would never qualify as a "Genuine Reason" in NSW.  I appreciate you sharing it because it shows what could happen in this country if our Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms is _infringed _any more than it already has been.



I read through all that and noticed that self-defense wasn't one of the listed genuine reasons for being issued with a license. 

I also read through the list of prohibited weapons other than firearms; I've concluded that only harsh language and cans of Fosters are authorized for self defense purposes there. 

I did meet an Aussie police officer at a conference in Mobile a few years ago.  He was very forthright about the issue; he very clearly stated that the gun laws in Oz seemed to merely empower the criminals and violent crime rose.


----------



## AWP (Oct 22, 2015)

A mass-swording took place in Sweden today. I consider this relevant not because teachers should be armed with Targaryen steel or whatever, but it highlights the simple fact that people are going to be crazy regardless of the available tools. You can't always stop crazy or even know about it.
Sweden sword attack: Two killed by masked attacker - BBC News



> A masked man armed with a sword has killed a pupil and a teacher at a school in Sweden.
> 
> The suspect, clad in black, apparently posed for photos with students ahead of the attack, in the western town of Trollhattan.
> 
> Two further victims, a pupil and a teacher, are seriously injured. The attacker was shot by police and has died of his injuries. He was 21 and resident in Trollhattan, police said.



Blue Skies.
---

To kind of piggyback on my earlier post about the Constitution, I also like to point out to my anti-firearm friends that the background check process is flawed or broken. Their perception is you either pass or fail the check within 5 days but as we know it isn't that simple. It is a "gun show loophole" that draws everyone's attention, but shortcomings in NNICS are rarely mentioned. Fix actions may require more money or manpower, but let's just add additional laws to enforce rather than enforcing what's on the books. 'Merica: We'll Lawyerize you.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 22, 2015)

We have more than enough existing laws to cover just about everything under the sun. We simply don't need more.

People need to learn to focus more on the "tool" using the gun rather than the tool itself.


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 22, 2015)

Put criminals who use guns away for longer periods  of time.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 22, 2015)

In a bit of positive news, Congressman Matt Salmon of Arizona has introduced a bill (Hearing Protection Act of 2015) that would remove suppressors from the NFA list

Bill introduced to remove suppressors from NFA regulation
*Bill introduced to remove suppressors from NFA regulation*



> A House Republican is proposing legislation that would remove suppressors and silencers from National Firearms Act regs and treat them as regular firearms.
> 
> Since 1934, the federal government has treated devices designed to muffle or suppress the report of firearms as Title II devices that required registration under the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record and mandated transfers that included a $200 tax stamp. Now, a bill sponsored by U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., aims to change that.
> 
> ...



It hasn't hit govtrack.us yet, but this is very exciting and I'm definitely going to be keeping an eye on this.


----------



## CQB (Oct 22, 2015)

policemedic said:


> I read through all that and noticed that self-defense wasn't one of the listed genuine reasons for being issued with a license.
> 
> I also read through the list of prohibited weapons other than firearms; I've concluded that only harsh language and cans of Fosters are authorized for self defense purposes there.
> 
> I did meet an Aussie police officer at a conference in Mobile a few years ago.  He was very forthright about the issue; he very clearly stated that the gun laws in Oz seemed to merely empower the criminals and violent crime rose.



That's an interesting argument from the Aussie copper. Crime has been going on for centuries in one form or another and no-one has stopped it yet, it's the risk/reward ratio, if there's an opportunity, someone will have a crack at it. Crime worldwide though has actually been diminishing (see article)

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...-down-governments-should-focus-prevention-not

Can I add something here to you're chat with our LEO? I'm speculating he had the "if you take away guns from good people, only bad people will have guns" argument. This played out for quite some time and TBH it affected legal ownership. For wherever  and whenever there was a gun crime, the_ legal ownership_ laws tightened. (So in a certain way, fears of restrictive ownership where you are would rise if enacted. I say fear, not actuality). So the laws affected the wrong part of the population. The powers that be finally woke up one day and that stopped. So now instead we have at least once a week reminders in the media of gun crime in America. 'Boy four, dead" headlines are now pretty commonplace just as a reminder to all those nice people here who don't own. 

The original argument was tightening ownership prevented a mass casualty event. We haven't had one for some time, that's not to say it won't happen but the likelihood has been significantly diminished.


----------



## digrar (Oct 22, 2015)

policemedic said:


> I read through all that and noticed that self-defense wasn't one of the listed genuine reasons for being issued with a license.
> 
> I also read through the list of prohibited weapons other than firearms; I've concluded that only harsh language and cans of Fosters are authorized for self defense purposes there.



Harsh words and cans of beer are really all that's required for self defence purposes down here. You generally have to go looking for trouble to find it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 22, 2015)

My NICS checks have been done in 30 minutes over the phone...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 22, 2015)

Tewksbury gun suspect held on bail

BATF, is parading this on their facebook as a successful nab of a crazed weapons trafficking felon.

What it is, is a veteran down on his luck trying to feed his pregnant wife, being lured into a laundry list of felonies.

Every LEO involved with this "investigation" should be a shamed of themselves.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 22, 2015)

JAB said:


> Tewksbury gun suspect held on bail
> 
> BATF, is parading this on their facebook as a successful nab of a crazed weapons trafficking felon.
> 
> ...


Standard ATF operation, and the Mass-holes gleefully assisted.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 23, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> My NICS checks have been done in 30 minutes over the phone...



You must have a name in common with someone. never takes me more than a minute.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 23, 2015)

policemedic said:


> You must have a name in common with someone. never takes me more than a minute.



That is, if I bought guns. Because I don't.  They were all lost in a tragic boating accident .....


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 23, 2015)

policemedic said:


> You must have a name in common with someone. never takes me more than a minute.



Same. Quick as shit, only delays being wait times on hold.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 23, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> My NICS checks have been done in 30 minutes over the phone...



Note to self: don't sell USP 40 to this dude.


----------



## medicchick (Oct 23, 2015)

Last time it took 45 minutes on hold for a 1 minute conversation.  The only delay I ever had was right after I got married and changed my name, then it was 5 minutes as they spelled my maiden name.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 23, 2015)

policemedic said:


> Note to self: don't sell USP 40 to this dude.


If you had one......


----------



## JBS (Oct 23, 2015)

The Tewksbury case is absurd. 

Rallying resources and law enforcement officers to a case like this, rather than chasing rapists, murderers, and other thugs is pathetic. 

I agree that anyone participating in this is a sorry excuse for a cop.   



> iller told police he knew he had to have a Massachusetts license to carry a firearm, but he was unsure of what firearms were covered under the law.
> 
> Combs notes that Miller, a military veteran, has been transient because he and his wife, who is seven-months pregnant, have been waiting for permanent housing from the Veterans Administration.
> 
> ...




He's BROKE, he's literally HOMELESS waiting on VA housing, with a pregnant wife, and these fucksticks spent a MONTH persuading him to drive over state lines to sell to them?


----------



## Brill (Oct 23, 2015)

JAB said:


> What it is, is a veteran down on his luck trying to feed his pregnant wife, being lured into a laundry list of felonies.
> 
> Every LEO involved with this "investigation" should be a shamed of themselves.



He has a CCW but doesn't know it's illegal to sell weapons outside his state of residence?


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 23, 2015)

lindy said:


> He has a CCW but doesn't know it's illegal to sell weapons outside his state of residence?


Wasn't covered in my CCW class, did they cover it in your class?
That said, if you live in NH you know Mass gun laws are strict, that's why it took a month to persuade him to go there.
Not Guilty verdict, or probation gets him turned over to MA Police for additional charges (which is why they picked MA and not ME)


----------



## Brill (Oct 23, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Wasn't covered in my CCW class, did they cover it in your class?
> That said, if you live in NH you know Mass gun laws are strict, that's why it took a month to persuade him to go there.



Very good points.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 23, 2015)

I'm not saying this dude did no wrong, I'm saying the cops set him up to do wrong and that its complete bullshit.

Starving wife, $2500 in gun shit I can sell and make wife happy, dude who wants to buy won't meet me in my location, yeah fuck it I'll drive to your town. I'd be willing to bet, this veteran wasn't even thinking about the laws, probably had to come up with gas money for the meeting.

And really, these cops don't have anything better to do?


----------



## Bypass (Oct 24, 2015)

Yeah selling to someone who lives outside of your state is illegal. But you can meet at a licensed FFL dealer and do a transfer. Some good websites if you like to buy, sell, and trade firearms with a ton of useful information and discussions.
Southeast Traders
The Outdoors Trader

I love my toys and I wonder if they ban ARs and AKs for the general public how will that affect my tax stamped NFA items. Anyone have any opinions, comments, or general fuckery on that?


----------



## Bypass (Oct 24, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Wasn't covered in my CCW class, did they cover it in your class?
> That said, if you live in NH you know Mass gun laws are strict, that's why it took a month to persuade him to go there.
> Not Guilty verdict, or probation gets him turned over to MA Police for additional charges (which is why they picked MA and not ME)


You had to take a class for your CCW?


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 24, 2015)

Bypass said:


> You had to take a class for your CCW?


Yep, 8 (now 4 hrs)


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 24, 2015)

Bypass said:


> You had to take a class for your CCW?


 
I did also.


----------



## Dienekes (Oct 24, 2015)

Bypass said:


> You had to take a class for your CCW?



It's required in Louisiana as well as fingerprinting.


----------



## CDG (Oct 24, 2015)

Not required in PA.  I paid the fee and waited 14 days, and voila, there it was.  I did have to wait a few days to buy my Glock that, tragically, was lost in the same boating accident that claimed the collection of @policemedic.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 24, 2015)

CDG said:


> Not required in PA.  I paid the fee and waited 14 days, and voila, there it was.  I did have to wait a few days to buy my Glock that, tragically, was lost in the same boating accident that claimed the collection of @policemedic.



Damn rogue waves. 

If you'd been in Bucks County you'd have walked out of the Sheriff's Office with your license in hand.  Some counties are better than others; Philadelphia is the worst.


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 24, 2015)

Didn't have to take a class to get my AL CCW, even though "unexpectedly concealed by the Gulf of Mexico" doesn't require a license.


----------



## pardus (Oct 24, 2015)

policemedic said:


> *I read through all that and noticed that self-defense wasn't one of the listed genuine reasons for being issued with a license. *
> 
> I also read through the list of prohibited weapons other than firearms; I've concluded that only harsh language and cans of Fosters are authorized for self defense purposes there.
> 
> I did meet an Aussie police officer at a conference in Mobile a few years ago.  He was very forthright about the issue; he very clearly stated that the gun laws in Oz seemed to merely empower the criminals and violent crime rose.



If you even mention self defense with regards to firearms ownership in New Zealand and you'll be flagged and denied a license.
In fact the gun laws are set up to prevent you from using them in self defense. Ammo (maybe bolts too) must be stored in a separate locked receptacle than the firearms are.*

*I don't recall if that was for all categories or firearms or just semi-autos.


----------



## Dienekes (Oct 24, 2015)

All of my buddies that have taken the CCW class have said that they are glad they took it though because it is very informative as to what that CCW permit actually allows them to do and what Louisiana determines as self-defense. I would venture to say that a good number of people that obtain a CCW permit do so without doing their due diligence on concealed carry laws. Many simply believe, "Hey, I can carry concealed now and use my gun in whatever I think is self-defense" which is simply not the case.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

pardus said:


> If you even mention self defense with regards to firearms ownership in New Zealand and you'll be flagged and denied a license.
> In fact the gun laws are set up to prevent you from using them in self defense. Ammo (maybe bolts too) must be stored in a separate locked receptacle than the firearms are.*
> 
> *I don't recall if that was for all categories or firearms or just semi-autos.


That sucks.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

CDG said:


> Not required in PA.  I paid the fee and waited 14 days, and voila, there it was.  I did have to wait a few days to buy my Glock that, tragically, was lost in the same boating accident that claimed the collection of @policemedic.


A lot of fine firearms have been lost in tragic boating accidents. ;)


DA SWO said:


> Yep, 8 (now 4 hrs)





Marine0311 said:


> I did also.





Dienekes said:


> It's required in Louisiana as well as fingerprinting.


Mandatory training is just another way for the government to generate revenue. No classes here in Georgia but we have to be fingerprinted and have a background investigation done. I am hoping that here pretty soon we see a big change in the right to carry that will allow anyone that so desires the ability to exercise their second amendment rights without hurdles to jump through.

I also want to see 922r and the NFA in regards to suppressors be done away with. Everyone has the right to protect their hearing. People are working on it as we speak.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

Dienekes said:


> All of my buddies that have taken the CCW class have said that they are glad they took it though because it is very informative as to what that CCW permit actually allows them to do and what Louisiana determines as self-defense. I would venture to say that a good number of people that obtain a CCW permit do so without doing their due diligence on concealed carry laws. Many simply believe, "Hey, I can carry concealed now and use my gun in whatever I think is self-defense" which is simply not the case.


I am pretty sure I can figure out when to use my firearm without someone sitting on my shoulder telling me. YMMV.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> I am pretty sure I can figure out when to use my firearm without someone sitting on my shoulder telling me. YMMV.


Each state has different ROE and no carry locations.
I'd rather have the info before I start interacting with the Police


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 25, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Each state has different ROE and no carry locations.
> I'd rather have the info before I start interacting with the Police



Part of my class was devoted to various laws concerning firearms; where you can carry, self defense, storage, etc. I'd like to know the legal angles it is at the very least a good education.


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> I am pretty sure I can figure out when to use my firearm without someone sitting on my shoulder telling me. YMMV.



True, but when you start a law that allows CHL, you must think of ALL of the people that are going to participate...veteran shooter to complete beginners.  A firearms class is a good thing, and at least in Texas, people enjoy it.  It's more than gun laws, it's the shooting, the care...etc.


----------



## Dienekes (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> I am pretty sure I can figure out when to use my firearm without someone sitting on my shoulder telling me. YMMV.



I would hope so. I also hope that anyone who is in a situation where employing their firearm is the best COA would use it in the right way regardless of the law. However, it is much better to go in knowing the law than not. 

Though let's be honest, for anyone without training in how to use their firearms in life or death situations, the law is most likely not going to pop into their heads. I would like to see local PDs or Sheriff's offices provide some type of training like that for those that ask for it.


----------



## AWP (Oct 25, 2015)

Dienekes said:


> use it in the right way regardless of the law.



Which could utterly destroy one's life.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Each state has different ROE and no carry locations.
> I'd rather have the info before I start interacting with the Police


The locations and the rules are covered in the paperwork they give you with the license. I shouldn't have to ask permission (I.E. request a license) to protect myself and my family. I have never in 21 years of carrying a firearm as a civilian or military had any trouble with the police. If everyone was allowed the right to carry as they should be then there would be no interaction at all with the police. I would just be another person exercising my rights.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)




----------



## Dienekes (Oct 25, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Which could utterly destroy one's life.



I should have clarified better, but I meant utilizing a firearm in an instance where the law deems it illegal to use deadly force, but it would be deemed by most moral people to be the right thing to do. I meant that in defense of another, but I am not read up on all of the states' self defense laws to come up with a situation that would apply.

I purely meant that repercussions of the law shouldn't be a deciding factor when intervening to save someone's life. The details are different and deadly force was not used, but SFC Martland's case comes to mind. Though, admittedly, I've never had to deal with repercussions of that nature so, YMMV.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> I am pretty sure I can figure out when to use my firearm without someone sitting on my shoulder telling me. YMMV.



My professional experience is that many people can't.   

This is especially true when people take advantage of reciprocity and travel out of their home state whilst armed.  The Republic of Texas has radically different laws than Pennsylvania, for instance. 

In any case the benefit of training is not just learning when you can and cannot display or discharge a firearm.  It is knowing what to do after you do display or discharge it.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> The locations and the rules are covered in the paperwork they give you with the license. I shouldn't have to ask permission (I.E. request a license) to protect myself and my family. I have never in 21 years of carrying a firearm as a civilian or military had any trouble with the police. If everyone was allowed the right to carry as they should be then there would be no interaction at all with the police. I would just be another person exercising my rights.



Once again, that may or may not be true. The information provided with your license might be correct; it may not be. 

Case in point. All licenses to carry firearms in PA are issued under the authority of the Commonwealth and all are valid statewide.  However, they are issued by the various Sheriffs except in Philadelphia where they are issued by the police.  Each issuing agency provides different information to the new licensee.   The information pamphlet provided by the Philadelphia Police is blatantly wrong on several points of state law and I spend a fair amount of time educating licensees on those issues. 

Trust me, this is not an area in which you wish to be cavalier. 

I don't believe in mandatory training because I believe the bearing and use of arms to be without question a right of the people.  However, I do believe if you carry a gun you owe a duty to society to be tactically competent and possessed of sound legal knowledge regarding self-defense.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

policemedic said:


> Once again, that may or may not be true. The information provided with your license might be correct; it may not be.
> 
> Case in point. All licenses to carry firearms in PA are issued under the authority of the Commonwealth and all are valid statewide.  However, they are issued by the various Sheriffs except in Philadelphia where they are issued by the police.  Each issuing agency provides different information to the new licensee.   The information pamphlet provided by the Philadelphia Police is blatantly wrong on several points of state law and I spend a fair amount of time educating licensees on those issues.
> 
> ...


I don't believe I owe anyone anything.


----------



## medicchick (Oct 25, 2015)

I have no problem taking a class for my CCW.  We moved from a place that has _very _different laws to here.  No permit is needed in Alaska, in Nevada it is.  The stand your ground and castle laws are a bit different and it's good to have someone (I believe the local guy who goes over that part is the DA) go over the details.  Some places include your vehicle, some don't.  Some places include your friends house if you were invited it, some don't.  Some also just mean your property, others they have to be X amount of feet inside your dwelling.

You can read the laws and what not yourself (and should) but hearing it from the local DA, PO or SO, or lawyer can't be beat.  These are the people who deal with it day in and day out.  It's just smart to know the local laws and gray areas.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

policemedic said:


> My professional experience is that many people can't.
> 
> This is especially true when people take advantage of reciprocity and travel out of their home state whilst armed.  The Republic of Texas has radically different laws than Pennsylvania, for instance.
> 
> In any case the benefit of training is not just learning when you can and cannot display or discharge a firearm.  It is knowing what to do after you do display or discharge it.


All state laws regarding firearms should be abolished. Universal carry should be allowed and no bull shit should be taken or given regarding our second amendment rights.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

medicchick said:


> I have no problem taking a class for my CCW.  We moved from a place that has _very _different laws to here.  No permit is needed in Alaska, in Nevada it is.  The stand your ground and castle laws are a bit different and it's good to have someone (I believe the local guy who goes over that part is the DA) go over the details.  Some places include your vehicle, some don't.  Some places include your friends house if you were invited it, some don't.  Some also just mean your property, others they have to be X amount of feet inside your dwelling.
> 
> You can read the laws and what not yourself (and should) but hearing it from the local DA, PO or SO, or lawyer can't be beat.  These are the people who deal with it day in and day out.  It's just smart to know the local laws and gray areas.


Local laws and area restrictions should be abolished. The second amendment doesn't say who or where or how. Why should a local government be able to deny our rights?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 25, 2015)

Spot on with both posts poicemedic, as usual.

One issue I've seen with state CHL classes and, especially in Texas, is the information is about 50/50 this is the law/this is my opinion. And the opinion's are always different, depending on the instructors background and knowledge. I've seen only few who actually study case law, specific to the state and more importantly the county, and most importantly to the current district attorney.

We can all read the law, exemptions to prosecution, etc. But unless you have a understanding of how the local DA interprets and prosecute the law, it can become a very dangerous and expensive roll of the dice.

This is one of the very reasons I avoided teaching CHL classes in Texas, I would need a week to teach all pertaining laws, case law, and and shit load of home study of the students, before I would have ever felt comfortable blessing off and affixing my name to a training cert. Won't even get into the issue of CHL instructors, signing off on firearm safety and proficiency, when the student is obviously unsafe, can't load/function their own weapons and shoot a shotgun pattern on a B27 target at 3,7,15 yards, with time limits that are unrealistically long.

Obviously for some individuals who are smart, well trained and study the laws, a simple test can be sufficient. However, for the masses, they need a hell of a lot more education on the subject, than any state in the union is currently offering. My $.02


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

Senate bill would grant universal concealed carry reciprocity in all 50 states


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> Local laws and area restrictions should be abolished. The second amendment doesn't say who or where or how. Why should a local government be able to deny our rights?



So you would remove the state right to prosecute homicides and or public endangerment/disorderly conduct offenses that would relate to firearms?


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

Apparently I am t*he only *constitutionalist  in the room. Placing laws and stipulations on GOD given rights is the fast track to socialism and a fascist government that controls everything you do right down to what you eat.


----------



## Dienekes (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> Senate bill would grant universal concealed carry reciprocity in all 50 states



That's awesome, and I fully support it. However, after reading this thread and thinking on self defense laws, I would assume some problems may come of it in the future due to the different laws in each state which could lead to federal self defense laws and/or federally mandated CCW permit requirements. I believe those have the potential to be positives, but given the direction this country seems to be heading, that is probably not likely.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

JAB said:


> So you would remove the state right to prosecute homicides and or public endangerment/disorderly conduct offenses that would relate to firearms?


WTF has homicide got to do with the second amendment? Public endangerment more like chicken shit liberals complaining that you are armed walking down the street minding your own business. For the record I CC I do not OC as some do but I do not appreciate the law being called on me when my shirt slides over the top of my sidearm.


----------



## medicchick (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> Local laws and area restrictions should be abolished. The second amendment doesn't say who or where or how. Why should a local government be able to deny our rights?


So that mass murder who just got out of prison should have the same right to carry as anyone?  They proved they have no regard for human life and will snuff it out, you just want to give them the means?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 25, 2015)

Hey clown shoe, slow your roll a bit. You obviously don't know me very well, but I am what some in here would call a "extremist" when it comes to the constitution. 

I support constructional carry, I support universal use of force laws, and would go a step further and say castle doctrine should be the law of the land for all states. But as a constitionalist, I also support states rights, to make, enforce laws that are not specifically granted to the federal government and are reserved to the states. You know like homicide, discharging a firearm in a residential area, shit like that, that doesn't limit your right to carry, just says you can't run around shooting up the town or people, just because you have a gun and a right to carry it.


----------



## AWP (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> Apparently I am t*he only *constitutionalist  in the room. Placing laws and stipulations on GOD given rights is the fast track to socialism and a fascist government that controls everything you do right down to what you eat.



"The only constitutionalist in the room." A- trolling, pretty solid job.

God given rights...that's your right to believe, but mine are the rights of man, not something donated or gifted to me by some deity.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

Dienekes said:


> That's awesome, and I fully support it. However, after reading this thread and thinking on self defense laws, I would assume some problems may come of it in the future due to the different laws in each state which could lead to federal self defense laws and/or federally mandated CCW permit requirements. I believe those have the potential to be positives, but given the direction this country seems to be heading, that is probably not likely.


I really want to see the restrictive laws go away. After all the second amendment was written in this way for this reason. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

JAB said:


> Hey clown shoe, slow your roll a bit. You obviously don't know me very well, but I am what some in here would call a "extremist" when it comes to the constitution.
> 
> I support constructional carry, I support universal use of force laws, and would go a step further and say castle doctrine should be the law of the land for all states. But as a constitionalist, I also support states rights, to make, enforce laws that are not specifically granted to the federal government and are reserved to the states. You know like homicide, discharging a firearm in a residential area, shit like that, that doesn't limit your right to carry, just says you can't run around shooting up the town or people, just because you have a gun and a right to carry it.


What is constructional carry?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> What is constructional carry?



lol constitutional carry.

No need for a license, carry b/c its your right to do so.


----------



## medicchick (Oct 25, 2015)

JAB said:


> No need for a license, carry b/c its your right to do so.


So Alaska?


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> "The only constitutionalist in the room." A- trolling, pretty solid job.
> 
> God given rights...that's your right to believe, but mine are the rights of man, not something donated or gifted to me by some deity.


You're a Atheist?


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

JAB said:


> lol constitutional carry.
> 
> No need for a license, carry b/c its your right to do so.


So then we agree. The clown shoes comment was pretty funny. I do get emotional about someone trying to restrict my rights.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> "The only constitutionalist in the room." A- trolling, pretty solid job.
> 
> God given rights...that's your right to believe, but mine are the rights of man, not something donated or gifted to me by some deity.


Oh BTW thanks for the A- in trolling. Usually the best I can do is a B+. So I call this a win.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 25, 2015)

Are you arguing for completely unregulated firearm ownership?  That sounds like a very, very bad idea.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> I really want to see the restrictive laws go away. After all the second amendment was written in this way for this reason. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."



Do you believe there should be no restrictions at all? Should everyone be able to own and carry a gun?


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

Not to derail the thread but Ben Carson said this in his book, A more perfect union. This is the gist of it.

He states unequivocally that the purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that the people are equally armed to the force of government that they likely would have to defend against- his words are more on the line of 'many will say that it's fine to have a hunting rifle or handgun, and maybe a shotgun, but they don't need assault rifles and AP. He says he used to be of that camp until he fully recognized what the 2A is about, and that without assault weapons and AP, they'd be seriously outgunned.

I was happy to read it and he will more than likely get my vote now.


----------



## Dienekes (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> I really want to see the restrictive laws go away. After all the second amendment was written in this way for this reason. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."



Same here, I would prefer limited constitutional carry with the limited restriction being felons and the mentally ill. I'm also with @JAB in his stance of universal use of force laws. I just don't see it happening any time soon.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

policemedic said:


> Do you believe there should be no restrictions at all? Should everyone be able to own and carry a gun?


Everyone but felons.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 25, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Are you arguing for completely unregulated firearm ownership?  That sounds like a very, very bad idea.



Crap, I agree with you. 

Someone look for the 3rd horseman; he's around somewhere


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Are you arguing for completely unregulated firearm ownership?  That sounds like a very, very bad idea.


Nah, felons should not own firearms. I would say the mentally ill as well but someone would argue that I am mentally ill for owning firearms.


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> All state laws regarding firearms should be abolished. Universal carry should be allowed and no bull shit should be taken or given regarding our second amendment rights.



heh....the Federal government is trying to restrict firearms, just the people I want allowing me the right to carry.

In a perfect world, yes....allow universal carry, but you know and I know the federal government would never allow it to happen.


----------



## medicchick (Oct 25, 2015)

policemedic said:


> Crap, I agree with you.
> 
> Someone look for the 3rd horseman; he's around somewhere


Here's your sign.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> Everyone but felons.



So mental defectives, those with bad conduct discharges and those with protection orders lodged against them i.e.  those to whom the Lautenberg Act applies are good in your book?

What about those who are avowed members of groups that aim to depose the US government by force of arms?

Where do you fall on illegal aliens bearing arms on US soil?  For most illegals, unlawful entry isn't a felony.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> So then we agree. The clown shoes comment was pretty funny. I do get emotional about someone trying to restrict my rights.



I agree with the what should be, however, my points earlier, were based around the current system in which we actually live. Do I believe citizens should be allowed to carry everywhere? Yes, can they? No. The purpose of carry is self defense, either it be from human or animal. Yet currently the laws vary so much state to state, and more so the interpretation of the laws by county to county. So in that current situation, the current CHL training process is significantly insufficient, for 1) as national carry law, and 2) a true understanding of the differences in use of force and other follow on laws and liabilities, with regards to carry and use of firearms.

Example, open carry state says carry all day long, use deadly force when protecting self, third party or property. Although penal code allows for exemption to prosecution of murder, for those particular uses of force, it may not have exemption to prosecution for manslaughter, or something as silly as discharge of a firearm in a residential area, etc. Furthermore, without understanding how the local DA views and prosecutes the law, you are left in the breeze, for just about anything outside of dude tried to kill me with x weapon, so I defended myself. However, again, doesn't excuse you from a laundry list of other charges, that may follow, dependent on the state and or local area.

So until that all gets straight or until we have national use of force laws, that protect citizens from prosecution of bullshit charges, national concealed carry is probably not the best idea.

Just an opinion...


----------



## policemedic (Oct 25, 2015)

medicchick said:


> So Alaska?



And Vermont.

Not PA, but I did just run into a guy open carrying a CZ in Mission BBQ in the city. Wished him well.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

policemedic said:


> So mental defectives, those with bad conduct discharges and those with protection orders lodged against them i.e.  those to whom the Lautenberg Act applies are good in your book?


People with PTSD could be called mental defectives. In that case no. Bad conduct discharges from the military. I see no reason to deny them the right to bear arms just because they are assholes. Protection orders just depends on the case. I have seen women file that crap after cheating on their husbands and the husband never assaulting the female ever. Convicted of domestic violence in the military? Yes and no. Yes if it was an assault on a woman because someone like that is a mental defective as you say. No if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt the woman was lying.



policemedic said:


> What about those who are avowed members of groups that aim to depose the US government by force of arms?


 If convicted then no they should not own arms but there may come a day when we are all one of them. Would you have taken away the arms of the Americans fighting for their independence. One day our government may overstep their bounds. You might be one of those people. I hope I never see that day. 



policemedic said:


> Where do you fall on illegal aliens bearing arms on US soil?  For most illegals, unlawful entry isn't a felony.


 Illegals have no rights. Period.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> I don't believe I owe anyone anything.





Bypass said:


> All state laws regarding firearms should be abolished. Universal carry should be allowed and no bull shit should be taken or given regarding our second amendment rights.





Bypass said:


> Local laws and area restrictions should be abolished. The second amendment doesn't say who or where or how. Why should a local government be able to deny our rights?


You're killing me bro. Are you part of a well regulated militia? In order to prevent a tyrannical government from imprisoning the masses? Cause that's what the other part of the 2nd Amendment says, the part that you're willfully ignoring. We get it, you want to carry a gun and you feel justified in doing so. Noted.



Bypass said:


> Illegals have no rights. Period.


You're a descendant of an illegal. Grow up.

I'll say it again publicly- you're doing too much here. Take a step back, actually read and ingest some information, and look at what the SME's on this matter are trying to get you to realize. @JAB and @policemedic are doing a great job to get you to a place where you can learn about this issue, most importantly the opposite of your own view, and you're ignoring it.


Bypass said:


> You're a Atheist?


A number on this board are. And confusingly enough, very "constitutionalist", as you claim to be.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> I don't believe I owe anyone anything.



People with that attitude are typically not only wrong but also irresponsible and dangerous.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

amlove21 said:


> You're killing me bro. Are you part of a well regulated militia? In order to prevent a tyrannical government from imprisoning the masses? Cause that's what the other part of the 2nd Amendment says, the part that you're willfully ignoring. We get it, you want to carry a gun and you feel justified in doing so. Noted.
> 
> 
> You're a descendant of an illegal. Grow up.
> ...


I'm actually Cherokee.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

policemedic said:


> People with that attitude are typically not only wrong but also irresponsible and dangerous.


Really? What do you owe me then?


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> I'm actually Cherokee.


Ok, so in order to not derail the thread, I'll just say this- the Cherokee were nearly eradicated and then marginalized by a group of people that decided they had no rights because they were a different nationality. Just read your "illegals have no rights, period" comment, and then the one above, over and over again until it clicks. 

Anyway- gun control. Not religious preference, nationality, or any other topic. Just gun control.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 25, 2015)

policemedic said:


> People with that attitude are typically not only wrong but also irresponsible and dangerous.



Common courtesy, respect of other rights, property, of their communities and the like. Maybe a play on words a bit, but I agree, people who do not believe they owe that to others, tend to be very dangerous people.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

JAB said:


> Common courtesy, respect of other rights, property, of their communities and the like. Maybe a play on words a bit, but I agree, people who do not believe they owe that to others, tend to be very dangerous people.


Common courtesy isn't all that common last I checked and neither is common sense. I will return what is given but I will not be polite to a child molester. I respect others rights as long as they respect mine. But I will stand by the fact that I owe no person anything.


----------



## CDG (Oct 25, 2015)

Polite to a child molester?  What?  This is like watching an abortion during a trainwreck during a tsunami after an earthquake.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

amlove21 said:


> Ok, so in order to not derail the thread, I'll just say this- the Cherokee were nearly eradicated and then marginalized by a group of people that decided they had no rights because they were a different nationality. Just read your "illegals have no rights, period" comment, and then the one above, over and over again until it clicks.
> 
> Anyway- gun control. Not religious preference, nationality, or any other topic. Just gun control.


So a bunch of illegals from overseas showed up and started dictating to the locals how things should be run the started killing off and starving out the nationals. Not much different than today is it.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> Common courtesy isn't all that common last I checked and neither is common sense. I will return what is given but I will not be polite to a child molester. I respect others rights as long as they respect mine. But I will stand by the fact that I owe no person anything.





CDG said:


> Polite to a child molester?  What?  This is like watching an abortion during a trainwreck during a tsunami after an earthquake.


So, yeah, as my ever so eloquent brother put it- back to gun control. I won't say it again.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

CDG said:


> Polite to a child molester?  What?  This is like watching an abortion during a trainwreck during a tsunami after an earthquake.


Apparently I owe everyone something. So that must mean I have to treat everyone equally in the manner that I owe them.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> Apparently I owe everyone something. So that must mean I have to treat everyone equally in the manner that I owe them.


Enough. you're about 3 keyboard clicks away from a vacation. Take a self imposed break or I will do it for you.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 25, 2015)

I actually don't believe firearm ownership should be regulated at all. Again I'm an extremist on the constitutionalist side. I think if a person committed a crime, did his time and moved on with life, he should have his rights restored and should be allowed to be armed. To the extreme of automatic weapons and destructive devices. On the same note, as I've stated several times throughout this thread and others, people who cannot be trusted in society (violent criminals, mentally ill, etc) shouldn't be allowed in society. Lock them up, euthanize them, whatever need be done, but keep them out of society.

Now where I do have conflicting thoughts, is how can I be for unrestricted ownership and possession, but think its bad idea for Tom across the street to own a nuclear weapon, or fighter jet. 

So obviously some restrictions must be in place. However, who and what are going to decide those restrictions. Maybe NewYork'ers feel the same way about AR15's as I do about Nuke's in Texas. Maybe we should leave it to those states and communities to make those restrictions. Well except for the Nukes', lets just ban those bad boys world wide...


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2015)

amlove21 said:


> So, yeah, as my ever so eloquent brother put it- back to gun control. I won't say it again.


 That's it I'm done. All I hear here is rhetoric advocating more stipulations on the ownership of firearms. Except from maybe JAB he seems alright.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> That's it I'm done. All I hear here is rhetoric advocating more stipulations on the ownership of firearms. Except from maybe JAB he seems alright.


You should have just pressed on. 7 day ban. See you in a week.

Everyone else, press on. Please make it on topic.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> That's it I'm done. All I hear here is rhetoric advocating more stipulations on the ownership of firearms. Except from maybe JAB he seems alright.



Dude I'm probably the most hated guy on here. Just relax, have your opinions and debate with reason.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 25, 2015)

JAB said:


> Dude I'm probably the most hated guy on here. Just relax, have your opinions and debate with reason.


I'll say it for everyone- I am almost always 180 degress out from your opinion, but no one here hates you. Know why? Because regardless of your opinion, you're a professional and you always act like one. 

Thanks for continuing to do so, you're an asset to this site.


----------



## x SF med (Oct 25, 2015)

Bypass said:


> Apparently I am t*he only *constitutionalist  in the room. Placing laws and stipulations on GOD given rights is the fast track to socialism and a fascist government that controls everything you do right down to what you eat.




Now I know you are full of yourself.

Based on the way the Constitution is written and the wording of the Second Amendment, regulation of firearms is a State's Right, not a Federal Right.

The short reasoning for this is that per the Constitution, Militias are State regulated and the reason for the Second Amendment is to secure the availability of armed individuals for a Militia in a State....   that said members of a militia in time of war may be hired by the federal government to serve in that war for a period of one year, unless the individual agrees to extent that tenure to the federal government.


----------



## AWP (Oct 25, 2015)

Greater Federal recognition/ regulated rights will come with greater Federal oversight. While that sounds like a "duh" moment we have to think back to the last 30 or so years of gun control. The AWB, finally overturned? Imagine if that were an exclusive Federal power? I doubt it would expire. 8 years of an anti-gun administration (with another 4 almost guaranteed) would crush the 2A if it were a Federal responsibility. The fact is, we're better off with imperfect State control than "perfect" Federal control.

I think in general Americans forget (if they even know) of the massive divide between States' and Federal rights, an argument which goes back to the founding of our great country. A war was fought over them (yes, slavery was key but if that were the exclusive domain of the States the outcome would be different), even our Founding Fathers wrote their own propaganda in support of the Federal argument.

I think Federally controlled gun "rights" would be a disaster for liberty. How often does the Federal gov't relinquish or relax control? We'd have that as the 100% final word?

I'll take flawed States' rights over Federal control.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 25, 2015)

Agree again. Ill take a little more homework, a little more training, a little more paperwork (for State control) vs. federal oversight.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 25, 2015)

FreeFalling, I pretty well agree with you, except on the area's of use of force, and bullshit entrapment charges. Mainly where it comes to travel.

Example, if traveling through another state, I do think there should be a base line of this is how you can carry a firearm, and this is when you can use it for self defense. Traveling being strictly defined as well. That with a national recognition of concealed carry license, for traveling purposes, would be reasonable in today's society and laws.

But fully agree that states should be the regulatory arm on firearms, with exception to travel.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 25, 2015)

I'm such a goober and inexperienced shooter.  I went to a range in NM today, great place if you haven't found it and are in the Bliss area.  My gun is some high speed beauty and I'm putting managed recoil Remington through it...apparently I forgot about science and that your powder mixture will have you shooting completely different from the last rounds you shot.  re-zeroed and shot 300 yards...if you run into the managed recoil load from Remington, avoid it, as the drop past 200 yards is huge. Shouldn't have to adjust but 3.5 MOA for 300, geeze.


----------



## AWP (Oct 25, 2015)

JAB said:


> FreeFalling, I pretty well agree with you, except on the area's of use of force, and bullshit entrapment charges. Mainly where it comes to travel.
> 
> Example, if traveling through another state, I do think there should be a base line of this is how you can carry a firearm, and this is when you can use it for self defense. Traveling being strictly defined as well. That with a national recognition of concealed carry license, for traveling purposes, would be reasonable in today's society and laws.
> 
> But fully agree that states should be the regulatory arm on firearms, with exception to travel.



I'm onboard with you there. Yes, certain Federal protection/ guarantees are ideal and I totally agree with the notion. I guess my argument was more of an imperfect black and white. I view the transfer of power between the two as a slippery and steep slope. In a perfect world a limited amount of basic Federally-guaranteed rights would be ideal. I'd love to think my concealed carry in FL carries the same weight with the same restrictions as the other 49 states. I'm in total agreement with you there. Push coming to shove in a binary world, I'll take the State over the Federal gov't on most issues though.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 25, 2015)

JAB said:


> FreeFalling, I pretty well agree with you, except on the area's of use of force, and bullshit entrapment charges. Mainly where it comes to travel.
> 
> Example, if traveling through another state, I do think there should be a base line of this is how you can carry a firearm, and this is when you can use it for self defense. Traveling being strictly defined as well. That with a national recognition of concealed carry license, for traveling purposes, would be reasonable in today's society and laws.
> 
> But fully agree that states should be the regulatory arm on firearms, with exception to travel.



Well, there's FOPA but you're talking about carrying it on your person for defensive purposes.  I do think licenses to carry firearms should be given the same interstate recognition as marriage and driver's licenses.    I do see problems with a national standard for use of force in self-protection, so I think it's got to be similar to driving i.e. in some states you can make a right on red and a left on red and in others you can't and when you're traveling through it's your responsibility to know the difference.



amlove21 said:


> Agree again. Ill take a little more homework, a little more training, a little more paperwork (for State control) vs. federal oversight.



And sometimes federal oversight comes with both.  Law enforcement from any jurisdiction can carry virtually anywhere in the US under federal law, but it's on us to know when state law precludes us from carrying and what the laws on use of force are.  We also have mandatory qualifications; that's expected while we're in active service but continues (at least annually, and quite possibly more often) once we retire in order to stay qualified under LEOSA.  In contrast, you can get a PA license to carry that's valid for 5 years for less than the cost of a dinner out, it's valid in some thirty or more states and there's no training requirement.



Freefalling said:


> I'm onboard with you there. Yes, certain Federal protection/ guarantees are ideal and I totally agree with the notion. I guess my argument was more of an imperfect black and white. I view the transfer of power between the two as a slippery and steep slope. In a perfect world a limited amount of basic Federally-guaranteed rights would be ideal. I'd love to think my concealed carry in FL carries the same weight with the same restrictions as the other 49 states. I'm in total agreement with you there. Push coming to shove in a binary world, I'll take the State over the Federal gov't on most issues though.



I like Florida's licensing scheme because it isn't just a license to carry firearms; it's weapons...period.  That's not the case in many states, and so would require some accommodating if accepted nationwide.

All that said, I don't mind checking local laws (magazine capacity, use of force, etc.) in exchange for the ability to carry virtually everywhere for the rest of my life.  

The biggest problem with LEOSA is that civilian license holders are excluded.  There should absolutely be reciprocity between the states.

I do see where some of the argument comes from, though.  For one, self-defense laws are both more widely varied and complex than traffic laws.  The penalties and potential consequences are likewise more serious.  This is one of the reasons--licensing fees being another--that medical, nursing and paramedic licenses aren't automatically given reciprocity from state-to-state.  In some cases, it's purely about the money (nursing, I'm looking at you); in others there is both a monetary and competency motivation (Florida paramedic license, that's you).


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 25, 2015)

A lot of states honor other state CHL licenses, I think it needs to be all states.

LEOSA is a step in the right direction....it could pave the way for the above.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 25, 2015)

policemedic said:


> Well, there's FOPA but you're talking about carrying it on your person for defensive purposes.  I do think licenses to carry firearms should be given the same interstate recognition as marriage and driver's licenses.    I do see problems with a national standard for use of force in self-protection, so I think it's got to be similar to driving i.e. in some states you can make a right on red and a left on red and in others you can't and when you're traveling through it's your responsibility to know the difference.



Yeah I'm posting with regards to self defense during travel and not just transport. I think a baseline like I'm not going to face 10 felonies in MA while traveling through the state with my G19 concealed as I pass through the state. Or when I ventilate some thug who tried to hold me up at the Holiday inn, etc. I'm not saying I should be able to stomp around someone else state/community for a few weeks armed and ready to kill. But I do expect to not face unreasonable prosecution for carrying a firearm for protection, using one for protection, especially when traveling to places I am less familiar.

The only way I see that happening is with some sort of federal law, that requires states like MA, NY, CA, etc, to get with the program and stop turning honest Americans into felons, just because they are not from that state or whatever.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 25, 2015)

Kraut783 said:


> A lot of states honor other state CHL licenses, I think it needs to be all states.
> 
> LEOSA is a step in the right direction....it could pave the way for the above.



It's certainly a model that can be followed, with some modifications.  I think we've proven there's no real downside to it.  The argument from the liberal side of the house--who didn't want LEOSA in the first place--will be, "Of course it's ok for cops.  But giving it to Joe Sixpack will result in gunfights at Walmart over the last bag of chocolate covered condoms."  The argument fails on multiple levels, but they'll make it (again) anyway.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 25, 2015)

JAB said:


> The only way I see that happening is with some sort of federal law, that requires states like MA, NY, CA...



Yep...that would be where some of the staunchest resistance would come from. I like the states where like mine -- your vehicle -- is an extension of your home.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 25, 2015)

JAB said:


> Yeah I'm posting with regards to self defense during travel and not just transport. I think a baseline like I'm not going to face 10 felonies in MA while traveling through the state with my G19 concealed as I pass through the state. Or when I ventilate some thug who tried to hold me up at the Holiday inn, etc. I'm not saying I should be able to stomp around someone else state/community for a few weeks armed and ready to kill. But I do expect to not face unreasonable prosecution for carrying a firearm for protection, using one for protection, especially when traveling to places I am less familiar.
> 
> The only way I see that happening is with some sort of federal law, that requires states like MA, NY, CA, etc, to get with the program and stop turning honest Americans into felons, just because they are not from that state or whatever.



I know exactly what you're saying and I agree in principle.  I just don't see how you get there without stepping on states rights (not on the carry issue but the ROE issue).


----------



## x SF med (Oct 26, 2015)

policemedic said:


> I just don't see how you get there without stepping on states rights (not on the carry issue but the ROE issue).



I agree fully, it is a Federally mandated protection and statement of State's Rights set forth in the Constitution, which means the Federal government is obligated to allow States to regulate the available pool for their militias as they see fit.  As the 2A is a guarantee of State's Rights, I used my mandated right to move from a heavily 2A regulated area to a less constricted 2A area...  because, all rights not specifically granted to the federal government nor to the several states are individual rights... 

But....  apparently, I am not a Constitutionalist and do not understand this document, nor the Bill of rights, nor the Articles of Confederation, which, btw, were never repealed, just amended and clarified by the 2 previously stated documents.


----------



## 8654Maine (Oct 26, 2015)

Jab, bud, let me be re-iterate something: I admire how you handled yourself in this conversation.

Your maturity shows. 

Much respect.

Hijack over.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 26, 2015)

I'll be honest, while I obviously don't like empowering the federal government any more than they already are.... at the same time, I would have ZERO issues with a civilian variant of LEOSA, to include yearly qual at a standard worth a shit.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 26, 2015)

X SF med, I don't really follow your analogy that the wording of the 2A allows the states to regulate the militia. The militia, is the able bodied people, the state is a government of the people. So putting it very basically, based on your interpretation, the state gets its authority to regulate the people (which is the state and the militia) from the bill of rights 2A, however, yet are failing  to clarify that last sentence "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". 

Even viewing it in the context of the time, its still stating the people inherently possess the right to keep and bear arms, and that it cannot be infringed upon. 

However, I will concede that if anyone is going to regulate firearms, it should be the state's, as long as it is agreed upon by the people of the state. Which goes along with your ability to move to more friendly states. Or the people to remove their state reps when they pass shitty laws nobody likes. Like what was seen in Colorado after the magazine limitation were passed in 2012.

Where my views on traveling would come into place, I would imagine, fall into the ability of the federal government to ensure regular travel between the state's, and individuals not being forced to face unreasonable prosecution and punishment. I'd have to do more studying in those particular area's of the constitution before giving a full on "this is how I think it can be done" opinion. But i think, in keeping with the color in which the constitution was written, that its a possibility.

As for the "repealing" of the articles of confederation, it is wildly excepted that the ratification by all states of the current constitution, made the article of confederation null and void. As in, this document we agreed to, was not good enough and really left some holes in having a centralized government, so we are making this new one called the constitution, in order to form a more perfect union, because that other document kind of left us holding a bag of shit.

But yeah, a play on words maybe, but the articles of confederations had about as much bite as a toothless grandma, primarily where it came to regulating commerce, debts, and disagreements between individual states. Hints its replacement, and that whole "form a better union" bit. And the articles of confederation were not amended by the formation of the Constitution of the United States of America, they were fully replaced, and done so when each state ratified the constitution, as in "we all agree this document sucks, so we're replacing it with this new one".

At least as I understand it.


ETA: The Articles of Confederation: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)


----------



## x SF med (Oct 26, 2015)

JAB said:


> I don't really follow your analogy that the wording of the 2A allows the states to regulate the militia.



The Constitution dictates that the States regulate the Militia (see below), the 2A allows for the citizenry to be armed in order to fill the militia  "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."  The right and obligation to a well regulated militia are relegated to the state, the right and obligation of the individual is to be ready for the call.

*Article I (Article 1 - Legislative)*
*Section 8*
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and *provide for the common Defence *and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

*12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;*

*14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;*

*15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;*

17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 26, 2015)

Based on what you posted, the congress has the authority to appoint officers over the militia, to regulate it and discipline it. I'm not seeing where the states reserve the right to do so.

And to be clear, I'm not arguing the idea, just trying to understand exactly where you came to the conclusion's you have.


----------



## Dienekes (Oct 26, 2015)

I really like your argument X SF Med, but I'd like to play devil's advocate to learn a little more because I love constitutional discussions.

In my IR class, we learned that a State is defined by clearly marked boundaries and territorial sovereignty and is often used synonymously with Country. As well in the historical context, State is often used by recorded political philosophers throughout history in the same context as the word Country. This is buttressed by the famous quotation of by King Louis XVI-"L'etat cest moi"=I am the State. Thus, it can be reasonably inferred that the Framers of the Constitution used the word State synonymously with the word Country.

Also, I understand point 16. to mean that the states(US states) are provided with the power only to train the militia(to the standard set by Congress) and appoint its officers while the federal government reserves the power to actually regulate the militia re: organizing, arming, disciplining, and employing the militia.

Given all that, I would believe that the usage of the word State in the 2A is to be understood on the same level of Country not individual US states, and on that level, the regulating of the militia is to be an inherent responsibility of the federal government.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 26, 2015)

If you go read title 10 chapter 13 "the militia" in the U.S.C. you will find the answer. The congress has outlined two classes of militia, 1) an organized militia, consisting of able bodied people ages 17-45 who are members of the National Guard. And 2) the unorganized militia, which consist of all other militia. Which is further defined as all able bodied peoples of the U.S.

Now for example, b/c the congress has split its authority in definition as they organize the the National Guard, there for that is them meeting their constitutional duty as outlined under the articles listed by x SF med. But leaves the door wide open for the unorganized militia, and where states gain the rights to use the NG for state duties under title 32 U.S.C and where states have built state defense forces and or state guards. Again however, that authority was originally provide from the congress, and reaffirmed during periods such as WW2 where states were left with no NG due to deployments.

Furthermore, states have taken upon themselves to further define the difference between state defense forces and militia's, as in Texas where, the militia is every citizen of Texas who is not a member of the armed forces of the united states, the national guard or the state guard forces (otherwise known as the Texas military forces).

You could even go further in the weeds and get down to the level of a sheriffs posse, being the militia, utilized for the purposes of putting down insurrection, riots and maintaining good order of the county. Believe it or not most states have laws that allow for this to this very day, as they should IMHO.


----------



## JBS (Oct 26, 2015)

Just want to drop this out there for those of us who are huge advocates of preserving the 2nd Amendment.

Ever heard a Liberal argue that the Founding Fathers couldn't possibly forsee "automatic weapons" or "machine guns", and that they'd be horified by the avdvances made in rifles?  Or have you ever heard them argue that the 2nd Amendment was only meant for hunting, or for single shot weapons, etc?

*Founding Fathers Knew of "Machine Guns", Advancement in Rifles*
*
1650's - Kalthoff Repeater* is in production, capable of firing at a rate of 6 times that of a well-trained musketeer.  Serviceable samples of this gun are on display in Windsor Castle, as well as Moscow Kremlin Museum.

*1717 - Puckle Gun* (repeater and described as a "machine gun" in shipping manifests) rolls out prototype.  Gun resembles a hand cranked Gatling gun. 

*1732-* George Washington born in Virginia

*1735-* John Adams born- Massachusetts

*1776-* Declaration of Independence

*1791-* 2nd Amendment ratified.

The Founding Fathers, many of whom were military men, were well aware of the new technologies on the horizon, and almost certainly would have known about these new weapons that had been rolled out more than 50 years before the Declaration of Independence.


----------



## Dienekes (Oct 26, 2015)

JAB said:


> If you go read title 10 chapter 13 "the militia" in the U.S.C. you will find the answer. The congress has outlined two classes of militia, 1) an organized militia, consisting of able bodied people ages 17-45 who are members of the National Guard. And 2) the unorganized militia, which consist of all other militia. Which is further defined as all able bodied peoples of the U.S.
> 
> Now for example, b/c the congress has split its authority in definition as they organize the the National Guard, there for that is them meeting their constitutional duty as outlined under the articles listed by x SF med. But leaves the door wide open for the unorganized militia, and where states gain the rights to use the NG for state duties under title 32 U.S.C and where states have built state defense forces and or state guards. Again however, that authority was originally provide from the congress, and reaffirmed during periods such as WW2 where states were left with no NG due to deployments.
> 
> ...



To clarify your argument, the National Guard is the militia being mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Point 16. and is equivalent to state defense forces or state guards. Unorganized militias are those described as anyone not employed by the federal armed forces or state defense forces such as a sheriff's posse or what the state defines as a militia. Is that correct?

Texas is a good example stating that all citizens are part of the militia, but does every state follow that example? What would a militia looked like if that wasn't the case?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 26, 2015)

I'll respond in 20, got to take my daughter to pre k


----------



## AWP (Oct 26, 2015)

Regarding militias, and this is a long post so you’ve been warned.

I think we frame the “militia” argument against beliefs and values of the 21st Century instead of the 18th or even the 14th centuries. Our Founding Fathers had a “liberal arts” education. There wasn’t much of a Major or specialized path, a college degree back then was “You need x classes to graduate” which meant they had a little of this and that. Law school wasn’t a necessity; you worked/ studied under a lawyer admitted to the bar and then took your test. Education was different back then.

Why this matters is it allows us to view the world in the 1770’s. Our FF had this well-rounded education which included history. They cite the Greeks and Hobbes and Locke and others I’ve forgotten. They knew history and I have to believe they knew of Crecy and Agincourt, of the power of the longbow. The English, like many European nations, didn’t field a standing army, they conscripted or called men to arms (usually a mixture). A longbow was a preferred weapon in the English arsenal, used by the untrained masses. It isn’t a stretch to think of it as that period’s AR-15 or AK. Longbows at the above battles destroyed French knights; peasants with a modern weapon essentially defeated a state. That period also saw peasant revolts, many of which failed because they lacked arms and leadership. Spears and pitchforks wielded by the untrained against heavy cavalry is and was disastrous. Common people simply didn't "have a vote" or even the means to check the state's power. One final point on the longbow is that our FF had to know about it, the crossbow, conventional bows, different melee weapons, changes in cannon, and of course the rise of gunpowder in individual weapons.

They couldn’t predict modern weapons but they didn’t have to and they probably didn’t care.

“A well regulated militia.” Vague and a bone of contention until you place against the times. Back then standing armies were rare. In fact, Adams vigorously argued against them and a standing navy because of the potential misuse of power. Even as a president he tried to block them, he felt that strongly about the idea. The model in that era was to call upon locals to bring whatever they could and enlist for varying periods of time. Locals provided the weapons and the state provided the formations, pay, leadership, and supplies. Our FF didn’t mean “militia” like today’s National Guard, for them it was the local farmers getting together to defend their homes. This isn’t a totally archaic concept either; it was in use as recent as the Civil War. I think Chamberlain’s 20th Maine faced the crisis of enlistment duration in the run up to Gettysburg.

Our FF weren’t stupid, but they were “vague” for our times and pretty solid given the 1770’s. Standing armies weren’t en vogue so calling for a militia makes perfect sense for that period. Yes, they had some very archaic ideas which were overtaken by events*, but those should be considered against the times as well.

One last point: do we really think the 2nd Amendment is #2 because of an Amendment lottery or random chance? #1: freedom. #2: the means by which to guarantee said freedoms.

We really need to stop the practice of judging others based upon our norms and values today. Times change and so do people. If we want to understand events like the Constitution or the usage of the atomic bomb, we need to place ourselves “in the moment” and not today.

If you made it this far, thank you for indulging me.

* - Amendment III: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


----------



## AWP (Oct 26, 2015)

Dienekes said:


> To clarify your argument, the National Guard is the militia being mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Point 16. and is equivalent to state defense forces or state guards.



I strongly disagree with this and my most recent post expresses those thoughts, even though I typed them without seeing your post until now.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 26, 2015)

Dienekes said:


> To clarify your argument, the National Guard is the militia being mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Point 16. and is equivalent to state defense forces or state guards. Unorganized militias are those described as anyone not employed by the federal armed forces or state defense forces such as a sheriff's posse or what the state defines as a militia. Is that correct?
> 
> Texas is a good example stating that all citizens are part of the militia, but does every state follow that example? What would a militia looked like if that wasn't the case?



No my argument is that the constitution gave the power to train, equip, appoint officers over, regulate and discipline the militia, specifically to the congress. That the powers has transformed into what we now call the National Guard, and that congress has delegated much of that responsibility to the states. However, during times of emergency and war, states were left without defense forces, so the idea of state defense forces came about, which gave states more authority over militia's, thus the states have developed laws, to have militias in the form of state guards or unorganized militias.

Where things get weird, as Freefalling points out. Is the historical militia and the intent. Militias have always been armed citizens of the community, generally with a local government appointed officer. Think of it like a private corporation, they can appoint officers as need be. These militias would train in marksmanship generally through competitive shooting, and basic file and rank drills, think small town old time parade marching bands and the like. Very basic, and for the sole purpose of community protection, law and order, and keeping bands of outlaws and indians out of their communities. This is before you have town cops, sheriff's, etc. Fast forward in time, they are needed less and less in the community role, and more and more in a state emergency or national role. As those requirements changed, so did the formations, laws, equipment, etc. That was by the congress, and not by the states or the communities.

But getting back on my main point. The organized militia as per title 10 USC, is the National Guard, the unorganized militia, is everybody else, be it a state force, a community force or even a private militia (yes those exists and are legal in most states). Example, militias in the state of Texas, outside of the the National Guard and state guard, are not to assemble, or parade while under arms.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 26, 2015)

There is a DOD opinion/guidance paper with regards to state guards, somewhere in the interwebs. I read it a few months back, it was a bit dry, but did touch on the view that the DOD, had no control over state guards/defense forces. And by law were forbidden to provide assistance in training and equipment. Basically states have to equip and train there own forces, and that although the officers were commissioned by the state and that military courtesy should be afforded, that their rank and status as officers was not recognized by the DOD.

Getting back to gun control, the reason I question and differentiate between the 2A and the controls over the militia. Is because IMHO, although the 2A mentions "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" it was not the intent of the founding fathers to put any regulation/restriction on the individuals right to own and possess arms. My interpretation is that the first sentence is a prepatory statement, followed by a clear cut RIGHT of the people, hints "the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". I know this is often debated, specifically by trying to incorporate a well regulated militia as the reason to allow restrictions. But I'm of the opinion, and its my opinion, that the 2A is 100% and individuals right, and doesn't require membership of the militia or any other organization, and that the bill of rights states that no authority is given to any government to infringe upon the right of the people to be armed. But that is my opinion. If anyone is going to restrict my right, the more local it is the better, as the faster I can change it, politically, or by other means...


----------



## Dienekes (Oct 26, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I strongly disagree with this and my most recent post expresses those thoughts, even though I typed them without seeing your post until now.



That wasn't what the expressing of my thoughts. I was attempting to clarify JAB's argument so I could understand it better. With his above post, I understand it much better and agree with his argument.

Freefalling, I really like the historical context you provide, especially with respect to the standing army dilemma.

I have seen other articles on line where those for more gargue that the standing army acts in place of the "well regulated militia". Their reasoning is that the militia, understood to them as those called-to-arms similar to the aforementioned European armies, is meant to protect the state, and the standing army accomplishes that. The problem with their argument I believe can again be found in the context of the Framers. The Framers were revolutionists and saw what possible paths the government could take in usurping individual liberty. Hence, they saw the need to provide the people with a way to protect themselves from the State. I believe the "free State" mentioned in the 2A was meant to be understood as the freedom of the people in the State, and they protected that freedom through providing for a constitutionally allowed militia of the people which would be supplied through the right of the people to bear arms. I would believe that this would fall in line with the unorganized militia.

Thoughts from you more constitutionally well-read individuals on my logic? Keeping this going has clarified a few important issues for me and provided me with more solid arguments.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 26, 2015)




----------



## x SF med (Oct 26, 2015)

JAB said:


> Based on what you posted, the congress has the authority to appoint officers over the militia



the States appoint the officers, and the States conduct the training for all militia members to the discipline determined by Congress.

in other words, the states have control of everything having to do with the militia as long as they are trained to be ready for the call to form a standing army should Congress deem it necessary during a declared war.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 26, 2015)

x SF med said:


> the States appoint the officers, and the States conduct the training for all militia members to the discipline determined by Congress.
> 
> in other words, the states have control of everything having to do with the militia as long as they are trained to be ready for the call to form a standing army should Congress deem it necessary during a declared war.



You're right, I misread/misunderstood it.

My question at this point, is title 10 chapter 13 of the USC unconstitutional in your opinion?

For example, the NG fills the role of the "organized" militia. NG officers have to receive congressional appointment as officers to fulfill the title 10 mission of the NG.

Example 2, NG is trained and certified by federal branches, and this is a requirement for title 10 service.

Example 3, DOD's opinion guidance that state appointed officer have no federal recognition.

ETA: are you stating that the states have power to regulate or restrict the 2A based on article one, section 8, subsection 16? Or that the 2A is not a right of the people, and only a right of the militia and those who are appointed over it?


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 27, 2015)

Didn't the Supreme Court already rule in DC vs. Heller that the 2A was in fact an individual right?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 27, 2015)

Yes they did, but also gave an opinion that it is not unrestricted.


----------



## x SF med (Oct 27, 2015)

@JAB ,with all of the extra reading I've been doing I see the Right to keep and bear Arms as an individual right that allows the State's Right/requirement to field a militia, which then allows for the Federal Government to have a trained standing army in time of war.  But that said, the Individual right is clearly stated in the 2A's wording.

I don't know shit about titles 10 and 32 of the USC and the NG use of those codes.


----------



## AWP (Oct 27, 2015)

x SF med said:


> I don't know...



Mark this down in your calendars, folks! The troll isn't perfect. We all won a battle today.


----------



## x SF med (Oct 27, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Mark this down in your calendars, folks! The troll isn't perfect. We all won a battle today.



I've said I don't know more than once, and have stayed out of threads (cough cough... gaming) where my knowledge is lacking...  hurtful, just hurtful ... bad bad AWP.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 27, 2015)

x SF med said:


> @JAB ,with all of the extra reading I've been doing I see the Right to keep and bear Arms as an individual right that allows the State's Right/requirement to field a militia, which then allows for the Federal Government to have a trained standing army in time of war.  But that said, the Individual right is clearly stated in the 2A's wording.



I agree with this, and I would even state that it's not unreasonable for 'the state' to restrict arms to personal weapons of the population. While restricting heavier armaments to possession's of the state armory.

In theory, Tom, Dick  and Harry would have a modern combat load out (rifle, pistol, etc), ready to respond to the call up, where state officials (state appointed militia officers) would control the use of heavy armament (tanks, artillery, etc), under the orders of the governor or local authorities.

I do believe that is reasonable and more so how the founding fathers would have meant it, as that was the common practices of those times. Tom's barn may have been the designated "armory" where the cannon, shot and powder was stored. But Dick and Harry may not have been restricted from possession of cannon, but it was unlikely for them to have them, and most heavier armament, would have been community or state property.


----------



## AWP (Oct 27, 2015)

And then we have:

Amish man sues to buy firearm without photo ID in gun rights, religious freedom lawsuit



> In a suit that brings together the Second Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an Amish man filed a federal lawsuit in Pennsylvania last week because he wants to buy a gun without the required photo ID — and because getting that photo ID would violate his religious beliefs.



That should be interesting and have repercussions outside of the gun rights debate. No matter how that ruling goes it lines up a bunch of other problems and court cases.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 27, 2015)

If I didn't keep up with any other Second Amendment cases...this would be one of the ones to watch. As you said, this will open up another whole can of worms for multiple reasons.

However, cases like these are what starts things moving and sets precedents -- whether good or bad -- they get set on these type.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 27, 2015)

Ruling comes down "cannot require a photo on identification"

State says "we now require RFI chips for all identification"

Sunday morning Christians "mark of the beast"

Meanwhile its taco Tuesday all day today.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 27, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> Didn't the Supreme Court already rule in DC vs. Heller that the 2A was in fact an individual right?


Yes and the word people refers to individuals, no different than the word people in the other amendments.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 27, 2015)

Isn't a gun against Amish belief though being a mechanical device?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 27, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> As far as the Constitution goes, it was purposely written to be vague in order to make it flexible to changing times. Both the individual right to keep and bear arms and the well-regulated militia aspect are stated in 2A, so the bases are covered. Is it open to interpretation? Yes. But Constitutional lawyers could argue both sides of the gun issue until doomsday and the original wording would still stand.



I've always been told exactly the opposite, that it was written in common English as to not be confusing for the common man. 

What would you consider vague in the 2A?

As for changing with the times, the ability to amend the constitution, is what gives it flexibility. Obviously it is not as easy as some would like to do so, but the purpose is to give time and allow for reasoning and discussion before making changes.

The country as a whole could in fact amend the constitution to abolish the 2A, if everyone was on the same page. Thankfully we're not, and hopefully will remain so in the future.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 27, 2015)

x SF med said:


> @JAB ,with all of the extra reading I've been doing I see the Right to keep and bear Arms as an individual right that allows the State's Right/requirement to field a militia, which then allows for the Federal Government to have a trained standing army in time of war.  But that said, the Individual right is clearly stated in the 2A's wording.
> 
> I don't know shit about titles 10 and 32 of the USC and the NG use of those codes.



People think "the militia" is the National Guard, but it is every able-bodied military-age man according to Title 10, USC.  The term "well-regulated" does not mean "closely supervised," it means "kept in working order."  Therefore, if we accept that men and women are equally citizens and that all bear the responsibilities of citizenship, the statement "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" can be interpreted as "every able-bodied American being able to keep and bear arms in order to be a viable member of the militia."


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 27, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> People think "the militia" is the National Guard, but it is every able-bodied military-age man according to Title 10, USC.  The term "well-regulated" does not mean "closely supervised," it means "kept in working order."  Therefore, if we accept that men and women are equally citizens and that all bear the responsibilities of citizenship, the statement "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" can be interpreted as "every able-bodied American being able to keep and bear arms in order to be a viable member of the militia."



I agree, but my question is, how can congress develop title 10, ch13, organized and unorganized, as the constitution states, that the militia, in basic terms belongs to 'the states'?

It seems to me (based on what x SF med pointed out), the congress can say how they should be organized and trained, can provide arms and equipment, but in that regard, it would be to every able bodied person. Would it not? Where do they get the authority to say these guys ( The NG) are the organized militia, and the others (state guards, and everybody else) are unorganized militia.

It seems the only distinguishing factor is a title 10, ch13. But in making such a law, is congress fulfilling its obligations to provide that "equip, arm, regulate, discipline" or are they limiting it to only the NG, which is really just a reserve pool for the federal Army/USAF, and really not a militia at all by definition.

The top probably reads confusing as hell, only b/c I'm confused as hell now. lol


----------



## policemedic (Oct 27, 2015)

SpitfireV said:


> Isn't a gun against Amish belief though being a mechanical device?



The Amish and the Mennonites are different.  Mennonites accept more modern advances than do their Amish cousins.  They're very closely related in belief otherwise though, and most who don't live around them wouldn't know the difference.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 27, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> And then we have:
> 
> Amish man sues to buy firearm without photo ID in gun rights, religious freedom lawsuit
> 
> ...



The plaintiff is actually being represented by a law firm I've done business with, and they're good. They specialize in firearms law. 

The interesting thing will be happens to the validity of non-photo licenses, licenses with photos taken in full Islamic dress including hijab, etc. 

To my mind, if they're not valid for all purposes they aren't valid at all.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 27, 2015)

Thanks guys. I didn't know the difference and I thought the only thing remotely mechanical they could use are things like hammers and saws.


----------



## x SF med (Oct 27, 2015)

Dienekes said:


> we learned that a State is defined by clearly marked boundaries and territorial sovereignty and is often used synonymously with Country. As well in the historical context, State is often used by recorded political philosophers throughout history in the same context as the word Country. This is buttressed by the famous quotation of by King Louis XVI-"L'etat cest moi"=I am the State. Thus, it can be reasonably inferred that the Framers of the Constitution used the word State synonymously with the word Country.



In the Constitution, state and country (or union of the several states) are in no way synonymous, or interchangeable - the States are the building blocks of the Federal system, aligned severally (as autonomous units within the whole) and are self contained with the rights granted them, the federal government is to allow for protection of the whole, by regulating international and interstate trade, the defense of the whole, and the laws that are not specifically deigned as state's domain. 

In a broad sense internationally, the Union of the Severally United States is deemed an international "State"...  but that would be akin to calling the Russian Confederation a State...  each of the autonomous republics is in itself a State in the sense of the United States concept, albeit the federalization is much more stringent and tyrannical than currently seen in the United States.  But, the internal Nationalism (due to the Imperial takeover) of the formerly autonomous countries/states is even greater than the Statehood claims of the Republic of Texas constiuents...

Call a Georgian a Russian, see what happens, or an Albanian, or an Estonian...

the generalizations of your international Relations class need to be tempered with reality, not just rote definition.   Remember, the use of the word "State" meaning country did get bastardized during the great Socialist upheaval from 1885- 1993...  thanks to Marx/Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnyev, and to some extent Trotsky through his novels and editorials.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 28, 2015)

x SF med said:


> In the Constitution, state and country (or union of the several states) are in no way synonymous, or interchangeable - the States are the building blocks of the Federal system, aligned severally (as autonomous units within the whole) and are self contained with the rights granted them, the federal government is to allow for protection of the whole, by regulating international and interstate trade, the defense of the whole, and the laws that are not specifically deigned as state's domain.
> 
> In a broad sense internationally, the Union of the Severally United States is deemed an international "State"...  but that would be akin to calling the Russian Confederation a State...  each of the autonomous republics is in itself a State in the sense of the United States concept, albeit the federalization is much more stringent and tyrannical than currently seen in the United States.  But, the internal Nationalism (due to the Imperial takeover) of the formerly autonomous countries/states is even greater than the Statehood claims of the Republic of Texas constiuents...
> 
> ...



Excellent post, except for that "even greater than the Republic of Texas" crap...Nothing is greater than Texas! And I don't care how much frozen tundra those Alaskans claim... lol

The eyes of Texas are upon....ahh fuck you Patriot Act.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 28, 2015)

x SF med said:


> I've said I don't know more than once, and have stayed out of threads (cough cough... gaming) where my knowledge is lacking...  hurtful, just hurtful ... bad bad AWP.



You stay out of the gaming thread because you've got problems with identifying your hardware for proper drivers.

Picture related.....






*TEXAS





ALASKA
 

Anyone who's actually been to Alaska knows in all truth Alaska wins that entire argument. *Hell, even Alaskan Liberals own AR-10's, CC/OC,  and eat Moose, Salmon and Caribou they harvested.


----------



## x SF med (Oct 28, 2015)

@Ranger Psych ...  poh-tah-toe...  wharblgarbl, blarf

@JAB ...  over 16 years in Tx...  Bob Wills is dead, but still the king...


----------



## 8654Maine (Oct 28, 2015)

I'd love to be home on the range in Alaska with my pistol and rifle and Geritol.


----------



## 104TN (Oct 28, 2015)

Apologies if this has already been shared. Maine has signed into law what should be a reality everywhere. 

Maine Governor LePage signs bill for Permitless carry.


----------



## Dienekes (Oct 28, 2015)

x SF med said:


> In the Constitution, state and country (or union of the several states) are in no way synonymous, or interchangeable



I understand, in the terms of the majority of the Constitution, this is very clear. However, I would argue that the wording is interesting in the 2A.

I interpret the meaning of "A well regulated militia necessary to well being of A free State" to be. "We the founder's, not desiring a standing army, understand the need for armed forces in order for a State(Country) to remain so we provide the people with arms so that they may become a militia." State being used to describe the whole and not the parts of the whole as reference by the article "a".

I agree with the rest of the argument about my flawed use of the definition of a State.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 28, 2015)

Shotguns Have 'Virtually Sold Out' In Austria, Sales Fuelled By Fear Of Migrant Crisis

Look's like Utopia ain't so utopian any more.


----------



## x SF med (Oct 28, 2015)

Dienekes said:


> I understand, in the terms of the majority of the Constitution, this is very clear. However, I would argue that the wording is interesting in the 2A.
> 
> I interpret the meaning of "A well regulated militia necessary to well being of A free State" to be. "We the founder's, not desiring a standing army, understand the need for armed forces in order for a State(Country) to remain so we provide the people with arms so that they may become a militia." State being used to describe the whole and not the parts of the whole as reference by the article "a".
> 
> I agree with the rest of the argument about my flawed use of the definition of a State.



Remember that internecine squabbles at the early days of this experiment in a Democratic Republic/Republican Democracy, were not uncommon... the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations was virtually at war with both MA and CT to maintain it's sovereignty up until the signing of the Constitution.

A free state...  meant exactly that, keeping each state free from incursion by another of the several states or a foreign government... the French and British had laid claim to areas bordering and including areas claimed by the upstart Nation that was a collection of colonies governed by the greatest power of the time.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 19, 2015)

Concealed Carrier Attacks, Overwhelms Home Invasion Crew In Texas - Bearing Arms - Concealed Carry, home invasion, Texas


Only in TEXAS! lol


----------



## Raptor (Nov 19, 2015)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Concealed Carrier Attacks, Overwhelms Home Invasion Crew In Texas - Bearing Arms - Concealed Carry, home invasion, Texas
> 
> 
> Only in TEXAS! lol


I live near there and it makes me happy to know that some people around here would be willing to do that for their neighbor.

Also, I love happy endings


----------



## Frank S. (Nov 23, 2015)

Actor's wheels boosted / Sean Penn's muscle car, guns stolen from busy Berkeley street

A little blast (more like a pop) from the past. I remember finding this amusing at the time (2003). Bolded parts by me.

[...] Actor Sean Penn, who has played a tough guy, a cop and a killer, became a crime victim when his *car was stolen as he lunched in downtown Berkeley*, police said. [...]
Also taken were two of Penn's guns --* a loaded 9mm Glock handgun stashed inside the car and an unloaded .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver in the trunk*.

*Penn, 42,* who beat up two paparazzi who trailed him and then-fiancee Madonna in 1985, *has a valid California concealed weapons permit*.


----------



## Brill (Dec 3, 2015)

Regarding active shooters, if guns are the problem and should be kept out of the hands of John Q, why do police WITHOUT EXCEPTION use guns to stop the active shooter?
Wouldn't logic dictate that active shooters are neutralized by guns: period.  Hell, this seems like this theory would actually be considered a law.


----------



## AWP (Dec 3, 2015)

To piggyback a post of mine for this thread's topic:
California Shooting.

It speaks volumes that the Left rushed to judgment and more importantly to pimp their agenda. Forget the facts, forget allowing the police time to do their jobs, let's dive into the pool and hope it is deep.

The problem though is John and Jane Middleoftheroad will eventually side with gun control legislation. They are slowly being worn down by the bombardment of "guns are evil, more gun control is the solution" mantra. It is only a matter of time before changes are jammed down our throats.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Dec 3, 2015)

lindy said:


> Regarding active shooters, if guns are the problem and should be kept out of the hands of John Q, why do police WITHOUT EXCEPTION use guns to stop the active shooter?
> Wouldn't logic dictate that active shooters are neutralized by guns: period.  Hell, this seems like this theory would actually be considered a law.


Training is the difference. 
Police using guns to stop active shooters is possible based on the training they receive.

John Q. who just got a sweet deal on a .50 cal Desert Eagle on gunbroker.com, and has yet to take it to the range, is another story. Obviously, there are plenty of us on this site and others like it who would be an exception to this statement, but we'd be the vast minority.


----------



## Brill (Dec 3, 2015)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Training is the difference.
> Police using guns to stop active shooters is possible based on the training they receive.
> 
> John Q. who just got a sweet deal on a .50 cal Desert Eagle on gunbroker.com, and has yet to take it to the range, is another story. Obviously, there are plenty of us on this site and others like it who would be an exception to this statement, but we'd be the vast minority.



Dude, watch the video of the cops' weapon handling from yesterday. The only group that displayed ANY muzzle discipline were SWAT officers.

Are police first RESPONDERS or first PREVENTERS?


----------



## policemedic (Dec 3, 2015)

lindy said:


> Regarding active shooters, if guns are the problem and should be kept out of the hands of John Q, why do police WITHOUT EXCEPTION use guns to stop the active shooter?
> Wouldn't logic dictate that active shooters are neutralized by guns: period.  Hell, this seems like this theory would actually be considered a law.



We're trusted to possess and use guns because of our elite training and other superhuman abilities.  The unwashed rabble and peasants aren't capable of safely owning guns.  Only the police should have guns; we'll come and save you. 

/SARC


----------



## policemedic (Dec 3, 2015)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Training is the difference.
> Police using guns to stop active shooters is possible based on the training they receive.
> 
> John Q. who just got a sweet deal on a .50 cal Desert Eagle on gunbroker.com, and has yet to take it to the range, is another story. Obviously, there are plenty of us on this site and others like it who would be an exception to this statement, but we'd be the vast minority.



I know what you're trying to say, but it just isn't so.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Dec 3, 2015)

policemedic said:


> I know what you're trying to say, but it just isn't so.


I get that and my comment was in no way intended to be a blanket statement which is why I said that there were exceptions. It extends to the Military as well. Watching the guys/gals on the ship go through their 9mm qualification courses does NOT induce a sense of confidence. I'm sure the same can be said for other branches, LEO, etc... It comes down to the individual.


----------



## Brill (Dec 3, 2015)

From CNN:

*THE SHOOTOUT*

The chase ended back in San Bernardino, about two miles from Inland Regional. Farook fired at officers from the vehicle while Malik drove, officials said.

The couple fired about 76 rounds total at pursuing officers, police said. *Twenty-three officers returned fire with about 380 rounds*, police said.

-----------

That's an average of 15 rounds per police officer.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 3, 2015)

SkrewzLoose said:


> I get that and my comment was in no way intended to be a blanket statement which is why I said that there were exceptions. It extends to the Military as well. Watching the guys/gals on the ship go through their 9mm qualification courses does NOT induce a sense of confidence. I'm sure the same can be said for other branches, LEO, etc... It comes down to the individual.



Confidence in what exactly?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 3, 2015)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Training is the difference.
> Police using guns to stop active shooters is possible based on the training they receive.
> 
> John Q. who just got a sweet deal on a .50 cal Desert Eagle on gunbroker.com, and has yet to take it to the range, is another story. Obviously, there are plenty of us on this site and others like it who would be an exception to this statement, but we'd be the vast minority.




Old grandma with a grandpas old 38 spc in the night stand that she probably hasn't ever fired, has killed many of perpetrator.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 3, 2015)

lindy said:


> From CNN:
> 
> *THE SHOOTOUT*
> 
> ...



An infantry squad getting its kill on will shoot way more than those 23 officers did. I watched two grunts on cordon perimeter swiss cheese a drunks car who didn't stop, I think the both reloaded at least once.


----------



## nobodythank you (Dec 4, 2015)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Training is the difference.
> Police using guns to stop active shooters is possible based on the training they receive.


This is not always an accurate statement. I have seen officers (from very small agencies) with rust on their guns that only pulled their weapons out of the holsters to qualify once every two years. There have been officers from larger agencies that get recycled multiple times during annual qualification because they can't meet the minimum requirements. The Florida standards are not difficult to meet. Not to mention, many officers don't get that much training when looked at the larger picture. As in they only get their 40hours at the academy and then their yearly or once every two year qualification run and that is it. It happens on both ends of the spectrum.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 4, 2015)

You really can't broad brush anyone in marksmanship, I've met civilians who make tier one dude look silly, cops and Mil who make the run of the mill look awesome.

You only know what you know. That said, a crack head with a Saturday night special can kill you dead. Train, and train often, someone is always better than you.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Dec 4, 2015)

The Hate Ape said:


> Confidence in what exactly?


Effectively neutralize a threat if an armed conflict were to occur.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Dec 4, 2015)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Old grandma with a grandpas old 38 spc in the night stand that she probably hasn't ever fired, has killed many of perpetrator.


Would you say that's the exception or the rule?


----------



## Brill (Dec 4, 2015)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> An infantry squad getting its kill on will shoot way more than those 23 officers did. I watched two grunts on cordon perimeter swiss cheese a drunks car who didn't stop, I think the both reloaded at least once.



You articulated my point perfectly.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 4, 2015)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Effectively neutralize a threat if an armed conflict were to occur.


The only take-away from a range qualification is that the individual is _less likely_ to shoot themselves or something/someone other than the target.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Dec 4, 2015)

The Hate Ape said:


> The only take-away from a range qualification is that the individual is _less likely_ to shoot themselves or something/someone other than the target.


I think you're making my point for me.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 4, 2015)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Would you say that's the exception or the rule?



Not really, several people own guns, who never train with them, who would break every safety rule, who never shoot anyone. There are also several people who kill criminal's every day, who have next to no training at all. I would say, that trained people are the exception to the rule, to be honest.

That said, if I was king for a day, I would require a basic handling/safety cert for anyone wanting to buy a firearm. We do it for hunting, and I think it could be done for buying a gun, I would also want a recent (within the last 12 mths) psychological evaluation. 

Again if I was king for a day. But I doubt either one of those would deal with the problems we have.


----------



## AWP (Dec 4, 2015)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Not really, several people own guns, who never train with them, who would break every safety rule, who never shoot anyone. There are also several people who kill criminal's every day, who have next to no training at all. I would say, that trained people are the exception to the rule, to be honest.
> 
> That said, if I was king for a day, I would require a basic handling/safety cert for anyone wanting to buy a firearm. We do it for hunting, and I think it could be done for buying a gun, I would also want a recent (within the last 12 mths) psychological evaluation.
> 
> Again if I was king for a day. But I doubt either one of those would deal with the problems we have.



 I think the class would be good though I question if it won't be challenged in court. I can see the argument as "You don't have to hunt so making a compulsory class is fine, but owning a gun is a right so you can't put that stipulation in there." Never mind laws about felons and the mentally ill, some clown would challenge a good (IMO) idea. The psych evaluation though, I think is a great idea but should never happen. What are the benchmarks for pass/ fail and what about patient/ client confidentiality? What process do you enact to guard against an anti-gun doctor (back to those benchmarks....which people can lie about). A psych screening is like a PTSD diagnosis: people can lie to skew the results and without a definitive exam like CAT/ PET/ MRI/ whatever which shows a defined pattern of brain activity, you can't trust the results.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 4, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I think the class would be good though I question if it won't be challenged in court. I can see the argument as "You don't have to hunt so making a compulsory class is fine, but owning a gun is a right so you can't put that stipulation in there." Never mind laws about felons and the mentally ill, some clown would challenge a good (IMO) idea. The psych evaluation though, I think is a great idea but should never happen. What are the benchmarks for pass/ fail and what about patient/ client confidentiality? What process do you enact to guard against an anti-gun doctor (back to those benchmarks....which people can lie about). A psych screening is like a PTSD diagnosis: people can lie to skew the results and without a definitive exam like CAT/ PET/ MRI/ whatever which shows a defined pattern of brain activity, you can't trust the results.



Well like I said, if I was king for a day. I once refused to sell a pistol to a guy b/c he kept his finger on the trigger, never cleared it and was pointing it at everything, to include himself. Dude acted like I was the biggest dick when I said give me my pistol back, its not for sale anymore.

I think people selling guns should be smarter about who they are selling to. But because its generally a business, the common sense gets put aside for the dollar, hints my thoughts on a requirement of clean bill of 'mental' health and a safety/handling cert.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 4, 2015)

SkrewzLoose said:


> I think you're making my point for me.



More like half of it. You discussed of observed range qualifications on ship as disconcerting and question their (the observed mil types) lethality/grit to be in a gunfight. 

I feel a qual is just a qual and nothing more than a weapons handling demonstration in a controlled enviornment. 

Referencing the grandma & .38 special scenario, one which you acknowledge, my point is that you were not making one with your statement.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Dec 4, 2015)

The Hate Ape said:


> More like half of it. You discussed of observed range qualifications on ship as disconcerting and question their (the observed mil types) lethality/grit to be in a gunfight.
> 
> I feel a qual is just a qual and nothing more than a weapons handling demonstration in a controlled enviornment.
> 
> Referencing the grandma & .38 special scenario, one which you acknowledge, my point is that you were not making one with your statement.


My response to the grandma/.38 special comment was a question. I wasn't trying to make a point.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 7, 2015)

Indoctrination of the next generation. 

I don't have a problem with a professor opening a forum of debate on the issue of gun control, or even setting the debate into a group exercise (half the class argues for and half against). But to simply spew your political opinions unchecked to a bunch of young kids, seems to go against the whole educational process for rational thinking and understanding. In essence, instead of teaching your students how to analyze a political problem, learn both sides of the argument and then develop a rational opinion based on well debated information, they are simply being told "this is the issue of your time and you should take this opinion".

No wonder our younger generations are so poorly educated and making crazy statements whenever interviewed by the media. And where is the accountability on the university and its staff? Is this okay? Should a professor use his/her platform to engineer political opinion? Seems very unethical to me...


----------



## JBS (Dec 7, 2015)

Just another in a long list of instances of Leftist / Liberal Progressive bias in education- not too different from the media.

This is besides the fact that his argument is very shallow and can easily be picked apart.

For instance, Australia's violent crime rate *was already in decline, and was plummeting* when the measure to confiscate weapons was passed.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 7, 2015)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Indoctrination of the next generation.
> 
> I don't have a problem with a professor opening a forum of debate on the issue of gun control, or even setting the debate into a group exercise (half the class argues for and half against). But to simply spew your political opinions unchecked to a bunch of young kids, seems to go against the whole educational process for rational thinking and understanding. In essence, instead of teaching your students how to analyze a political problem, learn both sides of the argument and then develop a rational opinion based on well debated information, they are simply being told "this is the issue of your time and you should take this opinion".
> 
> No wonder our younger generations are so poorly educated and making crazy statements whenever interviewed by the media. And where is the accountability on the university and its staff? Is this okay? Should a professor use his/her platform to engineer political opinion? Seems very unethical to me...



I agree with you with one caveat. 

The professor should be opening such a discussion only if it logically relates to their class.  If my anatomy and physiology professor had spouted off on gun control I'd have told him where to go and walked out.

On the other hand, if it were a criminology or political science class I would see the relevance. 

  If I'm paying for a class, I want that class; I'm not paying to listen to someone in a bully pulpit.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 7, 2015)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> ...to simply spew your political opinions unchecked to a bunch of young kids, seems to go against the whole educational process...Should a professor use his/her platform to engineer political opinion? Seems very unethical to me...


 

Unethical it may be, brother, but it's all too common in our universities. I've put two boys through college and our youngest boy is now attending FSU. And all three of them have bitched to me about ultra-leftist professors spewing their opinions. My advice: don't argue, tell them what they want to hear or they will find a way to screw you.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 7, 2015)

^^^^that's fucked.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 7, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I think the class would be good though I question if it won't be challenged in court. I can see the argument as "You don't have to hunt so making a compulsory class is fine, but owning a gun is a right so you can't put that stipulation in there." Never mind laws about felons and the mentally ill, some clown would challenge a good (IMO) idea. The psych evaluation though, I think is a great idea but should never happen. What are the benchmarks for pass/ fail and what about patient/ client confidentiality? What process do you enact to guard against an anti-gun doctor (back to those benchmarks....which people can lie about). A psych screening is like a PTSD diagnosis: people can lie to skew the results and without a definitive exam like CAT/ PET/ MRI/ whatever which shows a defined pattern of brain activity, you can't trust the results.


The problem is the anti-gunners would make the training requirements so onerous that no one could buy (eventually own) a gun.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 7, 2015)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Well like I said, if I was king for a day. I once refused to sell a pistol to a guy b/c he kept his finger on the trigger, never cleared it and was pointing it at everything, to include himself. Dude acted like I was the biggest dick when I said give me my pistol back, its not for sale anymore.
> 
> I think people selling guns should be smarter about who they are selling to. But because its generally a business, the common sense gets put aside for the dollar, hints my thoughts on a requirement of clean bill of 'mental' health and a safety/handling cert.


NICS check is all that's needed, no way to legally determine mental status.
Your asking to make everyone's Mental Health Records (essentially) open source.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 7, 2015)

I am against a psych test to own a gun.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 7, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> I am against a psych test to own a gun.



Yep...they are "way" too subjective. 

Besides, I don't need somebody to tell me if I am a "little off" to them. :-"


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 7, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> NICS check is all that's needed, no way to legally determine mental status.
> Your asking to make everyone's Mental Health Records (essentially) open source.



I don't think it's too much to insure someone is not a psychopath before selling them a gun. 

I've also thought for years that every person entering the 9th grade should be given a psychological evaluation before entering HS as a regular student. 

You see my problem is nobody address's the issue of mental health from a standpoint of identifying and setting restrictions on those people until they have proven their mental health is up to par. In a country where we have over 300 million people, we need to do something to identify and properly deal with the crazy ones.  I can see the concerns of wanting to keep health records safe and out of the public. Hell everyone has a moment or two where they deal with some form of mental health issues. But when you have people who are straight up nuts walking around unknown to the public, that's a problem.


----------



## digrar (Dec 7, 2015)

JBS said:


> Just another in a long list of instances of Leftist / Liberal Progressive bias in education- not too different from the media.
> 
> This is besides the fact that his argument is very shallow and can easily be picked apart.
> 
> For instance, Australia's violent crime rate *was already in decline, and was plummeting* when the measure to confiscate weapons was passed.



Our mass killings on the other hand were ticking along at about 1 a year, with no real decline in sight. There has only been 2 fire arms related mass killings since 1996 and one was a murder suicide on a remote property with one mentally impaired parent and one severely depressed parent, so not your typical spree killing.


----------



## JBS (Dec 7, 2015)

@digrar 

Sure.

I've always said that confiscating guns would move the needle- especially when it came to suicide.

But I've also believed that violent crime would climb as people went from being basically able to defend themselves to victims.

And that is certainly the case now in Australia where GUN RELATED DEATHS are virtually nonexistent, *but violent crime, sex assault, and other types of crime have skyrocketed*.

*AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN*



> In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
> 
> Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brill (Dec 7, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> I am against a psych test to own a gun.



Shhhhh!!!  Not so loudly!!!  There's nothing to keep the Dims from requiring a psych test to buy/possess ammo!


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 7, 2015)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I don't think it's too much to insure someone is not a psychopath before selling them a gun.
> 
> I've also thought for years that every person entering the 9th grade should be given a psychological evaluation before entering HS as a regular student.
> 
> You see my problem is nobody address's the issue of mental health from a standpoint of identifying and setting restrictions on those people until they have proven their mental health is up to par. In a country where we have over 300 million people, we need to do something to identify and properly deal with the crazy ones.  I can see the concerns of wanting to keep health records safe and out of the public. Hell everyone has a moment or two where they deal with some form of mental health issues. But when you have people who are straight up nuts walking around unknown to the public, that's a problem.



I agree something needs to be done about mental illness, but only if there is a way back from the abyss.
Anti-gunners will get you on a Psych list (see VA Scandals) and you are screwed for life.
Someone self admits because they are depressed, and now they are screwed for life; others see that and refuse to seek treatment resulting in a bigger mess.
Look at the no-fly list.
They won't tell you why you are on it, and do everything to make sure you stay on it, even if it is a mistake on their part.


----------



## Brill (Dec 7, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Look at the no-fly list.
> They won't tell you why you are on it, and do everything to make sure you stay on it, even if it is a mistake on their part.



I'm confident that if POTUS go the EO route, the order would be overturned in SCOTUS as a violation of 5th Amendment rights since the watch list is subjected to due process.

Harvard legal scholar indeed.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 7, 2015)

lindy said:


> I'm confident that if POTUS go the EO route, the order would be overturned in SCOTUS as a violation of 5th Amendment rights since the watch list is subjected to due process.
> 
> Harvard legal scholar indeed.


IIRC the courts just slapped the government down for not providing any way (minus an expensive lawyer) off the list.
They came up with a way to get off, it's just going to cost a lot of change.


----------



## digrar (Dec 8, 2015)

JBS said:


> And that is certainly the case now in Australia where GUN RELATED DEATHS are virtually nonexistent, *but violent crime, sex assault, and other types of crime have skyrocketed*.
> 
> *AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN*



And despite the gun ban, we are apparently at a point where we have more legal weapons in the country than pre the 1996 ban. Numbers of illegal weapons, incidentally the implement used in most gun crime, are unknown.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 8, 2015)

So gun control doesn't work in the land of backwards flushes?


----------



## digrar (Dec 8, 2015)

It doesn't stop illegal weapons. Same as in your neck of the woods. We're essentially fucking around law abiding people, to stop people who aren't in the legal weapon system at all.


----------



## JBS (Dec 8, 2015)

I think I read that the original Australian gun buy back only removed about 20 or maybe 30% of the guns in Oz at the time.

It's by no means the end of crime as we know it, but it makes some people feel better.   The one area it always has a huge effect is in suicide.   Gun free nations have a lower suicide rate where guns were used as the weapon.   It has little to no effect on stopping crime and statistics indicate in many cases, crime (particularly violent crime) becomes worse.

The answer to crime is just more complex and honing in on guns as the problem will not solve it.



digrar said:


> And despite the gun ban, we are apparently at a point where we have more legal weapons in the country than pre the 1996 ban. Numbers of illegal weapons, incidentally the implement used in most gun crime, are unknown.


----------



## compforce (Dec 8, 2015)

JBS said:


> The one area it always has a huge effect is in suicide.   Gun free nations have a lower suicide rate where guns were used as the weapon.



Honest question:  But do suicides as a whole go down or just those using guns? 

It seems to me to be a given that they would have a lower firearm suicide rate.   The question is whether the lack of guns actually affects the overall suicide rate or if the people who would have committed suicide with a firearm just find another means, invalidating the statistic as meaningful.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 8, 2015)

compforce said:


> Honest question:  But do suicides as a whole go down or just those using guns?
> 
> It seems to me to be a given that they would have a lower firearm suicide rate.   The question is whether the lack of guns actually affects the overall suicide rate or if the people who would have committed suicide with a firearm just find another means, invalidating the statistic as meaningful.


I get what you're saying, and I used to see the issue the same way that you do, but research is starting to show that firearm suicides are not only the most common form of suicide, but states with lower gun ownership rates also have lower suicide rates.  The reasoning there is that most suicides are impulsive acts, and guns are much more lethal than other suicide methods.
This article from Pew is a little old, but it gives some good information about firearm suicides Suicides account for most gun deaths

Now I know everyone is going to jump my shit for this, but the Brady Campaign (booooo hiss!!) put out a pretty good report on the link between gun ownership and suicide rates earlier this year http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/Truth-About-Suicide-Guns.pdf

I hate the fact that we have to resort to a partisan group for research on the issue, but that brings me to another point: The Dickey Amendment
Currently, the CDC is banned from collecting data about gun deaths because of concerns over partisan manipulation on behalf of the government.  Unfortunately this has had the resultant effect of forcing the public to rely on _even more_ partisan sources (Brady et. al) for data and analysis on the issue.  I can understand (and sympathize with) conservative fears over this issue, but I really think its high time that we put that aside for a minute and take a dispassionate look at the issue.  I see that many posters here are accusing the various sides of appealing to emotion and rhetoric, which is a fair accusation, but ultimately it stems from not having an authoritative source to tell us "Here is the data.  Draw your own conclusions".  Instead, we have lobbying groups massaging what data is available for their own ends, and honestly that's kind of shitty.  

I think a good concession from those on the right would be to say "Hey, we get that there is a problem, but instead of flying off of the handle and proposing more gun control, how about we remove the Dickey amendment and take an impartial look at the problem?"


----------



## AWP (Dec 8, 2015)

I think the CDC should be able to study firearms related crime, but we shouldn't rely on a "one and done" strategy in a single presidential term. That's my big fear: a small sample or a handful of studies making the case one way or another.

At any rate, the CDC recently released a study looking at Wilmington, DE's firearm violence:
http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf

A somewhat biased review here:
The CDC Just Released a 'Gun Violence' Study

The shocking conclusion: young men with a history of violence eventually escalate to using firearms. Again, this is a small sample which illustrates my fear(s).

One really interesting tidbit is found on page 2. It compares homicide rates per 100,000 people. 27* of 50 states saw a decrease, 11* saw a decline, and the remainder had such a slight change I didn't include them, hence the asterisks. I think that's significant because it comes after the expiration of the AWB and during a time which saw firearms purchases increase.

More studies need to be done and considering the Constitutional implications I don't think studies like the above are enough and they need to occur over time. We shouldn't hang our hat on a handful of limited focus groups.

Ultimately, the only reason the anti-2A crowd has any traction is because of a handful of mass shootings. Yeah, I'm cynical, but once this hit white, suburban, latte-sipping America it became a "problem." One of the greatest rock bands of all time, Rush, did a good job with the mentality:

Growing up it all seems so one-sided
*Opinions all provided
The future pre-decided*
Detached and subdivided
In the mass production zone
Nowhere is the dreamer or the misfit so alone

Like I posted earlier, either they don't know, don't show, or don't care about what's going on in the hood.


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 8, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I get what you're saying, and I used to see the issue the same way that you do, but research is starting to show that firearm suicides are not only the most common form of suicide, but states with lower gun ownership rates also have lower suicide rates.  The reasoning there is that most suicides are impulsive acts, and guns are much more lethal than other suicide methods.
> This article from Pew is a little old, but it gives some good information about firearm suicides Suicides account for most gun deaths
> 
> Now I know everyone is going to jump my shit for this, but the Brady Campaign (booooo hiss!!) put out a pretty good report on the link between gun ownership and suicide rates earlier this year http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/Truth-About-Suicide-Guns.pdf
> ...


The issue is of course politicized but there are still some reasonably objective sources for information available, including the CDC and FBI.  IMO, no one should ever rely on one source for data.  Rather, a more comprehensive and objective approach is to utilize several sources to validate against each other.  As an example, if you're interested, a while back, I made a post with some links to sources that contain fairly objective and quantitative data, including suicide stats:
United States & Gun Control - Post #459

Note:  CDC does collect data on firearm related deaths and some of there numbers are included in the link above.  I'm not sure it's in the scope of the CDC to be any more involved than that.


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 8, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I think the CDC should be able to study firearms related crime, but we shouldn't rely on a "one and done" strategy in a single presidential term. That's my big fear: a small sample or a handful of studies making the case one way or another.
> 
> At any rate, the CDC recently released a study looking at Wilmington, DE's firearm violence:
> http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf
> ...


LOL...I guess I can delete my post since we essentially said the same thing.


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 8, 2015)

Also, as another follow up to the CDC comment, to be clear, there is nothing specifically prohibiting the CDC from collecting data on gun deaths (and they do collect and report on this).  Here is the direct verbiage from the "Dickey Ammendment" (my emphasis added):

PUBLIC LAW 104–208—SEPT. 30, 1996; 110 STAT. 3009–244 (page 245 of the PDF)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW-104publ208.pdf
_..."That in addition to amounts provided herein, up to $48,400,000 shall be available from amounts available under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act, to carry out the National Center for Health Statistics surveys: *Provided further, That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control*"...
_
That said, as I mentioned earlier, I don't see it in the scope of the CDC to do anything more than collect and report of firearms related deaths.


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 8, 2015)

Blizzard said:


> LOL...I guess I can delete my post since we essentially said the same thing.


@Freefalling I take it back.  I just realized that I glossed over your reference to Rush.  And while I agree with your  point, I cannot agree nor encourage references to Rush, especially when they're predicated with "one of the greatest rock bands of all time".


----------



## Gunz (Dec 8, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> ...but research is starting to show that firearm suicides are not only the most common form of suicide, but states with lower gun ownership rates also have lower suicide rates.  The reasoning there is that most suicides are impulsive acts, and guns are much more lethal than other suicide methods...


 

I buy it. It takes some genuine committment and resolve to go out the Robin Williams way.


----------



## digrar (Dec 8, 2015)

JBS said:


> I think I read that the original Australian gun buy back only removed about 20 or maybe 30% of the guns in Oz at the time.



And that was by intent, they were chasing semi-automatic rimfire rifles and shotguns as well as pump-action shotguns, and military type semi-automatic rifles. Then in 2003 they went after target pistols of greater than .38 calibre and handguns with barrels less than 120mm (semi-automatic) or 100mm (revolvers).

I think you can still have all of those types of firearms, with the right licence, but they get real particular about who can and who can't have those licences.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 8, 2015)

NRA responds Obama on gun control...

Posted and shared on my Facebook page. I used to be among the silent gun owners, hoping that everything would be okay. Afraid my wife's rich liberal friends would shun me...or her.

Know what? Must of those folks don't like me anyways, and it is our silence that gives the libs their foothold - our fear of being embarrassed.

No more my friends, no more.


----------



## AWP (Dec 10, 2015)

An interesting piece from Vice which tends to be rather liberal. Short version: it interviewed career criminals and they were almost unanimous in the belief than more gun laws won't work. Why? 



> "But I ain't so crazy that I don't know that just about every farmhouse has a gun in it, and anywhere they have empty hunting cabins you can find guns and ammo," Stidham adds. "You have to be a real moron not to find a gun in America if you really want one."



Something the anti-gun crowd hasn't considered:



> "A lot of guys I know mad big money selling those guns," Williams says." I had a celly [cellmate] from California who made millions, and you can bet right now there are guys out there stocking up on assault riffles, just waiting to sell them on the black market. It'll be more lucrative than selling dope, and probably a lot safer."



The best part is when they conclude with an anti-gun viewpoint:




> After that, he believes that law enforcement should go door-to-door and take peoples' guns.
> 
> "I think the problem is that urgent," he says. "And I don't want to hear about tradition and heritage. If you want to hunt, use a bow."



The author of the article is doing life for a "nonviolent drug offense." I find it interesting he and other inmates admit gun control won't do anything but empower criminals and make some of them rich(er). Even criminals "get it." 

Talking to Convicted Felons About Gun Control and Mass Shootings | VICE | United States


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 10, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> Unethical it may be, brother, but it's all too common in our universities. I've put two boys through college and our youngest boy is now attending FSU. And all three of them have bitched to me about ultra-leftist professors spewing their opinions. My advice: don't argue, tell them what they want to hear or they will find a way to screw you.



In what classes? That ultra leftist shit is all over the social studies. But if they are taking science or engineering classes it shouldn't be.

I question whether or not that video was actually shot in a biology classroom. I hope not


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 10, 2015)

Funny how shit doesn't change.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 10, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> In what classes? That ultra leftist shit is all over the social studies. But if they are taking science or engineering classes it shouldn't be.
> 
> I question whether or not that video was actually shot in a biology classroom. I hope not



If you listen to the beginning of the vid, the professor basically says this has nothing to do with this class.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 10, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> In what classes? That ultra leftist shit is all over the social studies. But if they are taking science or engineering classes it shouldn't be.
> 
> I question whether or not that video was actually shot in a biology classroom. I hope not


 

Don't remember the specific classes they took but I recall the 2 older boys complaining about it. My middle boy who went to UMASS Lowell called me to say one of his profs was a "complete commie."  The youngest at FSU--who's in engineering--is taking an elective called "Is God Dead?" and I think that's the one he was talking about.  

I put myself through college when I was in my late 30's--and majored in history--and FWIW I can't recall any leftist politics from any of my profs. And I took Russian History and Chinese Communist Society.


----------



## nobodythank you (Dec 10, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> Unethical it may be, brother, but it's all too common in our universities. I've put two boys through college and our youngest boy is now attending FSU. And all three of them have bitched to me about ultra-leftist professors spewing their opinions. My advice: don't argue, tell them what they want to hear or they will find a way to screw you.


Some people refuse to believe what others have seen with their own eyes. Having lived and worked the road (LE) all around FSU and Tallanasty, I can confirm what you and your boys are saying about FSU's liberal attitudes. Professors and students of all types provide the stereotypical liberal mindset. That city/county is mostly Democrat with few if any Republicans able to win any local seats.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 10, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> An interesting piece from Vice which tends to be rather liberal. Short version: it interviewed career criminals and they were almost unanimous in the belief than more gun laws won't work..."  etc...


 

Stolen guns, black market guns and ghost guns are ignored by the anti-gun crowd and I would suspect that in most gun killings--which occur in urban high-crime areas--the perps are not using their own registered legal guns, nor do they have concealed weapons licenses. Since, according to the National Gang Intelligence Center, 48% of all gun murders in this country are gang-related, illegal guns must be very prolific.

There are small metal-working shops all over the Philippines making clone guns, duplicates of popular models, smuggled by ship to the West Coast, distributed to gun runners in the US who sell them for an enormous profit...the selling point being that they are untraceable and have fake serial numbers. Saw this on the Nat Geo channel some weeks ago...very illuminating.


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 10, 2015)

Just wait until people start making their own guns with 3D printers.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 10, 2015)

A little googlefu and you can build a 1911 from a 80% frame for less than you can buy one, no numbers, and it's 100% legal. Same-Same for AR15 lowers.

I'm actually looking at Stealth Arms to do a "off the books" 1911. Not b/c I have anything to hide, well except for a few off the books guns...lol


----------



## policemedic (Dec 10, 2015)

Blizzard said:


> Just wait until people start making their own guns with 3D printers.



This won't have an impact at all, even after the technology becomes more affordable and widespread.


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 10, 2015)

policemedic said:


> This won't have an impact at all, even after the technology becomes more affordable and widespread.


I don't know...  In terms of accessibility, if I'm a criminal and want a gun, I don't need to ask around, I don't need to try and steal one, I don't have to create false documents...nothing.  I just go and plug my plan into my (legal) printer and "presto", I have my gun, for all purposes disposable and untraceable.
http://gizmodo.com/3d-printed-guns-are-only-getting-better-and-scarier-1677747439

We'll see, I guess...unless of course we ban 3D printers NOW!  Who's with me?!


----------



## AWP (Dec 10, 2015)

Some rock slinging gang banger isn't going to buy a printer, computer, and software to make a gun when he can steal one. Maybe your more sophisticated criminals will push for a printed gun, but I doubt they'll significantly alter the landscape.


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 10, 2015)

Touche.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 10, 2015)

Blizzard, You obviously don't know a thing about 3d printing, or actually followed the links to expand your research past the Gizmodo hype.

A "3d printed" sintered firearm requires a machine that's as expensive as a proper 4-6 axis CNC mill... which if you had that kind of cash, why would you be printing a sintered metal product when you could just BUY THE CNC MACHINE and make it out of a block of billet or 80% lower?

A 3d printer using PVC or any of the other materials still has setup, expense about the same as 2-3 rifles at MSRP, and a learning curve in order to make a workable product. You can't just up and poop something out without knowing what you're doing. 

Then, there's the weapons that have been manufactured. Simple fact: They're not that strong. Yes, they're strong enough to take a shot, but that's not really that much of a challenge, considering Our Lord and Savior John Browning hand-fucking-made most of the designs still used today like the M2 HB among others like the hi-power, etc. 

I mean, I can go make a slam gun right now for about a buck fiddy at Lowes and another ten bucks or so at Walmart, and would have the same effectiveness, accuracy, and rounds fired capability as a printed weapon.... yet it'd be in 12 gauge vs in pistol caliber rounds. Nevermind accuracy of the majority single-shot weapons (since LOL PLASTIC RIFLING) and the whole concept of multi-material with makerbots is hilarity as well.... a composite matrix of polymer and metallic powder doesn't equal the strength nor reliability of something.. you know, actually made out of metal.

I'm more worried about flat bending being done for homebrew AK's for gangbangers and terrorists stateside than I am about 3d printed weaponry for either.... and here's a hint: I'm not worried about either of them


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 10, 2015)

Damn...tough crowd. :blkeye:


----------



## Grunt (Dec 10, 2015)

Not to mention...many of them are too lazy to put any effort into creating anything. These are the same people who are using revolvers with cylinders rusted shut and are only good for one shot because they can't turn.

They are buying and selling pistols for $25 and $30 that are completely useless.

Criminals care less about any type of gun control issues.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 10, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Some rock slinging gang banger isn't going to buy a printer, computer, and software to make a gun when he can steal one. Maybe your more sophisticated criminals will push for a printed gun, but I doubt they'll significantly alter the landscape.


Slightly disagree.
Cost of 3-D printers is dropping fast and I can see an enterprising individual becoming the go-to guy/gal using a printer.
3-D printers put another nail in the brick and mortar store coffin.


----------



## Dienekes (Dec 10, 2015)

Just wait until 3D printers do become widespread and some jackass 16 yo kid makes a gun on his parent's new 3D printer and blows his face off because he has no idea about mechanics of materials, thermodynamics, or design. That will be one hell of a clusterfuck.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 10, 2015)

Agoge said:


> Not to mention...many of them are too lazy to put any effort into creating anything. These are the same people who are using revolvers with cylinders rusted shut and are only good for one shot because they can't turn.
> 
> They are buying and selling pistols for $25 and $30 that are completely useless.
> 
> Criminals care less about any type of gun control issues.



What revolver will fire without the cylinder turning?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 10, 2015)

Blizzard said:


> Damn...tough crowd. :blkeye:




Well, let's be honest, I can buy 5 remington 870's in face to face transactions for the cost of a lower end 3d printer with enough workspace to be able to print anything out... and I also don't need any sort of gunsmithing understanding to assemble them, since they're already assembled.

It's not being a hard crowd, it's being realistic.  Some "ready to go" home-grade printers (that still have learning curves for operation) are upwards of 2k... that's a whole lotta guns you can get for that if you just need something that throws lead downrange somewhat reliably.   

I'll put money that Joe Homie isn't going to be interested in civil war/revolutionary war on-line volley firing with multiple ranks of sagged pants, which is what would be required to use most of the "rifles" available. Example, off your very link:






Hell, even the AR lowers that have been designed to-date haven't proven reliable by any means in just firing, let alone resilient enough to survive being tossed around like a real rifle can be. The pistols are generally way oversized in the way a Tek-9 is a concealable pistol, and also tend to require incorporation of proper firearms lowers. 

I mean, when this is a direct quote from Gizmodo regarding a printed firearm



> Designed by a Wisconsin engineer who identifies himself anonymously as "Joe" and his creation troublingly as the "Lulz Liberator," the gun is made out of generic Polylac PA-747 ABS, otherwise known as the type of plastic most commonly used in consumer-grade 3D printers. According to Joe, this cheaper material is actually stronger than the ABS plastic used in the much more expensive, Stratasys pro printer that Defense Distributed used. Apparently attempts to use the Stratasys resulted in the gun's barrel exploding, something that is, generally, not ideal.
> 
> 
> Contributing to its sturdier status, the Lulz Liberator also holds a bit more metal hardware than its predecessor: traditional hardware store screws replaced the flimsy plastic printed pins. Then, to make everything good and (arguably) legal, the same piece of non-functional steel placed in the Liberator exists in the Lulz variety, allowing it to set off metal detectors and comply with the Undetectable Firearms Act.
> ...



where do you honestly see the utility? I mean, yay, single shot pistol that requires reaming of the barrel with a cleaning rod and a fucking hammer each time you fire, and replacement of major parts in order to continue functioning through A WHOPPING NINE SHOTS?

Then you have this thing:






Congratulations, you have a printed lower... however, you still have a lower parts kit investment and know-how to install... another >$400 off Midway USA for a pistol upper....  and oh, the roll pins drift, which means good luck with ghetto blasting as it'll render itself inoperable in relatively quick terms, especially if you test fire it (as you'd want/need to) since if they drift with a limited number of test shots, that means the holes will be wallowed out and it will drift even more quickly after repeated shots. 

Oh, let's talk sintered metal printed weapons, since you wanted to try to waggle the "woe is the world, omg printed gunz" flag.... $6,000 per weapon manufactured, equipment cost of $600,000 with argon gas and industrial technology/expertise to design/make function...






It's cheaper, easier, more reliable, and more effect on target to manufacture Ingram's, mill 80% lowers for AR's, or jig-bend flats for AK's... and you get something that's STRONG and able to be handed off to Leroy, Habib, Jose, or Duong with minimal training requirements for handling/care/use compared to printed weaponry.


----------



## Brill (Dec 10, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> Lot's of big words



So...how many hours of daylight do you have up there now???


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 10, 2015)

lindy said:


> So...how many hours of daylight do you have up there now???



Daylight is optional, Insomnia is forever.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 10, 2015)

Blizzard said:


> Damn...*knowledgeable* crowd. :blkeye:


 
Fixed it for you.  You're welcome.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 10, 2015)

AF is looking at 3-D printing so they can make aircraft parts at a deployed location vice shipping them in.
If (and that's a BIG IF), they can then 3-D technology will move forward pretty fast.
Eventually it will come down in cost as companies vie for the consumer market.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 10, 2015)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> What revolver will fire without the cylinder turning?



Pulled a Colt off a guy a couple months ago. Got one shot off...quit turning. When we checked it...it was so rusted shut, we couldn't turn it past the spent casing. We could get it about a 1/4 turn and it quit.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 11, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> AF is looking at 3-D printing so they can make aircraft parts at a deployed location vice shipping them in.
> If (and that's a BIG IF), they can then 3-D technology will move forward pretty fast.
> Eventually it will come down in cost as companies vie for the consumer market.



I'm curious as to what they're thinking of actually producing.

If they're looking at actually "making metal", they'd be looking at easily 3/4 mil thereabouts investment per machine, plus training of the operators.... Build times vary significantly but aren't exactly short even for small parts. Think an hour to make a standard 4"x 1/2" bolt. Power requirements are a concern, since you've got to fire a beam controlled laser to actually weld the metal dust particulate into a solid material. 

Part size is also limited, as is the actual integrity of the produced parts compared to hardened/tempered aerospace grade metals.  You'd have to have a way to actually do that as well. 

You aren't making anything out of Ti for damn sure, as in a powder form it's not exactly human-friendly anyway, nevermind Ti's inherent molecular/material features...  and all of these sintered metal parts still only get it generally in the right shape, there's still finish machining. It's part of why the sintered metal printers also generally have multi-axis CNC machines incorporated. That, plus the sintering process makes a rough surface, which in order to continue manufacture of parts requires machining OF the part being made as it can be tall enough of a irregularity in the part to prevent the "wiper" from coming across the part to spread fresh powder for the next layer to be sintered down.

I can totally see the draw off the concept of it at heart. Especially with sintered metals, additive production allows maximization of actual materials used. Send over 200 lbs of powder to a machine, you can make easily 195 lbs worth of parts, unlike if you shipped over a 6 axis CNC Mill/Lathe unit and 200 lbs worth of solid metal.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 17, 2015)

Introducing the Assault Weapons Ban

Assault Weapons Ban 2015


----------



## JBS (Dec 17, 2015)

Rage on...


Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Introducing the Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> Assault Weapons Ban 2015



Not even 60 seconds in, and he's already full of crap, with flat out lies.  By bringing up WWII Germany, he also makes sure to ring the bell in the back of everyone's mind that whispers, "Nazi".

"let's remember that assault weapons were first designed for the battlefield by Germans during the 2nd World War.[snip]"

*WRONG.  *

"Assault" rifles preceded WWII by more than 50 years.


1895- Italian Cei-Rigotti - 50 round mags, 2400 fps mv, 900 rounds/min Cei-Rigotti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


1900- French ENT B-1 - first direct impingement system, giving it rightful place in the lineage of modern weapons, including the M-16.  3400 fps muzzle velocity;  Later versions were produced in numbers exceeding 80,000 rifles Meunier rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


1906- Russian Fedorov avtomat - 25-round box magazines, 600 rounds per minute, muzzle velocity over 3800 fps.  Mass produced.Modern Firearms - Fedorov avtomat


----------



## Gunz (Dec 17, 2015)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Introducing the Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> Assault Weapons Ban 2015


 

Different day, same old crap. :wall::wall:


----------



## x SF med (Dec 17, 2015)

By bringing up WWII Germany, the clueless American public won't bother to recognize that Nazi Germany had the FIRST TOTAL FIREARMS BAN for civilians....  that's right, total disarmament of the civilian population, as soon as this was complete... well, you know the rest of the story.



> On March 23, 1933, the Reichstag (German parliament) passed, by a vote of 441 to 94, a measure called the Enabling Act permitting Hitler to make laws without consulting the Reichstag. _The president issuing decrees without consulting Congress. _
> 
> Finally, within a week of assuming autocratic control of the lawmaking power in Germany, Hitler issued the following order regarding gun ownership:
> 
> ...



full text here


----------



## pardus (Dec 17, 2015)

x SF med said:


> By bringing up WWII Germany, the clueless American public won't bother to recognize that Nazi Germany had the FIRST TOTAL FIREARMS BAN for civilians....  that's right, total disarmament of the civilian population, as soon as this was complete... well, you know the rest of the story.
> 
> 
> 
> full text here



Bullshit Troll.

I'm too tired to back this up right now. But I will.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 18, 2015)

I had a very lengthy discussion of this yesterday with a co-worker who is vehemently anti-gun.  Alls I did was present numbers and data and by the end of the discussion even he could see that a ban would be useless/worthless.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 18, 2015)

Devildoc said:


> I had a very lengthy discussion of this yesterday with a co-worker who is vehemently anti-gun.  Alls I did was present numbers and data and by the end of the discussion even he could see that a ban would be useless/worthless.



Yep...I have had many of those discussions myself with the same type of people. One of the strongest tools I used against them was a good healthy dose of "reality." By that, I mean, I would advise them to either purchase a scanner or I would lend them mine for a couple of days or weeks.

Many of them -- if not most -- were truly unaware of the amount of actual gun crimes that were being committed within their city. After they would hear of the actual crimes, I would then tell them that no matter how many -- or how strict -- gun laws were passed, the people they heard committing those crimes over the scanner would not be affected, only those that would use weapons to protect themselves against those people would be. 

The citizenry doesn't truly realize that LE doesn't have near the number of interactions with armed people that is believed to exist. Those weapons that are being used for the majority of gun crimes are not going to be removed from the streets. It's that simple. I let them know that I am not talking from cold, neutral statistics, but from 27 and counting years of experience. 

Surprisingly, I have saved a few people from themselves. Others, they maintain a closed mind and won't listen to reason.


----------



## nobodythank you (Dec 18, 2015)

Agoge said:


> Many of them -- if not most -- were truly unaware of the amount of actual gun crimes that were being committed within their city. After they would hear of the actual crimes, I would then tell them that no matter how many -- or how strict -- gun laws were passed, the people they heard committing those crimes over the scanner would not be affected, only those that would use weapons to protect themselves against those people would be.


I recall a particularly busy night during the spring several years ago in Tallanasty. Not even a block from the Criminoles stadium, one of the largest gang shootouts I have ever heard of takes place. Multiple shooters, one dead, the video looks like a shootout in the OK Coral as the shootout is both inside and outside the hybrid gas station fast food joint. All told we identify at least eight shooters based on video. Of course, I am unable to respond with my brothers and sisters because I am stuck at the office working a case where I stopped an SUV loaded with bangers that were shooting out of the vehicle as they drove through a trailer park. One flees, the other three are caught with two pistols and a no shit cold war era flak vest. 

That was a very busy and late night for all of us. People do not realize the amount of gun crime that occurs when they sleep. The biggest problem I can put my finger on is people do not report their weapons stolen/lost when they go missing. Thereby making it harder to track down the movement of stolen or missing weapons. A few instances have been family members that say their weapons were stolen but never reported them as stolen. Thereby saving jr fucktard a charge. Overall, the problem is not with the law abiding citizenry.


----------



## JBS (Dec 18, 2015)

Interesting topic- one I could read about for weeks.

It seems the total ban on firearms preceded Hitler's rise to power, and even Anti-Gun Chicago lawyers begrudgingly admit, or at least do not challenge the notion that it was the firearms ban of 1919 / Weimar Republic that enabled Hitler's rise.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/67-harcourt.pdf



> In January 1919, the Reichstag enacted legislation requiring the surrender of all guns to the government. This law, as well as the August 7, 1920, _Law on the Disarmament of the People _passed in light of the Versailles Treaty, remained in effect until 1928, when the German parliament enacted the _Law on Firearms and Ammunition _(April 12, 1928)—a law which relaxed
> gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. *The licensing
> regulations foreshadowed Hitler’s rise to power—and in fact, some argue, were enacted precisely in order to prevent armed insurrection*, such as Hitler’s attempted coup in Munich in 1923, as well as Hitler’s later rise to power. [25]


 


pardus said:


> I'm too tired to back this up right now. But I will.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 18, 2015)

pardus said:


> Bullshit Troll.
> 
> I'm too tired to back this up right now. But I will.


Never mind.
JBS provided the data.


----------



## AWP (Dec 18, 2015)

I had a lengthy post on the Hitler/ Nazi/ Weimar gun history. Somewhere.

Edit: I thought I had a longer one. I'll keep digging.

United States & Gun Control discussion.


----------



## Brill (Dec 18, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Edit: I thought I had a longer one.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 18, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Edit: I thought I had a longer one.



That's what she said.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 18, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I had a lengthy post on the Hitler/ Nazi/ Weimar gun history. Somewhere.
> 
> Edit: *I thought I had a longer one*. I'll keep digging.
> 
> United States & Gun Control discussion.



Ask your wife...


----------



## pardus (Dec 19, 2015)

JBS said:


> Interesting topic- one I could read about for weeks.
> 
> It seems the total ban on firearms preceded Hitler's rise to power, and even Anti-Gun Chicago lawyers begrudgingly admit, or at least do not challenge the notion that it was the firearms ban of 1919 / Weimar Republic that enabled Hitler's rise.
> 
> http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/67-harcourt.pdf



All "Hitler" did was ban Jews from owning firearms. The anti gun ownership laws were Weimar republic laws. Germans could own weapons, restricted, yes, but could still own them. 



Freefalling said:


> *I had a lengthy post on the Hitler/ Nazi/ Weimar gun history. Somewhere.*
> 
> Edit: I thought I had a longer one. I'll keep digging.
> 
> United States & Gun Control discussion.



You did.


----------



## Brill (Dec 20, 2015)

Why does the state allow this guy the ability to protect himself whereas Joe Marylander's fate is determined by the criminal?

Off-duty Baltimore cop kills robbery suspect brandishing toy gun | Fox News


----------



## policemedic (Dec 20, 2015)

lindy said:


> Why does the state allow this guy the ability to protect himself whereas Joe Marylander's fate is determined by the criminal?
> 
> Off-duty Baltimore cop kills robbery suspect brandishing toy gun | Fox News



Well, even if the state or his department restricted his right to  carry off-duty he'd still be exempt under LEOSA.

That means the bigger question is why can I carry in Baltimore or DC or NYC when most people can't?  State licenses to carry firearms should receive the same interstate recognition that driver's licenses and marriage licenses do.


----------



## Brill (Dec 21, 2015)

policemedic said:


> That means the bigger question is why can I carry in Baltimore or DC or NYC when most people can't?  State licenses to carry firearms should receive the same interstate recognition that driver's licenses and marriage licenses do.



Exactly my point.  It seems the state of MD values the officer's life more because he's a LEO whereas I'm just a Joe.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 21, 2015)

Agoge said:


> Many of them -- if not most -- were truly unaware of the amount of actual gun crimes that were being committed within their city.



My city, Durham, NC, has a very active gun and knife club, and for every one you hear about on the news, three more happen that you don't hear about.  "Homeboy EMS" does the drop-and-run at the ED.

When I mention this tidbit to locals they seem stunned.  GSWs and slashings happen so often I think it has just become "white noise."


----------



## Brill (Dec 21, 2015)

It's funny cuz it's true.


----------



## JBS (Dec 22, 2015)

*Obama to Issue Gun Control Executive Order*

If and when this happens, it will be the fulfillment of everything every Right Wing radio host has been promising us for years...

The day Obama went off-script and switched gears on gun control policy


> It’s not clear yet what case his team will offer him, but every sign points to a bold interpretation of Obama’s executive authority.


 
And here:



> White House officials are seeking a way to use executive authority to close the so-called gun show loophole that allows thousands of people to buy firearms each year without a background check, but complicated legal issues have slowed the process.


Obama looks to use executive power to close gun loophole


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 22, 2015)

I wonder if that is legal? Ah. Aren't executive orders the force of law?


----------



## JBS (Dec 22, 2015)

@Marine0311   Although Obama never even ran a lemonade stand before becoming President, he was an academic, a Constitutional lawyer, and he's surrounded by lawyers.  When he rolls out the EO, it will be enforceable, and legal.

For this reason, Rand Paul has started pushing a bill to pre-empt executive orders that strip Americans of their rights.

Paul pushes new bill to thwart Obama action on gun control


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 22, 2015)

"So-called gun show loophole."  The reason it is "so-called" is because it doesn't exist.  But don't let truth get in the way of a good crisis.  Of course, I am sure there are some skeevy and unethical dealers/sellers at shows subverting the law, but the volume and percentage I bet would show those numbers to be astronomically small.


----------



## JBS (Dec 22, 2015)

I guess this means Obama wants to end private gun sales.  That's who is buying and selling guns without background checks is private sales. 

So, if you want to buy a gun from your grand-pappy, you will not be able to.



Devildoc said:


> "So-called gun show loophole."  The reason it is "so-called" is because it doesn't exist.  But don't let truth get in the way of a good crisis.  Of course, I am sure there are some skeevy and unethical dealers/sellers at shows subverting the law, but the volume and percentage I bet would show those numbers to be astronomically small.


 
A number of undercover "stings" have been put together by Bloomberg, and nothing has ever been published, no video ever released showing any kind of mass illegal activity.

I think Eric Holder actually has provided more guns to criminals than any American citizen or private company.    Fast and Furious: ATF gunwalking scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 22, 2015)

Concur, part of the end-game is to end private sales.  I have bought/sold/traded--within the law--as have millions of other gun owners.  If this came to pass, certainly I will follow the law, but I could envision a thriving underground economy of people buying/selling/trading as if nothing has happened.

I could also envision that should EOs come out to that effect Congress doing _something_ to thwart it.  There are a lot of dems that get jittery when it comes to gun control; not just the -Rs.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 22, 2015)

The only way to prove private party sales, is if a gun registry exists (which we all know exists) which would be illegal.


----------



## Brill (Dec 22, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> Aren't executive orders the force of law?



Not unless we live in a dictatorship or monarchy.  SCOTUS and Congress are our checks and balance of an over reaching POTUS power grab.

I would wager that criminals do not buy firearms legally and participate in the background checks, so what's the point?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 22, 2015)

I think any sane person will agree that gun control has nothing to do with crime suppression or protecting people. It's purely rooted in ignorance and hysteria of the sheepeople and the political agenda of socialism.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 22, 2015)

I would guess the NRA ILA will be all over any EO, and it'll get shut off quickly.

Too bad the Republicans fear the press more than their constituents.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 22, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Too bad the Republicans fear the press more than their constituents.



Truth.


----------



## JBS (Dec 22, 2015)

Not only this, but out of the thousands of gun related deaths ever year, only a little over 100 are linked to Rifles (including tactical "assault" rifles).  The vast majority of gun related deaths are gangs and criminals using handguns on each other.


There are roughly 32,000 gun deaths per year in the United States.

Of those, around *60% are suicides*.

About 3% are accidental deaths (between 700-800 deaths).

About 34% of deaths (*just over 11,000 in both 2010 and 2011*) make up the remainder of gun deaths and are classified as homicides.

In big cities (such as Chicago) as much as *80% of homicides are gang related* The Year in Murder: 2013 Marks a Historic Low for Many Cities
 

The Gun Show loophole legislation is nothing more than that critical incremental step towards eventual registry and then a gun ban.   Can't sell them to each other without involving gun stores.  Gun stores will need to register these sales.   Voila; instant registry.


----------



## AWP (Dec 22, 2015)

They have to use an EO. Legislation will get shot down or result in an expensive and public fight within Congress. As for the Constitution, I firmly believe no one wants to touch that issue. Sure, people will bitch, snivel, and whine about it being "archaic" but propose amending the Constitution and see what happens. That's a modern Pandora's Box no lawmaker wants to open.

An EO is "practical" and gives his administration a W on its supporters' scoreboard. He's running out of time and looking for something to offset our Mideast Debacle.

If anything, banning private sales, or severely restricting them, plays into their hands if an overall or specific ban were implemented. They could charge those selling off their weapons, plus the buyers, and accelerate a "no guns for anyone but the State" agenda. In a much larger picture it chips away at the resolve of our police and military in the event of confiscation; it goes from "Hell no" to "well, it IS the law....". That'll take another generation though.

You know, if this were on House of Cards or some other TV show half of the viewing audience and every trade publication would see through his intent. Place the same events in real life and people suddenly become very stupid.


----------



## Brill (Dec 22, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> You know, if this were on House of Cards...



Biden would tongue his SS detail.  Where are you going with this?:-/


----------



## Brill (Dec 22, 2015)

JBS said:


> The Gun Show loophole legislation is nothing more than that critical incremental step towards eventual registry and then a gun ban.   Can't sell them to each other without involving gun stores.  Gun stores will need to register these sales.   Voila; instant registry.



Do dealers submit weapon serial number with background check?


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 22, 2015)

lindy said:


> Do dealers submit weapon serial number with background check?



Good question. It's been a while but I don't think SNs are parts of a NICS request, just on the 4473.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 22, 2015)

lindy said:


> Do dealers submit weapon serial number with background check?


No, but the dealers books id a serial number with a buyer.


----------



## Brill (Dec 22, 2015)

Is this really what we've become?

Right name, wrong man: Knoxville veterinarian can’t get off no-fly list


----------



## policemedic (Dec 22, 2015)

lindy said:


> Is this really what we've become?
> 
> Right name, wrong man: Knoxville veterinarian can’t get off no-fly list



Yes.

And this is exactly why the No-Fly list should not be used as a disqualifier for firearms purchases.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 22, 2015)

lindy said:


> Is this really what we've become?
> 
> Right name, wrong man: Knoxville veterinarian can’t get off no-fly list


Which is why the no-fly list should be unconstitutional.


----------



## JBS (Dec 22, 2015)

I don't necessarily think the "no fly list" should be Unconstitutional, not the list existing, but I do think it should never be the basis upon which one can be denied a Constitutionally protected right.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 22, 2015)

Like the right to travel?

Freedom of movement under United States law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 22, 2015)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> The only way to prove private party sales, is if a gun registry exists (which we all know exists) which would be illegal.



You mean a federal gun registry?  No, there's not one....at least at this present time.  You can trace serial numbers to the first gun sale, but if sold privately after that there is no record.  NIC checks are destroyed within 24hrs, are not allowed to be placed into a searchable database, under federal law.  You can't run a name through a database to see what guns he has bought and such.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 22, 2015)

Kraut783 said:


> You mean a federal gun registry?  No, there's not one....at least at this present time.  You can trace serial numbers to the first gun sale, but if sold privately after that there is no record.  NIC checks are destroyed within 24hrs, are not allowed to be placed into a searchable database, under federal law.  You can't run a name through a database to see what guns he has bought and such.



But you can at the state level, to a greater or lesser degree.  That's assuming it was a dealer sale. 

I also have my doubts about BATFE's integrity, but that's me.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 22, 2015)

policemedic said:


> But you can at the state level, to a greater or lesser degree.  That's assuming it was a dealer sale.
> 
> I also have my doubts about BATFE's integrity, but that's me.



Well, all dealer sales are traceable through E-Trace...but again, that is only for sales with unbroken dealer sales.  You can only trace the weapon, not a person.  Now, on the State side:

*States that Require Registration of All Firearms*
District of Columbia
Hawaii

*States that Require Registration of Handguns*
New York

*States that Require New Residents to Report Their Firearms*
California
Maryland (handguns and assault weapons)

*States that Require Registration of Pre-Ban Assault Weapons or 50 Caliber Rifles*
California (assault weapons and 50 caliber rifles)
Connecticut (assault weapons and large capacity magazines)
Hawaii (assault pistols)
Maryland (assault pistols)
New Jersey (assault weapons)
New York (assault weapons)

*States that Prohibit Registries of Firearms by law*
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Vermont


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 22, 2015)

Etrace the sale to the dealer who is required by BATFE to maintain records of sale... It may not be as easy as run the serial # and bam Harry Homeowner, but still traceable. Well until you go to Harry Homeowner and he states "oh yeah I sold that at a gun show" hints their idea of a gun show loop hole. Which we all understand as a private party sell. But yeah...


----------



## policemedic (Dec 23, 2015)

Kraut783 said:


> Well, all dealer sales are traceable through E-Trace...but again, that is only for sales with unbroken dealer sales.  You can only trace the weapon, not a person.  Now, on the State side:
> 
> *States that Require Registration of All Firearms*
> District of Columbia
> ...



Trust me, PA has a registry. I used it the other day.


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 23, 2015)

policemedic said:


> Trust me, PA has a registry. I used it the other day.



Is that FFLs reporting sales?


----------



## policemedic (Dec 23, 2015)

Totentanz said:


> Is that FFLs reporting sales?



Yes.  In PA you fill out a 4473 and a PA State Police equivalent.  The information from the PSP form is used to create the registry.  Since there are no face-to-face sales of handguns in PA without going through an FFL or sheriff, all handgun, SBR and SBS sales are recorded and included in the registry.  PSP makes the argument that because it doesn't include long guns in the database, it isn't a registry but they're splitting hairs.  Buy a handgun in PA and I can get the details in 30 seconds on a computer.


----------



## Brill (Dec 23, 2015)

Kraut783 said:


> Well, all dealer sales are traceable through E-Trace...but again, that is only for sales with unbroken dealer sales.  You can only trace the weapon, not a person.  Now, on the State side:
> 
> *States that Require Registration of All Firearms*
> District of Columbia
> ...




I went from a VERY anti-gun Maryland to an INCREDIBLY pro-"do whatcha want within the law " Georgia and it feels like I'm in a different country vis a vis gun laws.

I'm the same person yet the state view me differently. Definitely an eye opener.


----------



## JBS (Dec 23, 2015)

I hear what you are saying but let me explain.

Freedom of movement is not the same thing as regulation of flying.   For example, the Constitution guarantees us freedom of movement, but the law also says you can't leave or enter the country without a passport.  No passport, no travel.   Driving a car- no license no travel.   There are certain things the government can do to regulate travel.

I don't have a problem with a no-fly list existing, especially after 9/11.   I just have a problem with the fact that no common citizen can gain access to inquire if their name is on it, and how to get it removed - 2 separate issues.   If I had to roll the dice I'd wager that 99% of the people on the list probably deserve to be on it.

I definitely think it's time in America to revisit this issue and improve the administration of any such list, but as of right now, everything I've seen makes me think it should be left in place.


Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Like the right to travel?
> 
> Freedom of movement under United States law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 23, 2015)

policemedic said:


> Yes.  In PA you fill out a 4473 and a PA State Police equivalent.  The information from the PSP form is used to create the registry.  Since there are no face-to-face sales of handguns in PA without going through an FFL or sheriff, all handgun, SBR and SBS sales are recorded and included in the registry.  PSP makes the argument that because it doesn't include long guns in the database, it isn't a registry but they're splitting hairs.  Buy a handgun in PA and I can get the details in 30 seconds on a computer.



That is very disappointing....


----------



## policemedic (Dec 23, 2015)

Kraut783 said:


> That is very disappointing....



Indeed. 

The worst part is a 'registry' is verboten by PA law,  which is why they don't include long guns. That's their out, as weak as it is.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 24, 2015)

As of January 1, 2016, licensed Texans will no longer be forced to conceal their revolvers or semi-automatic handguns while out in public.

According to a new open carry law, which Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed at a gun range last June, licensed Texans can now openly carry their firearm (as long as it’s secured in a belt or shoulder holster) in all the same places where they could already carry a concealed weapon—which is pretty much anywhere except federal buildings, courthouses, polling places, amusement parks, worship centers, sporting events, jails, and businesses like bars where more than 51 percent of their earnings come from alcohol sales.



How Texas is preparing for upcoming open carry gun law


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 25, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> As of January 1, 2016, licensed Texans will no longer be forced to conceal their revolvers or semi-automatic handguns while out in public.
> 
> According to a new open carry law, which Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed at a gun range last June, licensed Texans can now openly carry their firearm (as long as it’s secured in a belt or shoulder holster) in all the same places where they could already carry a concealed weapon—which is pretty much anywhere except federal buildings, courthouses, polling places, amusement parks, worship centers, sporting events, jails, and businesses like bars where more than 51 percent of their earnings come from alcohol sales.
> 
> ...



Moving in the opposite direction of Virginia. More states should consider the same  action as Tx..


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 25, 2015)

"Still, while the law isn’t exactly intended to make gun owners out of people who weren’t already privately packing heat, the prospect of seeing armed citizens walking down the sidewalk, *driving in their cars*, eating at restaurants, or even depositing a check at the bank has some Texans—including police—on edge."

Media loves to make big deals out of things...

Texas: you can carry in your car, no need for a CHL/open carry.   Police aren't on edge, geez.....our department has put out policies about the open carry, pretty standard and not that big of a deal.  Pretty sure banks will have the no carry notices.

Austin Chief of police can go suck eggs, one of the biggest liberals...in the biggest liberal city of Texas.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 25, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Moving in the opposite direction of Virginia. More states should consider the same  action.



How so?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 25, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> How so?



The Gov of Virginia ha declared that Virginia will no longer recognize CCW permits from more than a few states. He claims other states are granting CCW's to criminals. My hope is that those states do not follow suit and fail to recognise our Va CCW's. I just renewed my CCW for another five years, and I am wondering if the number of CCW's granted will drop. I think it will. Up to now, it has been legeal to open carry, as long as you have been cleared to purchase the weapon. Not many practice this, in fact it is rare to see open carry except for LEO's. I expect that will change too.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 25, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> The Gov of Virginia ha declared that Virginia will no longer recognize CCW permits from more than a few states. He claims other states are granting CCW's to criminals. My hope is that those states do not follow suit and fail to recognise our Va CCW's. I just renewed my CCW for another five years, and I am wondering if the number of CCW's granted will drop. I think it will. Up to now, it has been legeal to open carry, as long as you have been cleared to purchase the weapon. Not many practice this, in fact it is rare to see open carry except for LEO's. I expect that will change too.



I fear it is going in the wrong direction. VA was and is a state I always admire for it's gun laws.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 25, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> The Gov of Virginia ha declared that Virginia will no longer recognize CCW permits from more than a few states. He claims other states are granting CCW's to criminals. My hope is that those states do not follow suit and fail to recognise our Va CCW's. I just renewed my CCW for another five years, and I am wondering if the number of CCW's granted will drop. I think it will. Up to now, it has been legeal to open carry, as long as you have been cleared to purchase the weapon. Not many practice this, in fact it is rare to see open carry except for LEO's. I expect that will change too.



PA won't recognize any state that doesn't recognize a PA license to carry.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> I fear it is going in the wrong direction. VA was and is a state I always admire for it's gun laws.



I did too, until now.



policemedic said:


> PA won't recognize any state that doesn't recognize a PA license to carry.



I hope that De. will side step this insanity. My daughter lives in "slower" De. & I spend some time there. This is what happens when a relatively unknown, slow ball player tries to curry favor with both the obama and clinton camps. Maybe they'll make him Ambasador in Bengazi.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 26, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I did too, until now.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that De. will side step this insanity. My daughter lives in "slower" De. & I spend some time thee. This is what happens when a relatively unknown, slow ball player tries to curry favor with both the obama and clinton camps. Maybe they'll make him Ambasador in Bengazi.



FWIW, you can get a PA non-resident license. Between that, Florida and Utah you're good in virtually all the non-communist states.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 26, 2015)

policemedic said:


> FWIW, you can get a PA non-resident license. Between that, Florida and Utah you're good in virtually all the non-communist states.



Really, Thanks!! I appreciate the footwork


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 26, 2015)

Kraut783 said:


> "Still, while the law isn’t exactly intended to make gun owners out of people who weren’t already privately packing heat, the prospect of seeing armed citizens walking down the sidewalk, *driving in their cars*, eating at restaurants, or even depositing a check at the bank has some Texans—including police—on edge."
> 
> Media loves to make big deals out of things...
> 
> ...


The yahoo article is such a joke.
150 of 800 Police Chiefs expressed concern, mind you only 200 of 800 felt the need to respond; so 75% of the Police Chiefs are against open carry.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 26, 2015)

Another attempt by Democrats to outlaw anything that isn't a "pump" type of weapon.

Text - H.R.4269 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Assault Weapons Ban of 2015


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 26, 2015)

I wish we could just ban democrat's, but I guess that would be kind of unconstitutional, and maybe a bit irrational, or a poor use of common sense when dealing with irrational senseless people. IDK, I guess I'll just scream "come and take it" as I charge a round in the chamber...






And no I will not be fighting the government, its a jokingly usage of my first amendment right in support of my second amendment right, as I plan to use my forth amendment right after I bury my shit in the Texas Hill country, or maybe somewhere in west Texas, but most definitely not by the coast, as salt water is too corrosive...or is it? Maybe I should use my fifth amendment right to STFU now.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 27, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Another attempt by Democrats to outlaw anything that isn't a "pump" type of weapon.
> 
> Text - H.R.4269 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Assault Weapons Ban of 2015



Truthfully, I read thru the list of guns listed and kept thinking, "wow! I didn't know _they _made _that_, I'm going to have to get me one of those!"


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 27, 2015)

While I typically despise the NY Times (and still do in this case), here is a pretty interesting article they put out after the Newtown shooting.  Their point being that 1,500 state gun bills were introduced in the year after the Newtown massacre.  178 passed at least one chamber of a state legislature, and 109 have become law.

Of those 109, 39 laws tightened gun rights while 70 of them actually loosened controls.  Take a look at your state and see if you are getting what you voted for:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...s-enacted-in-the-year-since-newtown.html?_r=0


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 27, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> While I typically despise the NY Times (and still do in this case), here is a pretty interesting article they put out after the Newtown shooting.  Their point being that 1,500 state gun bills were introduced in the year after the Newtown massacre.  178 passed at least one chamber of a state legislature, and 109 have become law.
> 
> Of those 109, 39 laws tightened gun rights while 70 of them actually loosened controls.  Take a look at your state and see if you are getting what you voted for:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...s-enacted-in-the-year-since-newtown.html?_r=0



I would like to move to DE or VA. They have nice gun laws.


----------



## Brill (Dec 27, 2015)

I read a story where MN Supreme Court will decide whether a BB gun is a firearm (felon was imprisoned for possession of BB gun, considered a firearm).

BB Guns - FindLaw


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Dec 27, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> I would like to move to DE or VA. They have nice gun laws.


So does AZ. Plus, the cost of living is good, jobs are abundant and you can wear shorts and flip flops year-round.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 27, 2015)

SkrewzLoose said:


> So does AZ. Plus, the cost of living is good, jobs are abundant and you can wear shorts and flip flops year-round.


 
That sounds like a good idea.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Dec 27, 2015)

I lived there for 6 years and I loved it.
Gun related: Gun shows there are awesome, great selection and deals to be made as the last day draws to a close. Ranges are abundant, everything from country clubs for gun guys to hole-in-the-wall type places that have probably been there for 50-60 years. There are places 'out in the desert' to go shoot as well.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 27, 2015)

lindy said:


> I read a story where MN Supreme Court will decide whether a BB gun is a firearm (felon was imprisoned for possession of BB gun, considered a firearm).
> 
> BB Guns - FindLaw



I don't have time to research it right now, but that article seems to be in contradiction to the BATFE's stance on air guns, not to mention air guns are widely considered non firearms on an international level. I think I would fight that in charge in federal court.

It's a bit retarded to attempt to equate a bb gun with the right to keep and bear arms. I can see a ruling coming down, which could effect ownership, sales and transfers of all kinds of crap (air soft, bb guns, crossbows, black powder, pocketknives, etc). 


With todays stupidity, its better to move and avoid shitty states that infringe on people simply b/c the elected government are filled with gigantic pussies.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 27, 2015)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I don't have time to research it right now, but that article seems to be in contradiction to the BATFE's stance on air guns, not to mention air guns are widely considered non firearms on an international level. I think I would fight that in charge in federal court.
> 
> It's a bit retarded to attempt to equate a bb gun with the right to keep and bear arms. I can see a ruling coming down, which could effect ownership, sales and transfers of all kinds of crap (air soft, bb guns, crossbows, black powder, pocketknives, etc).
> 
> ...



Moving may be a temporary solution to a long term shift. Sure I could move but my state will continue to shift further and I fear a domino effect.


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 27, 2015)

lindy said:


> I read a story where MN Supreme Court will decide whether a BB gun is a firearm (felon was imprisoned for possession of BB gun, considered a firearm).
> 
> BB Guns - FindLaw



Already done up here but only those capable of more than 499fps.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 27, 2015)

RackMaster said:


> Already done up here but only those capable of more than 499fps.



Which puts you at the mercy of a chronometer.  Better hope you don't pump that Red Ryder one too many times....


Merde.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 27, 2015)

lindy said:


> I read a story where MN Supreme Court will decide whether a BB gun is a firearm (felon was imprisoned for possession of BB gun, considered a firearm).
> 
> BB Guns - FindLaw


How was he using the BB Gun?
If he was acting like it was a real weapon, then tough shit.


----------



## Brill (Dec 28, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> How was he using the BB Gun?
> If he was acting like it was a real weapon, then tough shit.



It was found in the glove box during a traffic stop.


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 28, 2015)

policemedic said:


> Which puts you at the mercy of a chronometer.  Better hope you don't pump that Red Ryder one too many times....
> 
> 
> Merde.



At least they aren't banning evil looking BB guns yet.  Cause we all know if it looks like an "assault rifle", it instantly shoots rockets and fireballs in full auto without reloading.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 1, 2016)

Possible new firearms laws

Presient Barack Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch to meet ahead of new executive action on guns - CNNPolitics.com

I don't like this at all.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 1, 2016)

Obama consulted with Bloomberg. That's never a good sign.


----------



## Dame (Jan 1, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> The Gov of Virginia ha declared that Virginia will no longer recognize CCW permits from more than a few states. He claims other states are granting CCW's to criminals. My hope is that those states do not follow suit and fail to recognise our Va CCW's. I just renewed my CCW for another five years, and I am wondering if the number of CCW's granted will drop. I think it will. Up to now, it has been legeal to open carry, as long as you have been cleared to purchase the weapon. Not many practice this, in fact it is rare to see open carry except for LEO's. I expect that will change too.



LOL. Bad move there Governor McAuliff. The Republican controlled legislature has a plan.


> “A lot of the governor’s power is deferred to the General Assembly at that point and I’ll be getting with my colleagues to circumvent everything this governor has done on this point,” he said. “I have a budget amendment that I’m looking at to take away his executive protection unit. If he’s so afraid of guns, then I’m not going to surround him with armed state policemen.”
> Virginia Sen. Bill Carrico


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 1, 2016)

I think Obama's Executive Actions will be ignored by a large segment of society, DoJ will find someone to make an example out of, but his EA's may not pass the court test.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 2, 2016)

2nd day of Open Carry in Texas.....and no issues in the Dallas Metro area.  The news actually went out looking for people carrying......wanting it to be a huge issue, they were disappointed.


----------



## JBS (Jan 2, 2016)

If you think this is bad, imagine a Hillary presidency.


DA SWO said:


> I think Obama's Executive Actions will be ignored by a large segment of society, DoJ will find someone to make an example out of, but his EA's may not pass the court test.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 2, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> 2nd day of Open Carry in Texas.....and no issues in the Dallas Metro area.  The news actually went out looking for people carrying......wanting it to be a huge issue, they were disappointed.



San Antonio Express news has ran constant articles about it the past week, with liberal spin. "All Police chiefs think its bad, businesses are banning it, blah, blah, blahhh".

Today was probably the most comfortable I've been carrying in a long, long time. Not really open, OTWB, but just wearing a jacket, but not freaking out about possibly accidental exposure.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 2, 2016)

God Bless Texas. 

It's where I'm running to when the SHTF.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 2, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> God Bless Texas.
> 
> It's where I'm running to when the SHTF.



BYOBBA





Bring your own beer, bait & ammo.


----------



## Brill (Jan 3, 2016)

Here we go again: POTUS about to do yet another power grab yet doesn't appear to care that power is a zero sum game.  If the executive branch gains power, it TAKES it from either the other branches or from the governed.  This President needs to read the Declaration of Independence.

"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the *consent of the governed*,.."



> “The president is a petulant child,” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie told “Fox News Sunday.” *“Whenever he doesn’t get what he wants, … this president acts like a king.”*
> 
> *“The president has a pattern of taking away rights of citizens,”* GOP candidate and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told “Fox News Sunday.”
> 
> ...



Christie, Bush take aim at Obama's plan to use executive powers to tighten gun control laws | Fox News


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jan 3, 2016)

New California law allows police to seize guns without notice  | Fox News

I don't like where this is going, talk about a slippery slope. 
While I agree that mental  health is, and should be, a piece of this conversation, I don't like that this is reactive vice proactive. I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think this is it.


----------



## Brill (Jan 3, 2016)

SkrewzLoose said:


> New California law allows police to seize guns without notice  | Fox News
> 
> I don't like where this is going, talk about a slippery slope.
> While I agree that mental  health is, and should be, a piece of this conversation, I don't like that this is reactive vice proactive. I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think this is it.



Can a state legislate away a citizen's Constitutional right without due process?


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jan 3, 2016)

They're claiming (in the article somewhere) that the 21 day period allows for 'due process' to take place. But as far as due process for confiscating the firearms, I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 3, 2016)

Obama seems conflicted over Hilary; on one hand, he could indict her and take her out of the game, but doesn't.  He then proposes actions she will support knowing the voter base on both sides disagrees with his actions, thereby hurting her campaign.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 3, 2016)

SkrewzLoose said:


> New California law allows police to seize guns without notice  | Fox News
> 
> I don't like where this is going, talk about a slippery slope.
> While I agree that mental  health is, and should be, a piece of this conversation, I don't like that this is reactive vice proactive. I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think this is it.



My concern is the "mental health" flag will be abused.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 3, 2016)

I also want to make another post that We The People aren't doing enough. We are allowing such laws to pass which infringes on our rights. I just don't know what else to do.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 3, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> I also want to make another post that We The People aren't doing enough. We are allowing such laws to pass which infringes on our rights. I just don't know what else to do.



It's going to come to a head, our society is split down the middle, one group thinks people don't have rights, the other thinks we do. I foresee a second civil war, when IDK, but it's almost impossible to avoid at this point.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 3, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> It's going to come to a head, our society is split down the middle, one group thinks people don't have rights, the other thinks we do. I foresee a second civil war, when IDK, but it's almost impossible to avoid at this point.



I don't think it will come to that. I think it will continue to be a center struggle.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 3, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> I don't think it will come to that. I think it will continue to be a center struggle.



Let's hope you're right.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 3, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Let's hope you're right.



I hope so. I now understand why people are armed to the teeth in public. I now carry a (legal) knife with me at all times.  I am always checking out where I am going.

I don't like any of these gun laws and I fear it will take the country in the wrong direction.


----------



## x SF med (Jan 3, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> I now carry a (legal) knife with me at all times. I am always checking out where I am going.




Took you long enough....:wall:


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 3, 2016)

x SF med said:


> Took you long enough....:wall:



Good thing you hooked me up:-"


----------



## Aim Small Miss Small (Jan 3, 2016)

The fact is that we have a God given right to defend ourselves. The Constitution clearly states that this is a right that is not up for discussion. We have the right to arm ourselves. The very reason they guaranteed this right was due to an oppressive government like the one we have. If we cannot defend ourselves, our voices are of no use. The system of checks and balances is failing and the people's voices don't matter. Anytime POTUS wants to do something, he just creates and executive order. Many of his executive orders have been un-Constitutional and this would just be another. The fact is that gun laws only affect law abiding citizens and make it easier for bad guys. Bad guys don't use guns registered to them. Sure, some crimes are committed with the persons own weapon but generally they are stolen or purchased illegally. Gun control does not work and never will in a nation with over 300 million guns. It is time to allow the People to be armed without all the shenanigans. Waiting periods, background checks, and gun safety quizzes literally do nothing to deter crime. It is all a means for the government to make money off of citizens exercising there rights. I'm tired of the left trying to make victims of people so they run to the government for help. We are not free anymore. It is sad. We also need to allow military to own guns on base. That is something tat shocks me that we don't allow the highly trained persons who serve and protect this country to own a firearm on base. That is nutty to me. I just hope we get a pro 2nd Amendment President once Obama is gone. And the statistics show just how horrible gun restrictions are. One look at the utopia of Chicago and see that. Accounting for 1/4 of all gun homicides every year. Almost 3,000 this year. Crazy.


----------



## Grunt (Jan 3, 2016)

Indeed it is our right, but we as a nation are too apathetic to anything to matter. Most people...could care less about an individuals right to bear arms...concealed or not. I know avid hunters who could care less about one's ability to open or CC a firearm. They simply care about their shotgun and nothing more.

Apathy is a silent killer and it's doing its work well!


----------



## Aim Small Miss Small (Jan 3, 2016)

Agoge said:


> Indeed it is our right, but we as a nation are too apathetic to anything to matter. Most people...could care less about an individuals right to bear arms...concealed or not. I know avid hunters who could care less about one's ability to open or CC a firearm. They simply care about their shotgun and nothing more.
> 
> Apathy is a silent killer and it's doing its work well!


Agreed! I don't understand why some guys don't care. All gun owners need to stand together. Whether you only want a shot gun or to have an AR-15. We should all be standing together on this.


----------



## Brill (Jan 3, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> My concern is the "mental health" flag will be abused.



Gauran-damn-tee OEF and OEF vets will be over represented in the "acquisitions".


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 3, 2016)

lindy said:


> Gauran-damn-tee OEF and OEF vets will be over represented in the "acquisitions".



That scares me.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 3, 2016)

lindy said:


> Gauran-damn-tee OEF and OEF vets will be over represented in the "acquisitions".


All Vets in general.
It'll come down to a city/suburban vs suburban/rural debate.
I see some sort of civil violence in the future, civil war, maybe; over reaction to a terror incident, possibly, reaction to the abuse of power by the feds-IMO most probable.
The left taught civil disobedience during the 60's and those on the right are starting to mimic those protestors.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 3, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> All Vets in general.
> It'll come down to a city/suburban vs suburban/rural debate.
> I see some sort of civil violence in the future, civil war, maybe; over reaction to a terror incident, possibly, reaction to the abuse of power by the feds-IMO most probable.
> The left taught civil disobedience during the 60's and those on the right are starting to mimic those protestors.



I can see more protests from the right/gun rights crowd. You see some of them now at those NRA themed rallies.


----------



## pardus (Jan 3, 2016)

I'm waiting to see a resurgence of the "right wing militias" again.
Something has to give, people are not going to let this all slide. Now whether that is a fringe element or a majority who knows, I strongly suspect only a small percentage will take action, but Timothy McVeigh etc... made a huge "statement" for lessor reasons. I guess we will have to wait and see. 
I can also see a rise of left wing violence, mass civil disobedience, in fact that has already started in many places.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 3, 2016)

pardus said:


> I'm waiting to see a resurgence of the "right wing militias" again.



Are you talking about self-declared militias (e.g. the "three percent" crowd), or the media labeling anyone who has thoughts of owning a firearm as a member of an extreme right-wing militia?


----------



## pardus (Jan 4, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> Are you talking about self-declared militias (e.g. the "three percent" crowd), or the media labeling anyone who has thoughts of owning a firearm as a member of an extreme right-wing militia?



Self declared. 
The media's ravings mean little to me.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 4, 2016)

pardus said:


> Self declared.
> The media's ravings mean little to me.



Agree on the first.  Agree/disagree on the second:

As much as I don't give a fuck what comes out of Rachel Maddow's facehole (just an example; it can be applied to the rest of her ilk), their intentionally inaccurate portrayals of fact and pushing of the narrative is exactly how two things happen:
- law-abiding citizens are marginalized and routine behaviors become viewed as "fringe"
- populations are set against each other - the more they project an "us vs. them" mindset (which they've done for decades, but has taken a sharp increase in the last 8-10 years), the more the population becomes polarized, and the more the Fourth Estate undermines this country. 

It may not mean much to you or I, but to a lot of people (including people I know, not just a faceless "them") the shiny bright picture box is the word of truth. 

I'm not saying they need to sing along with the good narrative, but I don't think for one second that they do what they do with any regard for the impact it has on American society.  If anything, many of them are utilizing techniques documented in playbooks of how to deconstruct/destroy a nation (e.g. Rules for Radicals).

I'll just take this moment to reiterate my opinion that most (if not all) media are vermin.

(As a quick example - the latest protest in Burns, OR would have been characterized as people fighting injustice if it had a different demographic makeup fighting against someone being sent back to prison after having served the sentence.  Instead, it's an "anti-government militia"... which changes how millions of people will view the issues surrounding complaints against the justice system.)


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 4, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> As much as I don't give a fuck what comes out of Rachel Maddow's facehole (just an example; it can be applied to the rest of her ilk), their intentionally inaccurate portrayals of fact and pushing of the narrative is exactly how two things happen:
> - law-abiding citizens are marginalized and routine behaviors become viewed as "fringe"
> - populations are set against each other - the more they project an "us vs. them" mindset (which they've done for decades, but has taken a sharp increase in the last 8-10 years), the more the population becomes polarized, and the more the Fourth Estate undermines this country.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brill (Jan 4, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> As much as I don't give a fuck *what comes out of Rachel Maddow's facehole* (just an example; it can be applied to the rest of her ilk),* their intentionally inaccurate portrayals of fact and pushing of the narrative* is exactly how two things happen:
> - law-abiding citizens are marginalized and routine behaviors become viewed as "fringe"
> - populations are set against each other - the more they project an "us vs. them" mindset (which they've done for decades, but has taken a sharp increase in the last 8-10 years), the more the population becomes polarized, and the more the Fourth Estate undermines this country.



That *shit* is coming straight out of the White House.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 4, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> All Vets in general...


 
Veterans represent a huge potential gray army of trained marksmen, many of them combat-experienced, that the gun-banners fear the most. A vet who's gotten some routine counciling for PTSD somewhere along the road might constitute a threat under interpretations of bullshit laws like this.

As far as constitutionality is concerned, local judges and municipalities can get away with a lot of mischief before higher courts get involved.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 4, 2016)

@Devildoc : that just bolsters why, even though I tune out when certain tards start talking, we should be worried about the effect they have on others, particularly voters and decision-makers.

On a slightly different note (but still on topic) I came across this on SHTFGear's page: Instagram photo by SHTF Gear • Oct 27, 2015 at 7:25pm UTC
(computer doesn't want to grab the image, so you get a link).


----------



## Grunt (Jan 4, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> ...local judges and municipalities can get away with a lot of mischief before higher courts get involved.



Very true...and many of those cases are only brought to higher courts if the plaintiffs have the ability to fund it further up the chain. 

We will never know all of the "out of the world" decisions that are made in smaller courts that we will never hear of.


----------



## JBS (Jan 4, 2016)

Oddly enough, I have not noticed the usual uptick in pricing that tends to precede Leftist gun grab legislation.

No real change in pricing (AK's are up a hair, but they are always hot and cold), and ammo/mags/rifles are a-plenty.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 4, 2016)

JBS said:


> Oddly enough, I have not noticed the usual uptick in pricing that tends to precede Leftist gun grab legislation.
> 
> No real change in pricing (AK's are up a hair, but they are always hot and cold), and ammo/mags/rifles are a-plenty.


Everyone bought what they could for Christmas.
They are now broke.


----------



## CQB (Jan 5, 2016)

Did I miss something?


----------



## Brill (Jan 5, 2016)

Can anyone say how this new EO will keep people safer and reduce fun violence?

I've never seen MD gangbangers at the MD or VA gunshows.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 5, 2016)

lindy said:


> Can anyone say how this new EO will keep people safer and reduce fun violence?
> 
> I've never seen MD gangbangers at the MD or VA gunshows.


How will they know?
My guess is they start running a bunch of stings at gun shows.
I am lucky, my CHL (or LTC as it is now called) acts as my NICS here in TX.


----------



## JBS (Jan 5, 2016)

I've been streaming CNN, and the press conference on this, as well as the common mantra among the pundits is that it "might" have some impact on some potential violence.  I also heard that "if it saves even one person", it would be worth it.

Even democrats admit this EO/edict wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook, or San Bernardino, or any of the other mass shootings.


----------



## Brill (Jan 5, 2016)

@JBS , it's about enforcing the laws we have! Crush the gang gun violence...but then the Dims would lose their voting base.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 5, 2016)

I never figured street gang members to be the types to go out and vote, no matter what the country.


----------



## Brill (Jan 5, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> I never figured street gang members to be the types to go out and vote, no matter what the country.



No, of course not but Damn sure doesn't stop their NAMES from being used. Tactic used by Democrats...in Illinois I think.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 5, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> I never figured street gang members to be the types to go out and vote, no matter what the country.


 
They don't vote. But...conventional wisdom among the Left is that since so many minority gang members are incarcerated, most of them must be innocent victims of police racism. Therefore, they are just the victims of a corrupt, racist society run by sadistic White Men. The aforementioned White Men are probably members of the National Rifle Association, a radical group that's about a red cunt hair away from all but being designated a domestic terrorist organization by the next Leftist regime that takes power in this country.


----------



## Poccington (Jan 5, 2016)

Why was he crying?

Crying on television and trying to invoke imagery of heartbroken families and dead children does nothing but make the decision to declare an EO seem like it was emotive decision, rather than a decision backed by facts, figures and a watertight argument. His tears seemed more like an attempt to appeal to a certain audience that he was doing the right thing.

I have no particular dog in this fight, as it doesn't effect me. President Obama's tears really just bugged me though.


----------



## JBS (Jan 5, 2016)

The Unted States has a strange dynamic, and it's hard to understand until you realize that* 1 in 3 black males in America will be incarcerated during their lifetime.  *Now, think about the sons, daughters, wives, girlfriends, grandmothers, uncles, cousins, etc.   If you are African American, issues that have anything to do with the justice system will touch you... always.

http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_ICCPR Race and Justice Shadow Report.pdf

This staggering statistic explains why, if you are a Democrat, you can pander to minorities in ways that come off looking "soft" on crime, when viewed from the white middle class demographic point of view.

It really is about votes.


SpitfireV said:


> I never figured street gang members to be the types to go out and vote, no matter what the country.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 5, 2016)

Maybe 1 in 3 black males should, you know, not do shit to get incarcerated?

It's just a thought.


----------



## Brill (Jan 5, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Maybe 1 in 3 black males should, you know, not do shit to get incarcerated?
> 
> It's just a thought.



That is so insensitive! You expected Baltimore to just burn and loot itself?


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 5, 2016)

JBS said:


> The Unted States has a strange dynamic, and it's hard to understand until you realize that* 1 in 3 black males in America will be incarcerated during their lifetime.  *Now, think about the sons, daughters, wives, girlfriends, grandmothers, uncles, cousins, etc.   If you are African American, issues that have anything to do with the justice system will touch you... always.
> 
> http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_ICCPR Race and Justice Shadow Report.pdf
> 
> ...



Yeah I'll be honest and say I have no idea. I took the quote at face value which wasn't really the sensible thing to do.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jan 6, 2016)

Regarding voting and gang activity, there is a neat little section about this in the book _Gang Leader for a Day _(pg 75-86)_. _Sorry for not posting a link. Short version, Chicago gang leaders partner up with community groups and they send out their peons door to door. The low level guys collect information and tell people who to vote for. What I understood was that the politicians were equivalent to Colonels, community groups to staff officers, gang leaders to line officers/ ncos, and the gang members to joes.

The joes in this context would be tasked out to see who was registered, drive people to polling locations, make sure everyone voted, and coerce people to vote for the candidate the gang was backing. Not trying to rag on Chicago or the left, but it makes me wonder what ties the left has to organized crime in order to pull these things off. In particular when passing laws that don't seem to touch organized crime.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 6, 2016)

R.Caerbannog said:


> ...Not trying to rag on Chicago or the left, but it makes me wonder what ties the left has to organized crime in order to pull these things off. In particular when passing laws that don't seem to touch organized crime.


 
If you live in the 'hood, black or Latino, you're tied to organized crime. Somebody you know, neighbor's kid, your third cousin, your sister's boyfriend, somebody in your family or extended family has a gang connection. That's a broad statement but I believe it to be true. And whatever local politician represents you is either A. gonna have a gang connection somewhere on the family tree, or B. be sympathetic to issues related to prevailing conditions (i.e. aware of who the real power-brokers are in the 'hood), C. be scared to death of them or D. pander to them like a slavering dog.

And Leftist politicians up the chain will pander to any minority.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 6, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> And whatever local politician represents you is either A. gonna have a gang connection somewhere on the family tree, or B. be sympathetic to issues related to prevailing conditions (i.e. aware of who the real power-brokers are in the 'hood), C. be scared to death of them or D. pander to them like a slavering dog.



Or some combination thereof.


----------



## Brill (Jan 6, 2016)

https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download

How many crimes are committed by persons who receive guns from estates?  The new background check regulations (it ain't no law) now require it!


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 6, 2016)

lindy said:


> https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download
> 
> How many crimes are committed by persons who receive guns from estates?  The new background check regulations (it ain't no law) now require it!


Which is funny because the talking head on the radio just said estate's were exempt.
The object is to identify weapons which have "fallen off the RADAR" for eventual confiscation.


----------



## JBS (Jan 6, 2016)

Baby steps toward confiscation; the long term goal of some is clearly to disarm the people.

There is no other conceivable legitimate reason for this, as the statistics show this is addressing an area virtually free of criminal activity.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jan 6, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> If you live in the 'hood, black or Latino, you're tied to organized crime. Somebody you know, neighbor's kid, your third cousin, your sister's boyfriend, somebody in your family or extended family has a gang connection. That's a broad statement but I believe it to be true. And whatever local politician represents you is either A. gonna have a gang connection somewhere on the family tree, or B. be sympathetic to issues related to prevailing conditions (i.e. aware of who the real power-brokers are in the 'hood), C. be scared to death of them or D. pander to them like a slavering dog.
> 
> And Leftist politicians up the chain will pander to any minority.



I think your dead on. Heck I've seen this criminal connection in the ghetto and nice leafy college cities.



Totentanz said:


> Or some combination thereof.



This makes me wonder what their endgame is. How do these politicians profit by trying to pass these laws, and who is going to profit from their actions in the long run? I keep hearing the words legacy, control, confiscation, ignorance, and hubris to describe the reason for these changes. What I don't understand is the long term reasoning behind all of these decisions. What is driving the figureheads of the country to act in such a strange manner?

Sorry if I'm grasping at straws. Trying to figure out the motivations behind these shenanigans has been bugging the shit out of me.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 6, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> If you live in the 'hood, black or Latino, you're tied to organized crime. Somebody you know, neighbor's kid, your third cousin, your sister's boyfriend, somebody in your family or extended family has a gang connection. That's a broad statement but I believe it to be true. And whatever local politician represents you is either A. gonna have a gang connection somewhere on the family tree, or B. be sympathetic to issues related to prevailing conditions (i.e. aware of who the real power-brokers are in the 'hood), C. be scared to death of them or D. pander to them like a slavering dog.
> 
> And Leftist politicians up the chain will pander to any minority.


Dead on.
I had a guy who worked as my NCOIC (last assignment) whose wife seemed connected to every gang-banger that dies in San Antonio.
I made him wear B's to the funerals


----------



## Grunt (Jan 6, 2016)

R.Caerbannog said:


> This makes me wonder what their endgame is. How do these politicians profit by trying to pass these laws, and who is going to profit from their actions in the long run? I keep hearing the words legacy, control, confiscation, ignorance, and hubris to describe the reason for these changes. What I don't understand is the long term reasoning behind all of these decisions. What is driving the figureheads of the country to act in such a strange manner?



Guns -- and fighting their existence -- is a money issue as much as a safety one. In the eyes of those that want to take guns away and restrict them to the point of not wanting to have one if you do...guns = drugs = gangs and mayhem.  Heck...there are agencies whose sole purpose is weapons based.

Fighting the guns -- which can't fight back -- allows them the opportunity to attack a tool rather than having to attack the real problem -- the tools using the weapons.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 6, 2016)

Ok so here is something that bothers me.

A vet with PTSD who is deemed unfit under these new rules gets denied a gun.

My response is he is good enough to carry a rifle and serve but can't in the civilian world?

It bothers me and I am not sure why.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 6, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> Ok so here is something that bothers me.
> 
> A vet with PTSD who is deemed unfit under these new rules gets denied a gun.
> 
> ...


Because the Administration (via the VA) has been working to disarm vets.
Because guys will avoid a PTSD diagnosis to keep their weapons, thereby not getting treatment for what may be a mild issue.
Because getting off the "bad boy" list will be next to impossible.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 7, 2016)

What he said.


----------



## Brill (Jan 7, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> Ok so here is something that bothers me.
> 
> A vet with PTSD who is deemed unfit under these new rules gets denied a gun.
> 
> ...



Email your Representatives and Senators.  Personally, I think it's sad when people who hate both the military and guns are making decisions about military and guns.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 7, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Because the Administration (via the VA) has been working to disarm vets.
> Because guys will avoid a PTSD diagnosis to keep their weapons, thereby not getting treatment for what may be a mild issue.
> Because getting off the "bad boy" list will be next to impossible.



So sad and angry



policemedic said:


> What he said.





lindy said:


> Email your Representatives and Senators.  Personally, I think it's sad when people who hate both the military and guns are making decisions about military and guns.



I have. It's sad. 

I need a gun and these laws work against me.


----------



## x SF med (Jan 7, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Dead on.
> I had a guy who worked as my NCOIC (last assignment) whose wife seemed connected to every gang-banger that dies in San Antonio.
> I made him wear B's to the funerals



Not that the bangers or probably even the NCO got the subtle message of disrespect to the gangs.


----------



## Brill (Jan 7, 2016)

Cruz pointed to 2013 as an example. 

"There were 54,000 felons and fugitives who tried to illegally buy a firearm. Do you know how many of those the Obama administration prosecuted? Forty-four. Forty-four out of 54,000 were prosecuted," he said.

Ted Cruz: President Obama is 'not telling the truth' about guns - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 7, 2016)

lindy said:


> Cruz pointed to 2013 as an example.
> 
> "There were 54,000 felons and fugitives who tried to illegally buy a firearm. Do you know how many of those the Obama administration prosecuted? Forty-four. Forty-four out of 54,000 were prosecuted," he said.
> 
> Ted Cruz: President Obama is 'not telling the truth' about guns - CNNPolitics.com



The others may have been working for BATFE


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 18, 2016)

Veterans should lead push for more secure gun laws

"I have always been perplexed by the knee-jerk opposition of some veterans to any mention of gun control..."


----------



## JBS (Jan 18, 2016)

All these felons would have a lot more luck getting guns if they'd just hang out near the Mexican border and wait for the ATF to give them over.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 18, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> Veterans should lead push for more secure gun laws
> 
> "I have always been perplexed by the knee-jerk opposition of some veterans to any mention of gun control..."



I can go with background checks but not much beyond that.  Rules, regs, polices and new laws are not the complete answer. Enforcing current laws are, at the least, a start.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 18, 2016)

"Hypothetical" 


2A set aside, lets say we didn't have a right to keep and bear arms. Or that in the forming of a more perfect government, we amended the 2A. Lets say there was no conspiracy or fears of a political agenda to take Mr & Mrs Americans guns away.

What would be acceptable regulatory restrictions on gun ownership or possession?

To give an example, I am more concerned with firearm safety and training than background checks or age limits. I don't care if someone committed a crime in the past, if they paid their debt to society and are now amongst society again, its a bit of a moot point to me. However, I've had more loaded guns pointed at me by untrained and unsafe gun owners than by any criminal. How there are not more negligent shooting of people at shooting ranges, is really beyond me. LEO's, Mil, and Civi's all combined, I've seen some of the most unsafe and idiotic behavior from people who would pass just about any background check the government could give them. 

Now I realize mental health is a big issue, but i think its an issue for all aspects of society and shouldn't be focused solely on buying a gun. As crazy people shouldn't even be allowed in society, driving cars, owning animals or even having children. We have seen the results in people abusing animals, children, killing them by drowning them in bathtubs and shit.

So what would a responsible society that was not divided on fear or political agendas, do to have a safe and responsible process for firearm ownership?

Mandatory background checks?
Mandatory mental health screening's?
Mandatory safety training?
Mandatory age limit's?
Special Licenses?
Restrictions on types?

This is just a hypothetical question, I've stated my thoughts many times in this thread, that until the 2A is amended, I believe all gun control measures are unconstitutional. IMO, as the U.S. constitution reads, the government has no ability to restrict my right to keep and bear an M2 machine gun, much less my AR15's, etc. 

I just want to read peoples personal opinions outside of the standing argument and politics.


----------



## pardus (Jan 18, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> Veterans should lead push for more secure gun laws
> 
> "I have always been perplexed by the knee-jerk opposition of some veterans to any mention of gun control..."





> Further restrictions on gun ownership would not prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns.





> We should be willing to at least consider other forms of gun control, such as prohibitions on military-grade assault rifles,



The author of that article is not only ignorant to what the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution is/was set up for, or a fool for thinking law abiding citizens wouldn't be adversely affected, but has clearly forgotten the oath he swore to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

He's perplexed? Maybe because he's never followed the subject and seen that every time an inch is give/taken by the gun grabbers, they simply use that as a stepping stone to the next level of gun control, with the ultimate aim of removing private gun ownership.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 18, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> Veterans should lead push for more secure gun laws
> 
> "I have always been perplexed by the knee-jerk opposition of some veterans to any mention of gun control..."


Maybe because we see existing laws not being enforced?
Why no liberal knee jerk reaction to DoJ's lack of prosecutions?
How many felons are prevented by NICS from getting a gun vs how many prosecutions of said felons?
Why have laws if you don't enforce them, something akin to don't give an order that can not be enforced?


----------



## Brill (Jan 18, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> Veterans should lead push for more secure gun laws
> 
> "I have always been perplexed by the knee-jerk opposition of some veterans to any mention of gun control..."



I'd be for "deputizing" gun dealers with arrest authority when a felon illegally tries to buy a firearm.  Get the word out: pop positive on a BC, spend the night in jail or violate parole and return to prison. Enforce laws on the books before making more.

Which branch of government is responsible for enforcing laws?


----------



## Brill (Jan 18, 2016)

@Diamondback 2/2 , in Soviet Russia, guns take you away.

Seriously, I think you're missing the point of the 2nd Amendment, which is to make the government AFRAID of the people.

When government fears the people, there is liberty...(Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 18, 2016)

lindy said:


> @Diamondback 2/2 , in Soviet Russia, guns take you away.
> 
> Seriously, I think you're missing the point of the 2nd Amendment, which is to make the government AFRAID of the people.
> 
> When government fears the people, there is liberty...(Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello



I'm fully aware of the intended purpose of the 2A, hints the hypothetical question, vs a statement of what we should do moving forward. I am against all restrictions of ownership and possession, because of the 2A, its meaning, the reasoning behind it, and the fact that the no where in the document is there any authority for the three branches of government to circumvent the rights guaranteed under the bill of rights.

Presenting the hypothetical question, was an effort to gauge opinions on what they think is acceptable regulation in modern society, if the 2A did not exist. I.e. What would good sound regulation look like "if" the 2A or political agenda was not part of the discussion. Another example is saying "I'm for background checks, but not training requirements" the 2A as it reads, doesn't require a background check, so being we're already violating the 2A, let have a hypothetical debate on what "better, smarter, common sense restrictions" look like.


----------



## compforce (Jan 18, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I'm fully aware of the intended purpose of the 2A, hints the hypothetical question, vs a statement of what we should do moving forward. I am against all restrictions of ownership and possession, because of the 2A, its meaning, the reasoning behind it, and the fact that the no where in the document is there any authority for the three branches of government to circumvent the rights guaranteed under the bill of rights.
> 
> Presenting the hypothetical question, was an effort to gauge opinions on what they think is acceptable regulation in modern society, if the 2A did not exist. I.e. What would good sound regulation look like "if" the 2A or political agenda was not part of the discussion. Another example is saying "I'm for background checks, but not training requirements" the 2A as it reads, doesn't require a background check, so being we're already violating the 2A, let have a hypothetical debate on what "better, smarter, common sense restrictions" look like.



I think you have to take a step back and ask what problem we're trying to solve.  Are we trying to reduce the number of guns?  Are we trying to reduce the number of mass shootings?  Are we trying to reduce the overall number of deaths?  Etc.  Until you actually define the problem that you are trying to solve, you can't possibly suggest a solution.

5 step problem solving formula (some of you may remember this from PLDC):
1) Identify the problem
2) Identify potential solutions for the problem
3) Evaluate the potential solutions to identify the "best solution"
4) implement the "best solution"
5) evaluate the outcome

Just throwing out random solutions that may or may not actually be valid would be a complete exercise in randomness and would result in a random outcome.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 18, 2016)

compforce said:


> I think you have to take a step back and ask what problem we're trying to solve.  Are we trying to reduce the number of guns?  Are we trying to reduce the number of mass shootings?  Are we trying to reduce the overall number of deaths?  Etc.  Until you actually define the problem that you are trying to solve, you can't possibly suggest a solution.
> 
> 5 step problem solving formula (some of you may remember this from PLDC):
> 1) Identify the problem
> ...



Well said, I think the obvious issue currently is reducing firearm related deaths. To define it in detail, I would imagine it would be more so reducing firearm related murders, manslaughter and accidental death. However, the extremes would be some fat lady on CNN screaming any gun related death is too many, down with the NRA, arrest the cops, lock up the deer hunters, etc.

So with that, I guess my idea falls directly on it face. lol


----------



## AWP (Jan 18, 2016)

About the only way you could curb gun violence today is if you went about 70 years back in time and confiscated every gun in America.


----------



## Brill (Jan 18, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> About the only way you could curb gun violence today is if you went about 70 years back in time and confiscated every gun in America.



Only possible via the quantum deep web...damn, I've said too much already.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 18, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> "Hypothetical"
> 
> 
> 2A set aside, lets say we didn't have a right to keep and bear arms. Or that in the forming of a more perfect government, we amended the 2A. Lets say there was no conspiracy or fears of a political agenda to take Mr & Mrs Americans guns away.
> ...



I can go with mandatory background checks and taking safety classes. Which seems to be done to a degree already. I am not sure beyond that.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 18, 2016)

@Diamondback 2/2 without the 2A, you get Canadian gun laws and we are screwed by the fear mongering left whenever they come in power.


----------



## Brill (Jan 19, 2016)

I'm surprised that CNN is "exposing" the truth vis a vis the "loophole".

How the Iron Pipeline funnels guns into cities with tough gun laws


----------



## Bypass (Jan 19, 2016)

So the POTUS screwed up my ability to get new NFA items on my trust. That prevents gun violence how? Since so many SBRs today and cans are being used to commit violent acts.

I can no longer buy, sell, and trade firearms without a license. This has been a hobby of mine for years. Thanks.


----------



## Brill (Jan 19, 2016)

This country has lost it's fricken mind.  Below is a story of a detective who lost his job because he was seen holding (not campaigning but holding (he picked a sign up for his mother) a political sign off duty. Imagine the anarchy by this statement, uttered by an attorney:

But Goldstein explains:

*"The Constitution always requires ... that you actually be exercising the right, not that the government's motive was bad. ... If you aren't exercising your constitutional rights, we haven't violated your constitutional rights."*

Goldstein contends that Heffernan might have had a legitimate lawsuit under state civil service or civil rights laws, but not under the Constitution.

An Employee Mistakenly Steps Into Politics; Can The Government Retaliate?


----------



## AWP (Jan 21, 2016)

Everyone wants gun control until they need or want a gun.

After San Bernardino attacks, concealed gun requests skyrocket in area



> PALM SPRINGS, Calif. — In the seven weeks since terrorists killed 14 people in San Bernardino, requests for concealed firearms permits have skyrocketed throughout the area, leading to crippling backlogs and massive delays at the public safety agencies that process applications.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jan 21, 2016)

I'm shocked and impressed that USA Today used the word "terrorists" in their write up.
I have to wonder what the demographic looks like in regards to the increased requests for CCW permits. Are they folks who already own guns and are now pressing harder for their permits or are they John/Jane Doe who have never owned a gun before and think they're going to save the day somehow by being allowed to carry a concealed firearm sans any prior knowledge/experience.


----------



## Aim Small Miss Small (Jan 23, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> About the only way you could curb gun violence today is if you went about 70 years back in time and confiscated every gun in America.


There would have been a lot of people dead over that because we didn't have the sissy society we live in today. People would have fought to the end to defend the @nd Amendment. It's this politically correct modern culture that is dragging us down.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 23, 2016)

SkrewzLoose said:


> I'm shocked and impressed that USA Today used the word "terrorists" in their write up.
> I have to wonder what the demographic looks like in regards to the increased requests for CCW permits. Are they folks who already own guns and are now pressing harder for their permits or are they John/Jane Doe who have never owned a gun before and think they're going to save the day somehow by being allowed to carry a concealed firearm sans any prior knowledge/experience.


 

Some of both maybe.

In '08 when America's greatest gun salesman got elected there was a huge upsurge in CWL applications in Florida, backlogging the system some 7 to 8 months. In this state and some others proof of firearms training is required. I'd bet California is real good at finding reasons to deny applicants.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 23, 2016)

It's highly dependent upon where you live. Northern Cali specifically is very conservative and supportive of citizen rights, whereas basically a Tsar Bomba radius around the golden gate and everything south is pretty reliably shit.


----------



## AWP (Jan 23, 2016)

Aim Small Miss Small said:


> There would have been a lot of people dead over that because we didn't have the sissy society we live in today. People would have fought to the end to defend the @nd Amendment. It's this politically correct modern culture that is dragging us down.



My observation isn't advocacy and I'm well aware guns would still exist. I don't know if you're addressing me with "It's this politically correct modern culture that is dragging us down" but if you are then you don't know me very well.


----------



## pardus (Jan 23, 2016)

Aim Small Miss Small said:


> There would have been a lot of people dead over that because we didn't have the sissy society we live in today. People would have fought to the end to defend the @nd Amendment. It's this politically correct modern culture that is dragging us down.



You realize that the National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934 correct?


----------



## Bypass (Jan 23, 2016)

pardus said:


> You realize that the National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934 correct?


Hopefully in my lifetime it will be repealed. 2A meaning and tyrannical governments and all that. Not counting on it though. Our rights are slowly being eroded more and more every day under the guise of keeping us safe. I will trade safety for liberty any day of the week.

Next it will be the thought police.


----------



## Bypass (Jan 23, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Everyone wants gun control until they need or want a gun.
> 
> After San Bernardino attacks, concealed gun requests skyrocket in area


Not this cat. The only control I prefer is if there is a gun in the room I want to be the one in control of it. I don't mind if the whole room is armed either. 

Since someone is going to come along and say what if you are in a room full of felons. 1. I doubt that would ever happen. 2. If some liberal saw it in their bleeding heart to release a bunch of felons then they are obviously fine now and not going to harm anyone. So they should have the same rights as everyone else in my opinion. Besides if everyone else is armed they won't stand much of a chance at success in their next criminal endeavor.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 23, 2016)

Good thing I renewed my NRA membership for 5 years.


----------



## pardus (Jan 23, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> Good thing I renewed my NRA membership for 5 years.



Get a life membership dumbass.

I just joined NRA!


----------



## Aim Small Miss Small (Jan 26, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> My observation isn't advocacy and I'm well aware guns would still exist. I don't know if you're addressing me with "It's this politically correct modern culture that is dragging us down" but if you are then you don't know me very well.


No I was not referencing you in the statement. It was a generalization about the culture of many Americans today. I apologize if you took it as a statement about you.


----------



## AWP (Jan 26, 2016)

Some interesting points in the article below, almost alternating between an argument for more restrictions and less restrictions, but the basic premise is this:



> People with serious mental illness are three times more likely than those who are not mentally ill to commit violent acts again themselves or others, but that is still a very small number of people, about 2.9% of people with serious mental illness within a year. And the impact on gun violence statistics is marginal, amounting to about 4% of all firearm homicides, according to research as recent as last year.



The real mental health issue behind gun violence - CNN.com



> The APA has called for the development and testing of better methods to identify high-risk individuals who should be denied gun access, implying that current criteria under federal law related to mental illness are inadequate to serve as a basis for gun disqualification. On the other hand, the APA points out in its position statement that while research shows most people diagnosed with serious mental health conditions are never violent toward others, and most violent individuals do not suffer from these major mental disorders, *merely having a diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder should not be the only basis for disqualification from firearms.*



Seeing even a semi-pro gun article on CNN is a bit shocking.

ETA: I can't type.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 26, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Seeing even a semi-pro gum article on CNN is a bit shocking.


This.


----------



## AWP (Jan 26, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> This.



Spelling is fundamental. Ugh. Clearly not a Monday....


----------



## DocIllinois (Jan 26, 2016)

This seemed appropriate to post here.

The facility is advising on it's FB page that "All occupants are advised to run, hide _or fight_,".

Fingers crossed we initially had some trained individuals in there with a firearm or two.  Does anyone know the policy on Naval medical facilities regarding personal firearms?

Active shooter reported, Naval Medical Center San Diego


Edit: policy question


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jan 26, 2016)

It's in Southern California, you can't have guns anywhere. 
No personal firearms on base, which includes medical facilities like Balboa.


----------



## AWP (Jan 26, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> False Alarm.
> 
> Problem 2,467 with today's media - I plan to follow this story specifically to see if anyone asks (or answers) "who" reported the alleged shots.
> 
> Gunshots ruled false alarm at Naval Medical Center San Diego: Update



We do it down at Disney. On Christmas. Over table wait times.

Fistfight at Disney causes panic, false alarm



> "Rumors of a shot fired at Disney Springs FALSE," the Orange County Sheriff's Office tweeted about 10:25 p.m. "Fight over. Order restored."


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 26, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Spelling is fundamental. Ugh. Clearly not a Monday....


Oh shit.  I didn't even realize the spelling mistake.  I was being serious.


----------



## Dame (Jan 29, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> The Gov of Virginia has declared that Virginia will no longer recognize CCW permits from more than a few states. He claims other states are granting CCW's to criminals. My hope is that those states do not follow suit and fail to recognize our Va CCW's. I just renewed my CCW for another five years, and I am wondering if the number of CCW's granted will drop. I think it will. Up to now, it has been legal to open carry, as long as you have been cleared to purchase the weapon. Not many practice this, in fact it is rare to see open carry except for LEO's. I expect that will change too.





Dame said:


> LOL. Bad move there Governor McAuliff. The Republican controlled legislature has a plan.
> 
> “A lot of the governor’s power is deferred to the General Assembly at that point and I’ll be getting with my colleagues to circumvent everything this governor has done on this point,” he said. “I have a budget amendment that I’m looking at to take away his executive protection unit. If he’s so afraid of guns, then I’m not going to surround him with armed state policemen.”
> Virginia Sen. Bill Carrico




 LOL. "About FACE!" 



> *VA Will Again Recognize CC Permits from Other States*
> McAuliffe (D) agreed to legislation that says the state must recognize concealed-handgun permits from nearly all states — a reversal of Attorney General Mark R. Herring’s decision last month to sever the reciprocity rights of gun owners in 25 states.


Va. will again recognize concealed-carry permits from other states


ETA: I love how it was now all Mark Herring's fault.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 30, 2016)

Dame said:


> ETA: I love how it was now all Mark Herring's fault.



Don't know what everyone else was reading when this first started going down, but I saw Herring's name all over the decision from those who were covering it.  While I won't doubt that the governor was heavily involved in his AG's decision, as far as I read it was just that - the AG's decision.  Herring's name being attached to it is nothing new.

Cook asks Virginia to reverse decision on handgun reciprocity
Virginia halts concealed carry reciprocity with 25 states
Virginia limits gun reciprocity; critics say North Carolina rules stronger
Virginia revokes handgun permit agreement with North Carolina, 24 other states


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 30, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> Don't know what everyone else was reading when this first started going down, but I saw Herring's name all over the decision from those who were covering it.  While I won't doubt that the governor was heavily involved in his AG's decision, as far as I read it was just that - the AG's decision.  Herring's name being attached to it is nothing new.
> 
> Cook asks Virginia to reverse decision on handgun reciprocity
> Virginia halts concealed carry reciprocity with 25 states
> ...




Good on ya, Sen. Cook!!


----------



## Brill (Feb 15, 2016)

In recent 12 year span 60% of gun " violence" was actually suicide? Hmmm...odd that this isn't widely known, or is it?

U.S. gun violence: The story in graphics - CNN.com


----------



## Grunt (Feb 15, 2016)

lindy said:


> In recent 12 year span 60% of gun " violence" was actually suicide? Hmmm...odd that this isn't widely known, or is it?
> 
> U.S. gun violence: The story in graphics - CNN.com



Brother, you have dug deep into the "logic" bin. Those that hate guns won't go there because it won't fit into their narrative. But, after all, if the evil gun didn't exist, they wouldn't be able to use them to commit suicide. It's a no win situation for the "gun lovers."


----------



## AWP (Feb 15, 2016)

lindy said:


> In recent 12 year span 60% of gun " violence" was actually suicide? Hmmm...odd that this isn't widely known, or is it?
> 
> U.S. gun violence: The story in graphics - CNN.com



I've seen it in other stories and studies. My opinion is that we're focused on dead kids and emotional topics but that's clearly not working well enough for the anti-2A crowd. They can't dispute homicides have decreased, or increased in states with stricter gun control laws, so they lean on the emotional. At some point that will run its course and they'll only be left with, barring a string of mass shootings in places like schools and churches, the suicide numbers. For now suicides don't play well with the masses in part because of the social and religious stigmas associated with the act coupled with our indifference to mental health issues.

I half expect someone to drag out the number of veteran suicides per day and correlate it to veterans support of the 2A to undermine some of the pro-2A crowd/ argument.


----------



## pardus (Feb 16, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I've seen it in other stories and studies. My opinion is that we're focused on dead kids and emotional topics but that's clearly not working well enough for the anti-2A crowd. They can't dispute homicides have decreased, or increased in states with stricter gun control laws, so they lean on the emotional. At some point that will run its course and they'll only be left with, barring a string of mass shootings in places like schools and churches, the suicide numbers. For now suicides don't play well with the masses in part because of the social and religious stigmas associated with the act coupled with our indifference to mental health issues.
> 
> *I half expect someone to drag out the number of veteran suicides per day and correlate it to veterans support of the 2A to undermine some of the pro-2A crowd/ argument*.



I bet cash money that has already been postulated by some idiot!


----------



## AWP (Feb 17, 2016)

pardus said:


> I bet cash money that has already been postulated by some idiot!



Given my low regard for humanity you don't expect me to take that bet, do you?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 5, 2016)

...hmmm...

I can easily be convinced on either side of this argument...very interested in some additional opinions....

Richfield gun seizure raises question of mental illness and 2nd Amendment rights

_Ralph Gilbertsen says the CIA has been stalking him for two decades. He believes in Bigfoot. He has seen a UFO.
And he wants his guns back.  Richfield police came to his door one day last year and took them away. Now Gilbertsen, a 74-year-old former security guard and Marine Reservist, is in court to force police to return the three handguns they seized.  His case raises the question of how to balance mental illness with the Second Amendment right to bear arms.  He has alarmed Richfield police, city officials and managers of his apartment building with a series of letters alleging constant and escalating harassment by the CIA._


----------



## Gunz (Mar 5, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> ...hmmm...
> 
> I can easily be convinced on either side of this argument...very interested in some additional opinions....
> 
> ...



I knew a guy like this. Same CIA paranoia deal. I frisked him once and he had a big Gerber knife taped to his calf. Taped. Like clear packaging tape all wrinkled and adhering to his leg hair. He told me he was being tailed by the CIA because of his close association with Castro. To my knowledge he never hurt anybody, he'd never been arrested and he did own some guns, including a Mossberg shotgun he used to carry in his car. 

My take on him was that he was basically harmless but that he'd invented this persona to give the impression he was an action guy, involved in danger and intrigue...and ended up kind of believing it himself.
He had a steady job as an unarmed security guard and from all reports was a good employee. 

So, is the guy in your post above just a harmless Walter Mitty type or a keg of powder waiting to explode? Has he ever been Baker-Acted; has he ever been adjudged mentally unfit? Has he ever been violent? My 2c is, if the answer to the above questions are "no" and his record is clean, nobody has any business taking his guns. It's neither a crime nor evidence of insanity for someone to believe in Bigfoot or UFOs--there are plenty of TV shows devoted to both. Is writing a letter to cops complaining about perceived CIA harassment a crime? Not that I know of. Look, at some point some nut with a clean record is going to go postal and nobody would've seen it coming. That's unfortunate but it's going to happen. But it doesn't mean we need to confiscate legally owned firearms from eccentrics.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 6, 2016)

West Virginia Overrides Governor’s Veto To Pass Radical NRA-Backed Gun Law

_Gun owners in West Virginia will no longer need to get a permit to have a concealed weapon, putting it among the most far-reaching states for gun rights. The House voted on the measure Friday and officially overrode a gubernatorial veto on Saturday. 

The law, which does away with the permit and training program for people 21 and older who want to carry a concealed weapon, was supported by the National Rifle Association, but opposed by law enforcement across the state._






Interesting. I can see both sides of this though.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 7, 2016)

Nice to see another state move towards constitutional carry, but I don't like the fact they got rid of their licensing procedures.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 7, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Nice to see another state move towards constitutional carry, but I don't like the fact they got rid of their licensing procedures.



You're contradicting yourself. By definition, constitutional carry doesn't require a license.


----------



## CQB (Mar 7, 2016)

No-one saw Man Harun Monis coming either, (Sydney siege guy) despite a file you could not jump over. Ignore at your peril.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 7, 2016)

CQB said:


> No-one saw Man Harun Monis coming either, (Sydney siege guy) despite a file you could not jump over. Ignore at your peril.



That is what bothers me. I believe  there has to be some checks and balances.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 7, 2016)

policemedic said:


> You're contradicting yourself. By definition, constitutional carry doesn't require a license.


In Arizona when they passed the Constitutional carry law they kept the licensing procedures in place.  They did this so if citizens chose to carry outside of Arizona and the state had a reciprocal agreement they would still be able to apply for CCW Licenses in AZ.


----------



## AWP (Mar 7, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> In Arizona when they passed the Constitutional carry law they kept the licensing procedures in place.  They did this so if citizens chose to carry outside of Arizona and the state had a reciprocal agreement they would still be able to apply for CCW Licenses in AZ.



I'm not zinging you personally because that isn't your law, but that's the dumbest logic ever. If their intent is to help resident carry in another state then WTF kind of thinking is that? Arizona's concern is....I'll go out on a limb and say "Arizona's." If a citizen travels out of state and becomes a local sheriff's guest that isn't on AZ. Their argument is disingenuous garbage which allows it keep licensing in place under the guise of "helping" its residents.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 7, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I'm not zinging you personally because that isn't your law, but that's the dumbest logic ever. If their intent is to help resident carry in another state then WTF kind of thinking is that? Arizona's concern is....I'll go out on a limb and say "Arizona's." If a citizen travels out of state and becomes a local sheriff's guest that isn't on AZ. Their argument is disingenuous garbage which allows it keep licensing in place under the guise of "helping" its residents.


No, many states have reciprocity with respect to concealed carry, I need a permit/license from my state to prove I am legal, otherwise I have to get a non-resident permit from another state (which may or may not be honored).
I have no issue with a license, all Constitutional Carry should mean is I can go to the DMV and get a photo ID made, then take that ID when I travel.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 7, 2016)

I've got a non-resident CWP from AZ, cheaper, didn't have to do anything but send fingerprint cards, 1 page application copy of my DD214, and $60 and GTG for 5 yrs. I'm a resident of TX and probably always will be, but until TX gets right with their CHL stuff, I'll go through AZ, plenty of reciprocity, especially and most importantly in TX, I don't have to take classes from unqualified blow hards or shoot stupid CoF for a qualification. Just send my money, background and DD214. I like that for me, but I wouldn't recommend it for all, I read the law weekly, always checking case laws and I can consistently shoot a 90+ on a NRA 25yd pistol bull.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 7, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> That is what bothers me. I believe  there has to be some checks and balances.



Although I agree with checks and balances, I've always considered all the other laws the checks and balances. That said, I've really tried to game it out and see what laws/restrictions would work or are reasonable. I always come back to, who in the constitution has the authority or right to restrict my rights? In reality, we already have trampled on the rights of far too many with our current gun control laws.

$.02


----------



## AWP (Mar 7, 2016)

I think you guys misunderstand. As written, they can carry in AZ without a license but left the license requirement in place so residents can use it in other states. That's nonsense and hypocritical. Residents who want to travel and carry concealed should obtain an AZ license and the reciprocity it contains. For anyone who doesn't want to carry outside of the state they shouldn't be required given "Constitutional carry."


----------



## policemedic (Mar 7, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> In Arizona when they passed the Constitutional carry law they kept the licensing procedures in place.  They did this so if citizens chose to carry outside of Arizona and the state had a reciprocal agreement they would still be able to apply for CCW Licenses in AZ.


 
Got it, now it makes sense.  Alaska has a similar arrangement that allows Alaskans to carry without a permit in the state, but also allows them to obtain a license for out-of-state reciprocity if they wish.


----------



## Brill (Mar 7, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I think you guys misunderstand. As written, they can carry in AZ without a license but left the license requirement in place so residents can use it in other states. That's nonsense and hypocritical. Residents who want to travel and carry concealed should obtain an AZ license and the reciprocity it contains. For anyone who doesn't want to carry outside of the state they shouldn't be required given "Constitutional carry."



That's actually an interesting point.  Which other Constitutionally protected right is legislated by the States?

I wonder why Congress hasn't intervened via the Commerce clause.  If they can regulate health care via that same clause, EVERYTHING is up for grabs.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 7, 2016)

lindy said:


> That's actually an interesting point.  Which other Constitutionally protected right is legislated by the States?
> 
> I wonder why Congress hasn't intervened via the Commerce clause.  If they can regulate health care via that same clause, EVERYTHING is up for grabs.


 
The Commerce Clause is what they used to pass LEOSA as well.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 7, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> West Virginia Overrides Governor’s Veto To Pass Radical NRA-Backed Gun Law
> 
> _Gun owners in West Virginia will no longer need to get a permit to have a concealed weapon, putting it among the most far-reaching states for gun rights. The House voted on the measure Friday and officially overrode a gubernatorial veto on Saturday.
> 
> The law, which does away with the permit and training program for people 21 and older who want to carry a concealed weapon, was supported by the National Rifle Association, but opposed by law enforcement across the state._



I don't like the idea of people carrying who haven't had even rudimentary training--and I think background checks are a good thing. This may backfire to the detriment of gun owners.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 12, 2016)

And boom: Georgia passes ‘campus carry’ bill legalizing guns at colleges  | www.ajc.com


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 12, 2016)

Texas law allowing campus concealed carry goes into effect August 1, 2016

Private Universities  can opt out and not allow campus carry.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 2, 2016)

Question for those who understand this a lot better than me. I am wore out with the Republican candidates trying to convince me that the wrong Supreme Court Justice could change the court in a way that would effectively wipe out the Second Amendment. 

 I would not think they would have the power to make an amendment to the constitution unconstitutional, so it would seem it would have to be how the amendment is interpreted.  

Realistically, how much damage could really be done if an anti-gun judge was appointed to the court?


----------



## Brill (Apr 2, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Question for those who understand this a lot better than me. I am wore out with the Republican candidates trying to convince me that the wrong Supreme Court Justice could change the court in a way that would effectively wipe out the Second Amendment.
> 
> I would not think they would have the power to make an amendment to the constitution unconstitutional, so it would seem it would have to be how the amendment is interpreted.
> 
> Realistically, how much damage could really be done if an anti-gun judge was appointed to the court?



Heller.

That ruling solidified the right to defend yourself inside your home. Soon, the court will determine if that right extends outside the home and that will be the determining factor for "may issue" states.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 2, 2016)

lindy said:


> Heller.
> 
> That ruling solidified the right to defend yourself inside your home. Soon, the court will determine if that right extends outside the home and that will be the determining factor for "may issue" states.



Isn't that right solid now?


----------



## Brill (Apr 2, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> Isn't that right solid now?



It is (by one vote) but with a left leaning court, it could be the end and gun laws that protect individual rights and move towards protecting specific classes.

The crux of the issue is the definition of a "well regulated militia".  Republicans believe that means citizens like Minutemen but Democrats believe it means National Guard and Reserves.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 2, 2016)

lindy said:


> The crux of the issue is the definition of a "well regulated militia". Republicans believe that means citizens like Minutemen but Democrats believe it means National Guard and Reserves.



And this is the part that has me concerned.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 2, 2016)

lindy said:


> The crux of the issue is the definition of a "well regulated militia".  Republicans believe that means citizens like Minutemen but Democrats believe it means National Guard and Reserves.



The National Guard is a Federal military asset and ultimately under POTUS's control, unless I was delusional the last time I read Title 32 of the US Code.

The 2nd Amendment does not give states and people the right to claim the Guard as their own personal militia.

Besides, a Guard under complete state control and funding isn't one I'd want to be a part of, especially with the famously terrible shysters periodically holding top offices in this state.


----------



## Brill (Apr 2, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> The National Guard is a Federal military asset and ultimately under POTUS's control, unless I was delusional the last time I read Title 32 of the US Code.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment does not give states and people the right to claim the Guard as their own personal militia.
> 
> Besides, a Guard under complete state control and funding isn't one I'd want to be a part of, especially with the famously terrible shysters periodically holding top offices in this state.



You completely lost me. I know how the Guard works and how it's funded but I am missing your point.


----------



## DocIllinois (Apr 2, 2016)

The snag to viewing the Guard/ Reserves as a militia is that it isn't.

Unless these entities stop getting funded by the Federal government.  And POTUS relinquishes ultimate control of them.  And they stop training mainly to support the Federal mission.  Then the militia tag may apply.


----------



## nobodythank you (Apr 2, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> The snag to viewing the Guard/ Reserves as a militia is that it isn't.
> 
> Unless these entities stop getting funded by the Federal government.  And POTUS relinquishes ultimate control of them.  And they stop training mainly to support the Federal mission.  Then the militia tag may apply.


Not so fast. *10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes* outlines the legal definition of a militia within the country:





> (a)
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided insection 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b)The classes of the militia are—
> (1)
> ...


 Notice the overall definition and the following sub-classifications. 

Furthermore, in *32 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions *the first section mentions the militia and the Guard. Which refers back to the first link concerning the legal definition of a militia within this country.


----------



## compforce (Apr 2, 2016)

BTW, for those that missed it, the top age for the milita is 45, which means geezers like me get left out...


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 2, 2016)

compforce said:


> BTW, for those that missed it, the top age for the milita is 45, which means geezers like me get left out...



Yeah, but you were issued the same rifle as what's on your CIB.


----------



## Brill (Apr 3, 2016)

Do doctors ask about drugs, alcohol, vehicles, flammable material, jungle gyms, etc in/near the home?  How many of use fell out of trees before learning to PLF?

Do you own a gun? Why your kid’s doctor needs to know.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 3, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> @DA SWO - What do you disagree with?  The concern that an 'anti' Justice could do any real damage?



I curious also. My other concern is what are the views of the next President.


----------



## Brill (Apr 3, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> I curious also. My other concern is what are the views of the next President.



The next POTUS could very well be a felon who can neither vote nor own a gun!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 3, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> She escalated the situation when she prevented him from leaving, yeah DoJ or the locals might try to do something, but it's clear she is the aggressor, and knows it (otherwise why get pissed when she sees people recording).
> 
> She is going to continue being a bully until she gets arrested, or popped up side the head.
> She is a racist thug, and nothing more.



Huh?

Are we talking about the same "disagree"?

This is the post I was wondering "why" the disagree -
(post 2354 on page 118 of this thread)
___________________________________________


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 3, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Huh?
> 
> Are we talking about the same "disagree"?
> 
> ...


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 10, 2016)

lindy said:


> The next POTUS could very well be a felon who can neither vote nor own a gun!



As of now I am going for Trump in terms of the 2A.


----------



## Brill (Apr 22, 2016)

Whoa...what just happened in DC?  We have a RIGHT to self defense and do not need to rely on the state for protection???

The Second Amendment expands, but maybe not by much


----------



## AWP (Apr 22, 2016)

Watch Hillary make guns her legacy legislation/ platform similar to Obama and the ACA.


----------



## macNcheese (Apr 22, 2016)

Aren't educated people more concerned with the "Freedom Act" ? Our guard is already down. I would rather have my privacy than have to defend my actions with weapons.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 28, 2016)

HARTFORD — The memory of Lori Jackson, the Oxford mother of young twins who was murdered by her estranged husband nearly two years ago, was invoked Wednesday as House Democrats pushed through legislation that set off an evening-long debate on gun-owner rights and the safety of women, who are the most frequent victims of domestic violence.

The bill that passed the House late Wednesday — and immediately forwarded to the Senate — would result in the expedited seizure or surrender of firearms and ammunition within 24 hours by people, usually men, against whom restraining orders were filed. They would be allowed expedited court hearings, within seven days, and if found not to be a threat, their weapons and ammunition would be returned within five days.


If evidence of domestic abuse and violence were proven, as under current law, a full restraining order would be issued and the weapon could be held for a year or more.





BRIDGEPORT - The right to openly carry a firearm in Connecticut took a dramatic turn Wednesday when officials who gathered to call for a law that would clarify the open carry rules, came face to face with the man who started the controversy.

Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim, Police Chief Armando Perez and others held a press conference outside the city Police Department to lend their support to a bill that would require gun wearers to show a permit whenever police request it. The current law says police must have reasonable suspicion a criminal act is being committed to request to see a permit.







These are happening far around me. I can see both the pros and cons. The DV bill on face value I have no problem with, the open carry bill I am not so sure.


----------



## AWP (Apr 28, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> These are happening far around me. I can see both the pros and cons. The DV bill on face value I have no problem with, the open carry bill I am not so sure.



Maybe an LEO can chime in, but is a filed restraining order binding or just "the paperwork was submitted" and not enforceable?


----------



## policemedic (Apr 28, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Maybe an LEO can chime in, but is a filed restraining order binding or just "the paperwork was submitted" and not enforceable?



Speaking for PA, you get an answer immediately when you file for a protection from abuse order.  You get an immediate ex parte hearing once the petition is completed.  If approved, you leave the court with an enforceable emergency order.   After this, there is another hearing to give the defendant an opportunity to defend themselves prior to a permanent (one year) order being granted.

The temporary emergency order is enough to seize weapons.  However, on the pro-2A side  we also give petitioners expedited processing i.e. immediate issue of a license to carry firearms if they want one. 

Short answer- if the paperwork isn't signed by a judge it's worthless.


----------



## nobodythank you (Apr 28, 2016)

The process is similar in FL. You go to your local courthouse, or jail if it is a holiday or weekend (always a judge available for first appearances). If the petitioner meets the criteria then a temporary order is issued and sent to law enforcement for execution (usually within 24hours). The order is not in effect until the other party is served with the injunction. When the temp order is served, the respondent is usually notified of a hearing, usually within two weeks time. All firearms and ammunition are taken when the temporary order is issued. At the final hearing the judge determines whether to dismiss, modify, or make permanent the order. Violation of the order is only a misdemeanor.

I had to serve a temp injunction on a husband once that, of course, required the seizure of all firearms and ammunition. I worked a twelve and a half hour shift, and spent 11 of those hours seizing and processing several dozen firearms and boxes of ammunition. With the help of our crime scene tech. It was a nightmare.

ETA: I don't know why they passed that law, IIRC that is already federal law under the DV bill the Clinton passed during his administration. Maybe the timelines were strengthened?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 30, 2016)

I actually had to walk away from the monitor for a few minutes. Amy Schumer has never been remotely funny to me, but now I find her completely hateable. This is what we are up against, Amy and their like create their funny little vignettes of nonsense, and then has  fans mock legitimate gun owners based off her misinformation.





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10154077766879030


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 30, 2016)

If they were really selling Glocks for $39.95 I'd buy every one they had in stock.  Gun show or not .  ;)


----------



## Grunt (Apr 30, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I actually had to walk away from the monitor for a few minutes. Amy Schumer has never been remotely funny to me, but now I find her completely hateable. This is what we are up against, Amy and their like create their funny little vignettes of nonsense, and then has  fans mock legitimate gun owners based off her misinformation.



The sheep willingly follow anyone that wants to shepherd them. They are blind as to the shepherds agendas...they simply want to be led.

They will do no research of their own because they would require work and expended energy that would take away from their "reality" based lives.

They are willfully led.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 1, 2016)

Sounds like somebody needed a trigger warning


----------



## TLDR20 (May 1, 2016)

Nothing like being offended by comedy....


----------



## TLDR20 (May 1, 2016)

Agoge said:


> The sheep willingly follow anyone that wants to shepherd them. They are blind as to the shepherds agendas...they simply want to be led.
> 
> They will do no research of their own because they would require work and expended energy that would take away from their "reality" based lives.
> 
> They are willfully led.



It is a fucking comedy show.

Do you have any idea what Amy Schumers demographic is? I have seen every episode, I guess I'm just a sheep on my way to the wolf... I wish a sheepdog could come save me... I think she is hilarious. The point of comedy is to point out the absurdity in things. No one should be getting their info from a sketch show. The sheep you speak of, who are they again? Who are these knuckle dragging mouth breathers who form opinions based off a sketch show? Do you really think that is who America is? Fuck man. Learn to take a joke


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 1, 2016)

Correct, nobody should be getting their opinions off a comedy show, but they do. In the same way that John Stewart had an incredible influence in national politics, no one will ever be able to make me believe that he didn't.  In fact, I will say that I am 100% convinced the Donald Trump would not be where he is right now if John Stewart were still on the air.

Amy Schumer has gone completely anti-gun since the movie theater shooting at the premiere of her movie, she is on the record with that. This video is a propaganda piece for that agenda; not a comedy bit. I do not know how you cannot see that.

Tell me I've drank the conspiracy Kool-Aid, that's fine. I will tell you that today's liberal has figured out how to use social media to get their agenda across.  There are so many examples of this over the past decade, many of which we are discussing in multiple threads on this board right now -  most I am learning to live with and even accept, but I will give not 1 inch when it comes to guns -

And  yes, I do know her primary demographic, they are the women who in many cases hold Influence over men buying future guns and keeping them in their home.    They are women who get their news from social media and believe the mistruths told in "comedy bits" like this.

One thing I have learned in my years reading your posts on this board, is that there is unlikely you are going to reply to this post with "oh yeah, I never thought of it that way."   I don't expect you to, but I at least wanted to respond with what my reasoning was for being bothered by that clip.


----------



## AWP (May 1, 2016)

Celebrities influence people. Amy Schumer, Gary Sinise...same, same, only their views differ. They use their fame and availability as a bully pulpit and blur the lines between entertainment and activism. You rarely see a comic provide both views with equal representation or humor, so it is easy to see how they lean on a topic. I just want to be entertained, not sit through a political lecture by the Red or Blue.

With that said, there's no escaping it so like everything else in this world we don't like, we either change or endure.

FWIW in the trivia dept., she's Charles Schumer's second cousin.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 1, 2016)

I do understand your point @Ooh-Rah, I also think that comedy is just that. I think it is a hilarious double standard portrayed on this board when bitching about SJW's and how everyone is offended by everything, but when it hits something we care about we pull out the scoff and are upset.  

It is obvious she has a view counter to yours. You have a voice and it is clear where you stand. You can become a world famous stand up comedian, work hard for years on the road, get your own show, and maybe then you can reach the same audience, kind of like Dennis Miller. 




Ooh-Rah said:


> One thing I have learned in my years reading your posts on this board, is that there is zero chance you are going to reply to this post with "oh yeah, I never thought of it that way."   I don't expect you to, but I at least wanted to respond with what my reasoning was for being bothered by that clip.



I don't know where this is coming from. I try my best to see things from the other point of view. Unfortunately there are maybe 3 of us on this board that try and keep this board from being a circle jerk echo chamber. 

Last thing. My response you seemed upset about was to Agoge. I stand by thinking it is silly to get offended by jokes, but I do understand why you are upset. I am so sick and tired of the sheep analogy. I tire of anyone who doesn't agree being labeled some retarded sheep. It is such a lame analogy.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 1, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> It is a fucking comedy show.
> 
> Do you have any idea what Amy Schumers demographic is? I have seen every episode, I guess I'm just a sheep on my way to the wolf... I wish a sheepdog could come save me... I think she is hilarious. The point of comedy is to point out the absurdity in things. No one should be getting their info from a sketch show. The sheep you speak of, who are they again? Who are these knuckle dragging mouth breathers who form opinions based off a sketch show? Do you really think that is who America is? Fuck man. Learn to take a joke



Hmmm, that wasn't even comical, it was a social agenda speech with unfunny jokes. I don't really care who, why, or what the point is/was. That shit wasn't funny at all, not because I don't agree with the underlining bullshit message (which I do not) but because that shit just wasn't funny at all...seemed like a 6th grade comedy sketch for show and tell.

$.02


----------



## TLDR20 (May 1, 2016)

@Diamondback 2/2 
One of my things is that I feel that talent and creativity are one thing. When people use that talent to promote things that I don't agree with, I can still respect the process, and laugh at jokes that I find work the situation correctly.

On the flip side, Gary Sinise who was mentioned earlier, and who I think has a great cause, plays music that I think is a step above Nickleback. I can respect a cause and not respect "talent". I guess I don't look at every entertainment undertaking as having to correlate with the messages or themes I agree with.

In reality I think if I had to choose my music, art, comedy, and other leisurely activities only based on agreeing politics, I would lead a pretty shitty boring life.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 1, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I am so sick and tired of the sheep analogy



Hard agree.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 1, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> @Diamondback 2/2
> One of my things is that I feel that talent and creativity are one thing. When people use that talent to promote things that I don't agree with, I can still respect the process, and laugh at jokes that I find work the situation correctly.
> 
> On the flip side, Gary Sinise who was mentioned earlier, and who I think has a great cause, plays music that I think is a step above Nickleback. I can respect a cause and not respect "talent". I guess I don't look at every entertainment undertaking as having to correlate with the messages or themes I agree with.
> ...



Yeah I was trying to point out that regardless of the issue, the sketch just wasn't funny. As in, I like jokes, I laugh at jokes, me be liking dah jokes, but didn't see/hear any...


----------



## Brill (May 3, 2016)

Blasphemy @TLDR20 !

Is there a correlation between gun enthusiasm and Nickelback fandom? - Quora


----------



## Gunz (May 5, 2016)

With regard to comedy and it's influence, I can remember seeing the cover of Esquire after the McCain/Palin defeat. It had a picture of Tina Fey with the headline, (which I paraphrase): "Tina Fey, The Woman who Defeated Sarah Palin (or the GOP)" or something to that effect...


----------



## R.Caerbannog (May 7, 2016)

Noticed that a bunch of comics/entertainers (which I classify as a gaggle of second rate humans) have so much influence. In the Schumer video posted earlier, at the end it had the message to support "newtown". If they would have just made the video without the "newtown" endorsement it would have just been a joke in poor taste. Them adding that label changed it from comedy, to an endorsement for a political group.  

Tina Fay, Schumer, and all the others are just puppets. Whoever is pulling their strings is really good at spreading about misinformation.


----------



## BloodStripe (May 12, 2016)

I knew there was a reason I have missed this city so much, free shooting ranges everywhere.


----------



## Marine0311 (May 14, 2016)

Legislators hear debate on Connecticut open-carry law revision

Connecticut General Assembly



I can't find the exact source but I am PRETTY sure this passed.

Edit: Maybe this source

AN ACT CONCERNING THE PRESENTATION OF A CARRY PERMIT.


----------



## Etype (May 14, 2016)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Noticed that a bunch of comics/entertainers (which I classify as a gaggle of second rate humans) ...


Up until about the Renaissance, entertainers (actors, musicians) were one level above prostitutes in the caste system.

Yep, apparently living your life through make beleive (acting) used to not be respected.


----------



## policemedic (May 15, 2016)

Jimmy Buffett has said that entertainers are the descendants of court jesters.  He's right.


----------



## DocIllinois (May 15, 2016)

policemedic said:


> Jimmy Buffett has said that entertainers are the descendants of court jesters.  He's right.



We've spent years teaching our children to take anything entertainers say on social issues with a big dose of skepticism.

I think I even used "line repeating stage monkey" at one point a couple years ago while reinforcing this.

Perhaps that was a bit too far, but then, I'm the Weird Guy Down the Street who also shows his children how to properly extend and picket concertina wire.*


*ETA: Bearing in mind, they don't actually do it.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 24, 2016)

Interesting example of the media manipulating the video from an interview to give the viewer a perception that they really should not be left with:

Katie Couric Edits Gun Groups Comments For Under The Gun


----------



## Gunz (May 24, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Interesting example of the media manipulating the video from an interview to give the viewer a perception that they really should not be left with:
> 
> Katie Couric Edits Gun Groups Comments For Under The Gun




 If there's any editorial control over the content of Katie Couric's stories, it's obviously as biased as she is.


----------



## J.S. (May 24, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Interesting example of the media manipulating the video from an interview to give the viewer a perception that they really should not be left with:
> 
> Katie Couric Edits Gun Groups Comments For Under The Gun



That's very eye-opening. It really makes you understand the degree to which stories and interviews can be spun by the creators to give their version of reality.


----------



## Gunz (May 24, 2016)

J.S. said:


> That's very eye-opening. It really makes you understand the degree to which stories and interviews can be spun by the creators to give their version of reality.




It's murder what some people can do in an edit booth.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 26, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Interesting example of the media manipulating the video from an interview to give the viewer a perception that they really should not be left with:
> 
> Katie Couric Edits Gun Groups Comments For Under The Gun



and...here is the audio/video that goes along with the story.  What a smug bitch.

Notice that she removes, "I know how you all are going to answer this but I"m asking anyway" from her version.  It is still in the original audio.






__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1042014219181668


----------



## Marine0311 (Jun 9, 2016)

Court: No right to carry concealed weapons in public | Fox News

Fuck.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 9, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> Court: No right to carry concealed weapons in public | Fox News
> 
> Fuck.



The 9th circuit court is always putting out controversial ruling's like this. It's unfortunate, but part of the process of getting it in front of the supreme court. Now if this stupidity came out of the supreme court, I would fully agree with "fuck".


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 9, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> but part of the process of getting it in front of the supreme court.



From the, _be careful what you wish for_ file. Some time ago (circa 1990's) a Minnesota sportsman organization (PERM), took their decades long battle with Native American Indians over walleye treaty fishing rights to the US Supreme Court.  PERM lost their ass and the indians won the figurative lottery. To say Minnesota fisherman are still bitter (with both the indians and PERM) would be an understatement.  Once amazing fishing lakes are to the point of being catch/release only...while the indians smile and continue to net walleyes.  

The Supreme Court scares me.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 9, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> From the, _be careful what you wish for_ file. Some time ago (circa 1990's) a Minnesota sportsman organization (PERM), took their decades long battle with Native American Indians over walleye treaty fishing rights to the US Supreme Court.  PERM lost their ass and the indians won the figurative lottery. To say Minnesota fisherman are still bitter (with both the indians and PERM) would be an understatement.  Once amazing fishing lakes are to the point of being catch/release only...while the indians smile and continue to net walleyes.
> 
> The Supreme Court scares me.



When you walk into a courtroom, you never really know just what the outcome will be. I've learned this with my son's divorce that's been about as nasty and ugly as I've ever heard of. Been to court three times.  The US Supreme Court is no different, there is just more in the line when you are debating at that level.


----------



## AWP (Jun 9, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Interesting example of the media manipulating the video from an interview to give the viewer a perception that they really should not be left with:
> 
> Katie Couric Edits Gun Groups Comments For Under The Gun



It sucks, but fortunately she doesn't have a histo....oh, nevermind.

Katie Couric Accused of Deceptive Editing in Second Documentary



> Couric responds to Allison’s on camera request by saying “Okay,” but *the film shows Dr. Allison sitting silently for another seven seconds before cutting to another interview.*
> 
> Allison is not shown again in the film.



Vermin.


----------



## Brill (Jun 9, 2016)

Can I self identify as a Colt .45?


----------



## policemedic (Jun 9, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> Court: No right to carry concealed weapons in public | Fox News
> 
> Fuck.



Well, it sucks if you live within the 9th Circuit but otherwise doesn't mean much. Other courts can look at the decision but aren't bound by it; it's just something that can be used in argument...as can Heller and McDonald.


----------



## AWP (Jun 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> Can I self identify as a Colt .45?



You can, but I don't think semi auto's and revolvers are compatible. A DAO Wesson in a bathroom with Glocks? I guess that's one way to do it....


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 11, 2016)

Another reason not to like Dave: http://www.recoilweb.com/petraeus-backing-gun-control-with-veteran-group-100311.html


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 12, 2016)

I think this is one of the better written pieces I've seen on the gun debate.  Both sides would have to concede a few points, which will not likely happen, so things will continue as they have...but worth a read anyway.

The Case for More Guns (and More Gun Control)


----------



## AWP (Jun 12, 2016)

I just ordered ammo. We've seen this story before.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 12, 2016)

Nice to know they plan on running as Democrats or just stay out of politics.


----------



## AWP (Jun 12, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Nice to know they plan on running as Democrats or just stay out of politics.



Angling for cabinet or advisor positions. Wes Clark has had a hard on for the Clintons since Bosnia and I'm sure he sees this as his last, best chance for someone to pay attention to him.

The others are just assholes. There, I said what many of you are thinking.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 12, 2016)

Thank you. Yes. Fuck them.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 12, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I think this is one of the better written pieces I've seen on the gun debate.  Both sides would have to concede a few points, which will not likely happen, so things will continue as they have...but worth a read anyway.
> 
> The Case for More Guns (and More Gun Control)


This was really good.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 12, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> This was really good.



Glad you enjoyed it.  I posted on the other board I read and it was quickly locked.  Overall a good group of guys, but the forum owner wants nothing to do with open debate or discussion.  Frustrating.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 12, 2016)

Well, the Orlando mass shooting is hitting the media about gun availability in the US....here we go again.

Orlando shooting sparks gun control, language debates - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 12, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> Well, the Orlando mass shooting is hitting the media about gun availability in the US....here we go again.
> 
> Orlando shooting sparks gun control, language debates - CNNPolitics.com



Has the NRA come out with their over the top tweet or statement yet?  They always do, maybe just this once something was able to look up the word, "timing".


----------



## AWP (Jun 12, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Has the NRA come out with their over the top tweet or statement yet?  They always do, maybe just this once something was able to look up the word, "timing".



I took a beating for this after Sandy Hook, but I really hope they A) have a better message and B) I hope they don't wait until Thurs. or Fri. I hope they learned from SH because they looked like clownshoes in the aftermath, like they scrambled to find a solution or answer because they were totally unprepared.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 12, 2016)

unfortunately the POTUS news conference about the shooting just a few minutes ago, related the issues with gun control.


----------



## AWP (Jun 12, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> unfortunately the POTUS news conference about the shooting just a few minutes ago, related the issues with gun control.



No doubt. He can wade into the mud and keep Hillary clean.

---

He's my cynical, conspiracy theorist-ist view:

Right now the left is praying for this to be a hookup gone wrong or garden variety hate crime and the right is praying for it to be Islamic extremism. If this is a general hate crime against the gay community the anti-2A crowd can better push their agenda. If this is Islamic terrorism the anti-2A crowd has a much harder time trying to restrict gun sales. How do you approach Americans with the message of "yeah, this can come at you anyplace, anytime, but we want to restrict your rights in the name of safety and security?"

I think the motivation for the attack will go a long way to determining our reaction(s), what we will and won't do. Guns, domestic spying, fighting extremism at home and abroad, etc.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jun 12, 2016)

I gotta move to a real state because I can feel the backlash already.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 12, 2016)

The White House Response

The White House on Twitter


----------



## AWP (Jun 12, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> not less you idiot.
> 
> The White House on Twitter



You're a commissioned officer on active duty and you just called your commander-in-chief "an idiot?" Last year I did you a solid by deleting a post where you wished someone would shoot him.

My god, man, I don't care if you hate him or not but you're supposed to be a leader.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 12, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> No doubt. He can wade into the mud and keep Hillary clean.
> 
> ---
> 
> ...



This is not my opinion******

Why would what you posted sway an opinion for someone anti-gun? Lets say he bought these weapons legally, we are being led to believe that he was investigated by the FBI, but may have been able to buy the requisite firepower to hold the Orlando Police at bay and murder 50 people.

Stricter background checks could have possibly kept him from buying a gun. An FBI investigation may have kept him from buying it with stricter laws.  Limiting access to AR style rifles would make it more difficult to conduct mass killings of this scale. 

*****Theses are things I heard this morning in response to last nights tragedy, this is what we need to have answers for.


----------



## AWP (Jun 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> This is not my opinion******
> 
> Why would what you posted sway an opinion for someone anti-gun? Lets say he bought these weapons legally, we are being led to believe that he was investigated by the FBI, but may have been able to buy the requisite firepower to hold the Orlando Police at bay and murder 50 people.
> 
> ...



Valid points.
1. Are we enforcing laws on the books? How does a new set of laws work if we can't/ won't enforce what is already required?
2. What is technology's role? Would a better database or connectivity to existing databases solve many of our problems?
3. I can take a pump shotgun and with a month or two of training and some hand-eye coordination cause casualties on an epic scale. Also, how do we deal with what's out there? Any effort to remove guns from the street becomes confiscation and no one in their right mind will tackle that topic.
4. People want to hold gun manufacturers libel (which is stupid) so why aren't we also holding businesses libel for not providing adequate security? 

Do we have the means to solve some of our problems without introducing any further restrictions? I'd rather spend money than take away rights which we may or may not see again.


----------



## Brill (Jun 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Stricter background checks could have possibly kept him from buying a gun. An FBI investigation may have kept him from buying it with stricter laws.



Were you given any indication what would stricter checks look like?  If a Federal investigation would mean loss of rights, how would that affect people running for office?

Press is reporting that he was a licensed armed security guard.  Are people actually advocating for regularly updated background checks like a security clearance?  I have to report all foreign travel...should gun owners (or potential borrowers) be required to do the same?


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 12, 2016)

It is a fallacy beyond measure to believe any amount of background checks or mental screenings can prevent all shootings. If that were true then no one would ever divulge classified information once vetted. Further more, having a security guard license in this state, does NOT authorize someone to carry a firearm off duty. 

Any person who has never been in trouble before, who has developed a grudge, and has enough patience can pass any check or screening invented.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jun 12, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> It is a fallacy beyond measure to believe any amount of background checks or mental screenings can prevent all shootings. If that were true then no one would ever divulge classified information once vetted. Further more, having a security guard license in this state, does NOT authorize someone to carry a firearm off duty.
> 
> Any person who has never been in trouble before, who has developed a grudge, and has enough patience can pass any check or screening invented.



Agree. Those are just barriers at the least.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> This is not my opinion******
> 
> Why would what you posted sway an opinion for someone anti-gun? Lets say he bought these weapons legally, we are being led to believe that he was investigated by the FBI, but may have been able to buy the requisite firepower to hold the Orlando Police at bay and murder 50 people.
> 
> ...


Did he use an AR?

I have been out of the loop for most of the last 24 hrs and just saw a UK report (daily mail).


----------



## 104TN (Jun 12, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Did he use an AR?
> 
> I have been out of the loop for most of the last 24 hrs and just saw a UK report (daily mail).


Initial reporting is saying an AR and a handgun purchased in the last 12 days.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 12, 2016)

It may just be time to make all of Albert Schweitzer's writings required reading in high school.  

It's pretty clear that some parents are not teaching the value of life to their children.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 13, 2016)

rick said:


> Initial reporting is saying an AR and a handgun purchased in the last 12 days.



Read that clown was being investigated by the FBI, and was still able to pass the background check. Has me rethinking my stance on "on the terror watch list". Although I will admit, he would have been able to get the weapons any where. It does make me stand back and think "WTF".


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 13, 2016)

I sort of don't see how he could be on a watch list and pass the background check...seems counterintuitive.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 13, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> I sort of don't see how he could be on a watch list and pass the background check...seems counterintuitive.



That was a big discussion several month back. Primarily due to anyone being tossed in the no fly and terror list, without due process, etc. Bottom line, this dude should have been put on hold for 24hrs for purchase. Than rolled up as he came to pick up the weapons for some serious questioning.


----------



## policemedic (Jun 13, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> I sort of don't see how he could be on a watch list and pass the background check...seems counterintuitive.



No, it isn't.  Think about it and the reason will come to you.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 13, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> I sort of don't see how he could be on a watch list and pass the background check...seems counterintuitive.



They were watching to see if he was up to no good, apparently they feel asleep for a few minutes.
Even so, his status as an Armed Security Guard disturbs me more (and those creds get him access to weapons).


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 13, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> (and those creds get him access to weapons).


No it doesn't. He had the same access to weapons with or without the license. The only thing that license confers is the ability to work as an armed security guard with certain types of weapons. The same weapons that are available to any other citizen. He does not get to buy anything different, or carry a weapon when not on duty. He does not even get to bypass the mandatory three day waiting period. Just wanted to clarify that viewpoint.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 13, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> No it doesn't. He had the same access to weapons with or without the license. The only thing that license confers is the ability to work as an armed security guard with certain types of weapons. The same weapons that are available to any other citizen. He does not get to buy anything different, or carry a weapon when not on duty. He does not even get to bypass the mandatory three day waiting period. Just wanted to clarify that viewpoint.


Does G4S provide weapons? or tell you what you should have?
Do you leave your weapon on the job site, or bring it home?


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 13, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Does G4S provide weapons? or tell you what you should have?
> Do you leave your weapon on the job site, or bring it home?


I do not know what their policies are regarding the use of weapons on duty. What I do know is that there are specific calibers they are confined to. If you are interested in the specifics, check out Florida Statute 493. The link goes straight to the info on security guard licenses. IIRC the guards I have seen have their own and bring them home with them. However, I believe there is enough room in the statute to allow the company to make policies that suit their needs.


----------



## Brill (Jun 13, 2016)

Heard on the radio this afternoon the Senate Dems are attaching a rider to a commerce bill that FBI watchlist = no right to buy weapon.

Nation of laws my ass!

Senate Democrats push bill banning terrorist suspects from buying guns

Why is this stupid? I used to work with a US cit, long term civ employee in the IC, with a clearance, etc but had a name match with a watch lister.

He was not fun to TDY with.

The list is out of control and not effective at stopping a domestic incident. How many Paris, San Bernadino, Orlando, etc attackers were on the list?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 13, 2016)

lindy said:


> Heard on the radio this afternoon the Senate Dems are attaching a rider to a commerce bill that FBI watchlist = no right to buy weapon.
> 
> Nation of laws my ass!
> 
> ...




Great idea, can it happen with any degree of success. I have not made a purchase at a gun show. Is there enough information available to dealers at gun shows to stop a sale to someone who should not have a weapon?


----------



## Totentanz (Jun 13, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Great idea, can it happen with any degree of success. I have not made a purchase at a gun show. Is there enough information available to dealers at gun shows to stop a sale to someone who should not have a weapon?


FFLs at gun shows are bound by the same background check requirements as they are in their store.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 13, 2016)

Thanks, Amigo.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 13, 2016)

The "list" is only a tool, there are many levels of the "list"...from admin to No fly.

I would disagree to tying the purchase of a firearm to the list in any way, that's not what it was created for.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 13, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> FFLs at gun shows are bound by the same background check requirements as they are in their store.



BUT......you can buy a gun from a private seller at a gunshow with no checks, not saying its bad...but definitely makes it easier for the person wishing to get around the gun check.


----------



## Totentanz (Jun 13, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> BUT......you can buy a gun from a private seller at a gunshow with no checks, not saying its bad...but definitely makes it easier for the person wishing to get around the gun check.



You can do that anywhere (well anywhere you can legally possess a gun - the local elementary school is out)[/Devil's Advocate]


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 13, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> You can do that anywhere (well anywhere you can legally possess a gun - the local elementary school is out)[/Devil's Advocate]



I completely agree......but more people at the shows wishing to flip for something new, target rich environment for buyers.


----------



## Brill (Jun 14, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> BUT......you can buy a gun from a private seller at a gunshow with no checks, not saying its bad...but definitely makes it easier for the person wishing to get around the gun check.



Feds need to focus on illegal gun sales in States where P2P sales are illegal (interestingly majority are very high crime) but that would take some work. Better to focus (and showboat) on an insignificant volume of sales.

The "gun show loophole" is a myth but readily accepted as fact.

I just bought a RPD over the Internet with no check!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 14, 2016)

lindy said:


> Heard on the radio this afternoon the Senate Dems are attaching a rider to a commerce bill that FBI watchlist = no right to buy weapon.



ACLU is in the mix on this.  

Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms


----------



## Brill (Jun 14, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> ACLU is in the mix on this.
> 
> Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms



I agree with Speaker Ryan: it's all about due process. I'm shocked that a sitting President is ready to just toss out the 5th and 14th Amendments.

I've had enough"lawyers" running our Government. Let's give someone else a shot.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 14, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> BUT......you can buy a gun from a private seller at a gunshow with no checks, not saying its bad...but definitely makes it easier for the person wishing to get around the gun check.


I can buy a gun from a private seller anywhere, what's your case there?
The "Gun Show Loophole" won't eliminate straw purchases, and wouldn't have stopped this attack.
Has TSA come out and said the shooter was on the no-fly list?


----------



## AWP (Jun 14, 2016)

I'd actually support the "gun show loophole." Make all vendors who sell a gun hold an FFL. Sure, private sales can still occur elsewhere, but you've reduced the visibility and presumably lower prices that come with the environment.

I honestly think we should focus on exiting laws and upgrading technology, but I'm keenly aware this topic isn't going away. The more the Right and the NRA stand there with their arms crossed the more ground they lose. They really need to throw the Left a bone here and then dig in. Let the Left scream "it isn't enough" rather than "they are doing nothing." The Right can help shape the almost inevitable changes or get trampled, probably with stiffer consequences.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 14, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I'd actually support the "gun show loophole." Make all vendors who sell a gun hold an FFL. Sure, private sales can still occur elsewhere, but you've reduced the visibility and presumably lower prices that come with the environment.
> 
> I honestly think we should focus on exiting laws and upgrading technology, but I'm keenly aware this topic isn't going away. The more the Right and the NRA stand there with their arms crossed the more ground they lose. They really need to throw the Left a bone here and then dig in. Let the Left scream "it isn't enough" rather than "they are doing nothing." The Right can help shape the almost inevitable changes or get trampled, probably with stiffer consequences.


All the vendors I see at Gun Shows have FFL's and run the NICS when you purchase, that's why I believe it is a "red herring" to scream about the gun show loophole.


----------



## AWP (Jun 14, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> All the vendors I see at Gun Shows have FFL's and run the NICS when you purchase, that's why I believe it is a "red herring" to scream about the gun show loophole.



And that's good. I don't know if it is universal or not, but regardless the pro-2A side needs a plan to shape the discussion or we're going to be spectators in the upcoming battle.


----------



## Brill (Jun 14, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> All the vendors I see at Gun Shows have FFL's and run the NICS when you purchase, that's why I believe it is a "red herring" to scream about the gun show loophole.



Same shit about buying a gun over the Internet!


----------



## Brill (Jun 14, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> BUT......you can buy a gun from a private seller at a gunshow with no checks, not saying its bad...



P2P sales are state dependent (very illegal in MD).


----------



## Centermass (Jun 14, 2016)

I stand behind you in line at the store...my weapon, tucked away, under my shirt. You are none the wiser, yet you are safer for having me next to you. I won't shoot you. My gun won't pull it's own trigger. It is securely holstered with the trigger covered. It can't just go off. However, rest assured that if a lunatic walks into the grocery store and pulls out a rifle, I will draw my pistol and protect myself and my family and therefore protect you and your family. I may get shot before I can pull the trigger...but, I won't die in a helpless blubbering heap on the floor begging for my life or my families life. No, if I die it will be in a pile of spent shell casings. I won't be that victim. I choose not to be. As for you, I don't ask you to carry a gun. If you are not comfortable, then please don't. But I would like to keep my right to choose and not become a helpless victim. There is evil in the world and if evil has a gun, I will be prepared when the time comes, even if you aren't.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jun 14, 2016)

I have been a party to at least one P2P sale where both parties involved met at a designated FFL that would agree to conduct the background check.  It wasn't all that much of an inconvenience, really.


----------



## Brill (Jun 14, 2016)

One should be sure where the candidates stand on gun control.

Trump is endorsed by the NRA so his position is pretty clear.

Clinton's position is unclear because she's been all over the map.

The rise, fall, and rise again of Hillary Clinton's passion for gun control


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 14, 2016)

Needed: Domestic Disarmament, Not 'Gun Control'

Yeah, come and take them pussies...


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 14, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I can buy a gun from a private seller anywhere, what's your case there?
> The "Gun Show Loophole" won't eliminate straw purchases, and wouldn't have stopped this attack.
> Has TSA come out and said the shooter was on the no-fly list?



No case DASWO, I was just responded to the statement about FFL at gun shows.  I fully support P2P sales, and have bought and sold firearms at the Dallas Market Hall gun show all the time.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 14, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Needed: Domestic Disarmament, Not 'Gun Control'
> 
> Yeah, come and take them pussies...




And how does this nitwit plan to pull off "domestic disarmament?" There's only one way to get guns out of the hands of Americans: mass confiscation. Just the logistics would be staggering not to mention the biggest bloody fuck-fest since 1865. God help us from retards like this.


----------



## Etype (Jun 14, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> And how does this nitwit plan to pull off "domestic disarmament?" There's only one way to get guns out of the hands of Americans: mass confiscation. Just the logistics would be staggering not to mention the biggest bloody fuck-fest since 1865. God help us from retards like this.


Most of the folks who were willing to be disarmed stayed on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 15, 2016)

Interesting statistics


----------



## Lefty375 (Jun 15, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Interesting statistics



Just an FYI, these same people have videos reporting how the Illuminati is going to take over. That's just one of the conspiracy videos they have...they actually get better and more funny the farther you look.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 15, 2016)

lucky l3fty said:


> Just an FYI, these same people have videos reporting how the Illuminati is going to take over. That's just one of the conspiracy videos they have...they actually get better and more funny the farther you look.


True, but as they say... a stopped clock is right twice a day. Your Mileage May Vary lol


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 15, 2016)

lucky l3fty said:


> Just an FYI, these same people have videos reporting how the Illuminati is going to take over. That's just one of the conspiracy videos they have...they actually get better and more funny the farther you look.


Dagnabbit...I meant to post the article that had this video embedded...it's definitely a right leaning site, but they cite their sources: Why Have There Been More Mass Shootings Under Obama than the Four Previous Presidents Combined? | The Daily Sheeple


----------



## Gunz (Jun 15, 2016)

lucky l3fty said:


> Just an FYI, these same people have videos reporting how the Illuminati is going to take over.



You mean they're _not_???


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 15, 2016)

This should not surprise me, Trump has never been uuber pro-gun...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 15, 2016)

I'm actually not sure I'm against it at this point. I don't like the lack of due process, but apparently this last asshole was being investigated and fucking wreaked shop. I don't wanna see that again, before I go full WTF on the operation, i will say, dude shouldn't have been able to buy a gun, regardless of type.

$.02


----------



## Dienekes (Jun 15, 2016)

I don't really like the idea of not being able to buy a gun just because you are on a watch list. One of my professors is proud of the fact that she is on a watch list purely because of a skill she acquired in getting her PhD, and with that idea implemented, a law abiding citizen would not be able to buy a gun. However, I'd be perfectly fine with an application process for people on the watch list to submit to the proper authority to be allowed to purchase a gun the first time. After that and a short period of not putting holes in innocent people, they should be able to buy just like the rest.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 15, 2016)

Dienekes said:


> I don't really like the idea of not being able to buy a gun just because you are on a watch list. One of my professors is proud of the fact that she is on a watch list purely because of a skill she acquired in getting her PhD, and with that idea implemented, a law abiding citizen would not be able to buy a gun. However, I'd be perfectly fine with an application process for people on the watch list to submit to the proper authority to be allowed to purchase a gun the first time. After that and a short period of not putting holes in innocent people, they should be able to buy just like the rest.



A line has to be drawn somewhere regarding who can or can not be trusted. The watch list seems to be the logical choice.

I don't quite get how the PhD put her on the watch list. If she is proud to be on the list, I am happy for her.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 15, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> A line has to be drawn somewhere regarding who can or can not be trusted. The watch list seems to be the logical choice.
> 
> I don't quite get how the PhD put her on the watch list. If she is proud to be on the list, I am happy for her.


The problem with the watch list is a mistaken entry means an innocent person can no longer fly, and they are not keen on removing people from the list.
They also try to avoid telling why you were put on the list.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 15, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> The problem with the watch list is a mistaken entry means an innocent person can no longer fly, and they are not keen on removing people from the list.
> They also try to avoid telling why you were put on the list.



Where does one go to be removed from the watch list? Do they appeal to the TSA, or begin with the LEO Community?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 15, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Where does one go to be removed from the watch list? Do they appeal to the TSA, or begin with the LEO Community?



I posted this a couple pages back.  Makes me nervous...

Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms


----------



## AWP (Jun 15, 2016)

"If you're on the No Fly list you shouldn't be able to buy a gun."
"Great idea!"
"No, the No Fly has problems and shortcomings."
"Good point, there must be another option."

There is, I like to call it "FIX THE NO FLY LIST PROCESS."


----------



## Totentanz (Jun 15, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> A line has to be drawn somewhere regarding who can or can not be trusted. The watch list seems to be the logical choice.





Ooh-Rah said:


> I posted this a couple pages back.  Makes me nervous...
> 
> Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms



What he (@Ooh-Rah) said.  Fix the list first.


----------



## AWP (Jun 15, 2016)

We've reached this point in America where we recognize a problem, propose a solution and when someone points out a problem with the solution we discard that and move to another option.

We have a society where not only consumer goods are disposable, but so are our ideas. "Oh, someone doesn't like this. Better move on" is pure garbage. What happened to problem solving, compromise, and negotiation?


----------



## policemedic (Jun 15, 2016)

If you're on the terrorist watch list or the no-fly list, you shouldn't be allowed to use the Internet or speak about certain subjects (like religion or politics) and your freedom to associate should be curtailed (no attending mosques, for instance). 

The First Amendment can be quite dangerous.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 15, 2016)

I see where a Democrat senator is going to filibuster to force a vote on AR legislation.  All the blow-hards investing good spittle on a gun that is responsible for approximately .005% of gun deaths.


----------



## Lefty375 (Jun 15, 2016)

policemedic said:


> If you're on the terrorist watch list or the no-fly list, you shouldn't be allowed to use the Internet or speak about certain subjects (like religion or politics) and your freedom to associate should be curtailed (no attending mosques, for instance).
> 
> The First Amendment can be quite dangerous.



I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 15, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> What he (@Ooh-Rah) said.  Fix the list first.



I have to agree with ^^^^^^^. In some ways it does smack of McCarthyism.


----------



## policemedic (Jun 15, 2016)

lucky l3fty said:


> I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not.



It is, but you take my point.


----------



## Brill (Jun 15, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I'm actually not sure I'm against it at this point. I don't like the lack of due process, but apparently this last asshole was being investigated and fucking wreaked shop. I don't wanna see that again, before I go full WTF on the operation, i will say, dude shouldn't have been able to buy a gun, regardless of type.
> 
> $.02



He was a naturally born US citizen!

So clearly there is shit out there that the FBI missed so the plan is to regulate due process, a cornerstone of freedom that keeps us apart from Russia or insert your authoritarian regime?

If he was a Christian militia member would he be treated with kid gloves?  Regardless what our politicians will say, Islam is at war with us.


----------



## Brill (Jun 15, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Where does one go to be removed from the watch list? Do they appeal to the TSA, or begin with the LEO Community?



They have to apply to DHS via TSA but like airport security, it's slow and inefficient.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 15, 2016)

lindy said:


> He was a naturally born US citizen!
> 
> So clearly there is shit out there that the FBI missed so the plan is to regulate due process, a cornerstone of freedom that keeps us apart from Russia or insert your authoritarian regime?
> 
> If he was a Christian militia member would he be treated with kid gloves?  Regardless what our politicians will say, Islam is at war with us.


Not to mention that DHS vetted him for a sensitive position. The security company is contracted by DHS for security at many locations. So, in essence, he was 'vetted' by two federal agencies. No matter the list, check, verification, anal probe, or other measure.... you cannot stop a determined individual you know nothing about.


----------



## Etype (Jun 15, 2016)

Dienekes said:


> I don't really like the idea of not being able to buy a gun just because you are on a watch list.





Red Flag 1 said:


> A line has to be drawn somewhere regarding who can or can not be trusted. The watch list seems to be the logical choice.





DA SWO said:


> The problem with the watch list is a mistaken entry means an innocent person can no longer fly, and they are not keen on removing people from the list.
> They also try to avoid telling why you were put on the list.





Ooh-Rah said:


> I posted this a couple pages back.  Makes me nervous...
> 
> Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms



It's another case of that pesky Constitution and it's amendments, particularly the 14th. It ensures that you can't be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

A watch list isn't a trial by jury, or a ruling by a judge, and I don't think it was created by elected legislators either.


----------



## Lefty375 (Jun 15, 2016)

policemedic said:


> It is, but you take my point.



Yea, you had me. I had typed up some long, crazy response but I was like....if this is sarcasm, I will feel beyond stupid. It's pretty crazy how your comment though, has become an actual goal to people.


----------



## Etype (Jun 15, 2016)




----------



## policemedic (Jun 15, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Where does one go to be removed from the watch list? Do they appeal to the TSA, or begin with the LEO Community?



The watch list(s) and the no-fly list are actually separate animals.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 15, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Not to mention that DHS vetted him for a sensitive position. The security company is contracted by DHS for security at many locations. So, in essence, he was 'vetted' by two federal agencies. No matter the list, check, verification, anal probe, or other measure.... you cannot stop a determined individual you know nothing about.



You can ban guns but you can't read minds. The determined individual will find a way to kill. (See 9/11 etc.)


----------



## Brill (Jun 15, 2016)

Interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0



> But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.
> 
> It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.
> 
> ...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 15, 2016)

policemedic said:


> The watch list(s) and the no-fly list are actually separate animals.


But neither give the accused due process.


----------



## policemedic (Jun 15, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> But neither give the accused due process.



No argument.  It's important to know they're controlled by different entities with different criteria for inclusion.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 16, 2016)

In order to restrict any right, there needs to be due process, otherwise we'll all end up on some list because we say something dumb that we are just joking about or make for dramatic effect but don't mean.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 16, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I have to agree with ^^^^^^^. In some ways it does smack of McCarthyism.


Extremely relevant: Newt Gingrich wants new House Un-American Activities Committee - CNNPolitics.com

*Newt Gingrich wants new House Un-American Activities Committee*



> Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is calling for the creation of a new House Committee on Un-American Activities, invoking the infamous "Red Scare"-era congressional body as a blueprint for weeding out American ISIS adherents and sympathizers.
> 
> "We originally created the House Un-American Activities Committee to go after Nazis," he said during an appearance on "Fox and Friends" this week. "We passed several laws in 1938 and 1939 to go after Nazis and we made it illegal to help the Nazis. We're going to presently have to go take the similar steps here."
> Gingrich, a vocal supporter of Donald Drumpf, has been touted as a potential running mate for the presumptive Republican nominee.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 16, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Extremely relevant: Newt Gingrich wants new House Un-American Activities Committee - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> *Newt Gingrich wants new House Un-American Activities Committee*


Gingrich is a tool, wonder whose pulling his strings.


----------



## AWP (Jun 16, 2016)

Fortunately CNN responded in a rational and adult-like manner, chock full of facts and in no way ignored the obvious about the subject matter.

It's easier to get a gun than to get a puppy - CNN.com


----------



## Brill (Jun 16, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Extremely relevant: Newt Gingrich wants new House Un-American Activities Committee - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> *Newt Gingrich wants new House Un-American Activities Committee*



He never said the wants that specific House committee but was describing the history.  He did say we need similar steps to make it illegal to go after Nazis and their supporters. The implication is that the US needs to take steps against terrorist support networks.

This is EXACTLY like Clinton's exchange with Stephanoplois.


----------



## Brill (Jun 16, 2016)

Something bad happened.  Pass a law!  Against what?  Against bad things!!!

Thank God there is a legislative body to slow things down and not be so reactive.

'No Fly, No Buy' Has Political Support, But May Have Little Impact




> But *many experts question whether the so-called "no fly, no buy" approach would be effective*, noting that it would not have prevented several of the most grisly recent mass shootings in Orlando, Florida; San Bernardino, California; and Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
> 
> The reason: *None of the attackers were among the more than 1.1 million people on the government's databases of suspected terrorists*, including those with potential extremist ties banned from flying while under investigation.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 16, 2016)

Trey Gowdy for President: Trey Gowdy


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 16, 2016)

Good for Daniel Defense.

Daniel Defense Terminates Relationship with Academy Sports - Soldier Systems Daily

*Daniel Defense Terminates Relationship with Academy Sports*
Black Creek, GA- June 16, 2016. Daniel Defense—engineer and manufacture of the world’s finest firearms, precision rail systems, and accessories— Has announced it will no longer sell firearms to Academy Sports due to their decision to remove MSR’s from their website and in-store displays.


----------



## AWP (Jun 17, 2016)

A great article which makes many of the same points found on this board. The good stuff is too numerous to list, but this sums it up nicely.

The Media Keeps Misfiring When It Writes About Guns



> There are many reasons that this cycle repeats as it does. We live in a divided society where people cocoon with like-minded allies, and we’ve stopped listening to the other side. The NRA is powerful. We get distracted and move on to the next shiny thing. But one important point: The mainstream media lobbies hard for gun control, but it is very, very bad at gun journalism. It might be impossible ever to bridge the divide between the gun-control and gun-rights movements. But *it’s impossible to start a dialogue when you don’t know what the hell you are talking about*.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 17, 2016)

So here's my question on this un-intelligent liberals viewpoint...38 minutes seems like a long time to me It Took Us Just 38 Minutes To Buy An AR-15 In Orlando


----------



## Marine0311 (Jun 17, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> So here's my question on this un-intelligent liberals viewpoint...38 minutes seems like a long time to me It Took Us Just 38 Minutes To Buy An AR-15 In Orlando



It does?


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jun 17, 2016)

Not everyone has a fast internet connection....:-"


----------



## policemedic (Jun 17, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> It does?



Depends on when you start the clock. It may take less than 5 if all you count is the time to complete 4473 online and wait for the approval.


----------



## Brill (Jun 18, 2016)

Interesting that the President said today we should make it harder for people who want to kill Americans to get guns.

The US is THE world's leading arms exporter (sells 30% of arms).

The Top 20 Arms Exporters, 2010–2014 | SIPRI


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 18, 2016)

This is as close as possible you can come to a positive gun story from the Minneapolis Star Tribune.  Good video too...

A look inside the world of gun enthusiasts


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jun 19, 2016)

Good points made.....






*The AR-15: Americans' Best Defense Against Terror and Crime *


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 20, 2016)

Needed: Domestic Disarmament, Not 'Gun Control'


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 20, 2016)

And to think, that idiot just put out a book on privacy in the digital age. Wonder if he talked about encryption at all. That's weapon grade first amendment right there, we need to back door disarm the public. No more encrypted transmissions.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 20, 2016)

And she represents my state...


----------



## AWP (Jun 20, 2016)

Other than this article, I don't know the details on what the either side proposed, but I find it curious the vote totals almost mimic party lines in the Senate.

54 - R
44 - D
2 - I


Gun control measures fail to clear Senate hurdle | Fox News


----------



## Marine0311 (Jun 20, 2016)

Gun-safety advocates, Malloy, cheer support of CT’s assault-weapon ban


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 20, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> And she represents my state...



"Prove you're innocent" of being on someone's extra-judicial watch list in order to exercise one's Constitutional rights?  What country am I living in again?


----------



## policemedic (Jun 20, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> Gun-safety advocates, Malloy, cheer support of CT’s assault-weapon ban



Move to Alabama.  They don't cotton to that bullshit.


----------



## AWP (Jun 25, 2016)

And Hawaii becomes the first state with a database of registered gun owners. 



> (CNN) — While the issue of gun control has made little headway in Congress, Hawaii this week enacted a series of gun laws, one of which the governor says makes it the first state to put firearm owners into a database.
> 
> That database, which is called the "Rap Back" system, is operated by the FBI and would notify police when a gun owner is arrested for a crime anywhere in the United States.



ETA the link

Hawaii passes first law to put gun owners in database - CNN.com


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 1, 2016)

Slayer Frontman Tom Araya: 'People F*cking Die' When Guns Are Taken Away - Breitbart


----------



## Yosemite (Jul 2, 2016)

Good job California...
Bullet button ban, background checks for ammunition purchases, banning ownership of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, and making it illegal to loan your firearms to family and friends..amongst other things...

NRA-ILA | California: Governor Brown Signs Anti-Gun Bills


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 2, 2016)

Didn't see anything in that on background checks for ammo...but some asinine system for tracking the purchases of ammunition.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 7, 2016)

Gun control isn't the answer. We already know how to stop the violence

I'm shocked this is coming from CNBC. I like the direction this article is steering towards. Put our money where out mouth is and get more law enforcement officers to enforce the existing laws on the book.


----------



## 104TN (Jul 20, 2016)

"Massachusetts to enforce longstanding assault weapons ban by closing loophole" 
- Crazy to think MA is where our fight for independence kicked off.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 21, 2016)

rick said:


> "Massachusetts to enforce longstanding assault weapons ban by closing loophole"
> - Crazy to think MA is where our fight for independence kicked off.



They are officially more Libtard than Canuckistan and Commiefornia. 

But give it time and both will follow suit.  Hell the RCMP are trying to ban all rimfire mags over 10 rounds, starting with 10/22 mags.  For officer safety.

RCMP MOVING TO DECLARE ALL 10+ ROUND 10/22 MAGAZINES PROHIBITED DEVICES - Calibremag.ca


----------



## Gunz (Jul 21, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> They are officially more Libtard than Canuckistan and Commiefornia.
> 
> But give it time and both will follow suit.  Hell the RCMP are trying to ban all rimfire mags over 10 rounds, starting with 10/22 mags.  For officer safety.
> 
> RCMP MOVING TO DECLARE ALL 10+ ROUND 10/22 MAGAZINES PROHIBITED DEVICES - Calibremag.ca




WTF is happening up there? 10/22's come standard with 10-round mags. Jumping fucking Jesus, let's just ban _FUN._


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 21, 2016)

I just bought another AR out of sympathy for our Massachusetts brothers.....


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 21, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> WTF is happening up there? 10/22's come standard with 10-round mags. Jumping fucking Jesus, let's just ban _FUN._



It started with the BX25 mags being compatible with the 1022 pistol.  All pistol mags have a max 10rd capacity.  That was a couple years ago and ended with the regs saying except any mags stating they are for rifle use only or for a specific model.  Rimfire is not supposed to be regulated the same.  This is the idiots in the RCMP Firearms Lab and Legal department reinterpreting existing laws.  Technically changes like this can't be done without parliament approval.  But our current idiot government is happy with allowing the RCMP to define firearms law.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 22, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I just bought another AR out of sympathy for our Massachusetts brothers.....



You are a true humanitarian...


----------



## Dame (Jul 22, 2016)

Just saw this on FB today. Good grief.
Obama Asked Celebrities to Help Push Gun Control. This is What Mike Rowe Did Instead...


> President Obama’s gun control policies are so unpopular that he’s taken to openly asking celebrities to pitch his plan to their fans – even sending the exact words they should use.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 23, 2016)

@Ocoka One  here's the internal memo spread on it.  No notification to licenced owners at all.   

Good thing is this seems to be unifying our multiple firearms advocacy and lobbying groups.  May be a class action lawsuit and possible appeal in the courts.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 23, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> @Ocoka One  here's the internal memo spread on it.  No notification to licenced owners at all.
> 
> Good thing is this seems to be unifying our multiple firearms advocacy and lobbying groups.  May be a class action lawsuit and possible appeal in the courts.
> 
> View attachment 16147



Pinning. 

Let's hope the Canadian gun lobby can quash this.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jul 23, 2016)

policemedic said:


> Move to Alabama.  They don't cotton to that bullshit.



I should.


----------



## AWP (Jul 24, 2016)

policemedic said:


> ...Alabama.  They don't cotton to that bullshit.



Alabama and cotton in the same post. That was masterfully done.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 24, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> *Pinning*.
> 
> Let's hope the Canadian gun lobby can quash this.



Cause we all know rivets stop criminals every day.  lol


----------



## AWP (Jul 30, 2016)

An interesting bit of history for everyone. The Black Panthers, Reagan, and the NRA.

A Huey P. Newton Story - Actions - State Capitol March | PBS
When the NRA Supported Gun Control
The Secret History of Guns



> Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control. Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”



I thought it interesting that many of the arguments we (myself included) have made about Jews and other persecuted groups are the same arguments made by the Black Panthers in 1967.



> The 24 men and six women climbed the capitol steps, and one man, Bobby Seale, began to read from a prepared statement. “The American people in general and the black people in particular,” he announced, must take careful note of the racist California legislature aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless Black people have begged, prayed, petitioned, demonstrated, and everything else to get the racist power structure of America to right the wrongs which have historically been perpetuated against black people The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.



Rhetoric or not, what they protested back then are some of the same rights we seek today like open carry.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 30, 2016)

_The Secret History of Guns. _Very interesting.  And pretty well-balanced article, IMO. Almost makes me want to join the Black Panther Party.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 30, 2016)

So it's on the news...but Dr Dre was arrested the other day when he started recording a dude that had passed by in front of and then parked in front of his house's driveway.  Dre started filming the incident when he went into his yard, the guy who called the cops literally said: "black guy with a gun."  That dude needs some time in Camp Snoopy.  Supposedly Dre received a citation because idiot hipster initiated a citizens arrest.  Also, Dre was not armed at any point of this encounter.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 30, 2016)

Sounds like somebody...forgot about Dre


----------



## AWP (Jul 30, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Sounds like somebody...forgot about Dre



I'm pulling your Net privileges.


----------



## busdriver (Jul 30, 2016)

This will undoubtedly continue the trend of Dre not loving police.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 31, 2016)

It might add to his rap sheet. Just my 50 cent.


----------



## 104TN (Jul 31, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> It might add to his rap sheet. Just my 50 cent.


That's ludacris.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 31, 2016)

Not sure I like the Tone of this thread.  We should Loc it.


----------



## compforce (Jul 31, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Not sure I like the Tone of this thread.  We should Loc it.



But then I wouldn't have anything to Snoop on while I drink my Ice-T


----------



## nobodythank you (Jul 31, 2016)

You guys are Notorious for Big discussions designed Tupac our heads full of useless information.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 31, 2016)

I'm just sitting here eating my Eminems and putting Ice-Cube in my coffee.


----------



## AWP (Jul 31, 2016)

This thread's going to make me everyone's Public Enemy, so Welcome to the Terrordome. My time in the desert has made me angry, very angry, and I should probably move away from FL. I fear that By the Time I get to Arizona my anger will cause me to Fight the Power. I could use a new job, but Pimpin' Ain't Easy and being a Dopeman isn't who I am. Regardless, with my ethics I Go to Work each and every day. At night, I hang with my Boyz n tha' Hood sippin' Gin and Juice because I know It Was a Good Day.


----------



## Brill (Aug 6, 2016)

Great plan! Public shaming of gun owners/carriers.

#cocksnotglocks

About


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 6, 2016)

I am not sure this is updated recently or not but here's a list:

Gun Control: 2016 contenders' views


----------



## Brill (Aug 6, 2016)

interesting that Trump says something untrue (e.g. video of cash going to Iran) but Clinton says you can buy a gun online without a background check and NOBODY says shit.

*As president, Hillary will:*

Expand background checks to more gun sales—including by closing the gun show and internet sales loopholes—and strengthen the background check system by getting rid of the so-called “Charleston Loophole.”

Hillary Clinton on gun violence prevention


----------



## compforce (Aug 6, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> I am not sure this is updated recently or not but here's a list:
> 
> Gun Control: 2016 contenders' views



The most surprising thing in that list...   Roseanne Barr "Supports absolute right to gun ownership. (Sep 2012)"


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 3, 2016)

Gun Control: 2016 contenders' views

Just bumping this up for review for all.


----------



## AWP (Sep 18, 2016)

Backing up 7 pages' worth of this thread, Katie Couric is sued for $12 million.

Katie Couric Faces $12 Million Defamation Suit For 'misleading' Gun Documentary Edits



> Katie Couric and "Under the Gun" director Stephanie Soechtig are facing a $12 million defamation lawsuit for their roles in allegedly "misleading" edits made in their 2016 documentary.
> 
> Virginians Citizens Defense League (VCDL) is taking Couric and her director to court for edits they say made VCDL members appear stumped by Couric's gun control questions, when in fact they were not.


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 18, 2016)

^^^I need a love button for this!


----------



## BloodStripe (Sep 18, 2016)

Temporary Tattoos

Just what I always wanted,  a temporary tattoo.


----------



## Totentanz (Sep 18, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> Temporary Tattoos
> 
> Just what I always wanted,  a temporary tattoo.


 Works perfectly for Marines - that way the rest of your platoon doesn't need to know about the tramp stamp ya display on the weekends...


----------



## BloodStripe (Sep 18, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> Works perfectly for Marines - that way the rest of your platoon doesn't need to know about the tramp stamp ya display on the weekends...




Hahaha.

Don't confuse the Department of Navy United States Marine Corps with just the Department of the Navy. :die:


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 18, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> Works perfectly for Marines - that way the rest of your platoon doesn't need to know about the tramp stamp ya display on the weekends...



"hate"


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 20, 2016)

According to the results of a Harvard-Northeastern survey of 4,000 gun owners,  just 3 percent of American adults own half of the nation’s firearms, according to t.

I say horse shit, this is  nothing more than the continued  media spin to show that gun owners are a minority segment of America and paint them as paranoid.

Just 3 percent of American adults own half of the nation’s firearms, according to the results of a Harvard-Northeastern survey of 4,000 gun owners.

_The survey’s findings support other research showing that as the overall rate of gun ownership has declined, the number of firearms in circulation has skyrocketed. The implication is that there are more guns in fewer hands than ever before. The top 3 percent of American adults own, on average, 17 guns apiece, according to the survey’s estimates.

The survey is particularly useful to researchers because *it asked respondents not just whether they own guns, but how many and what types of guns they own.* This makes for one of the clearest pictures yet of American gun ownership.
_
The bolded immediately shows the survey flaws.  
1)  I'm not likely to tell anyone doing a phone survey if I own guns
2)  There is ZERO chance I am going to tell them how many and what types I own.  Did they as for the location and combo to the safe next?

http://www.startribune.com/nation/394043441.html


----------



## Totentanz (Sep 20, 2016)

It's meant to create a false perception that gun owners are an extreme minority (utilizing the tactics above) and therefore stripping them of civil liberties has minimal impact on the populace.  Wait for it to be coupled by a piece outlining the positive of a violence-free utopia.

Thanks, Harvard...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 20, 2016)

Well Jill Stein said we should be encouraged to turn in weapons...I'll pass.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 20, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> According to the results of a Harvard-Northeastern survey of 4,000 gun owners,  just 3 percent of American adults own half of the nation’s firearms, according to t.
> 
> I say horse shit, this is  nothing more than the continued  media spin to show that gun owners are a minority segment of America and paint them as paranoid.
> 
> ...



Man....how many ways to poke holes in this??

Over 300 million guns in the US....US population 319 million

How do you account for face-to-face sales through individuals and non-FFLs?

4,000 respondants from a population of 319 million is .00125% (if I did my math right, which is always iffy).  The sample size alone makes this meaningless.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 20, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Man....how many ways to poke holes in this??
> 
> Over 300 million guns in the US....US population 319 million
> 
> ...


Not necessarily.  You can design a nationally-representative survey with few respondents as long as your survey is designed well, and you achieve a strong response rate.  You can actually check the math here: Sample size calculator - CheckMarket
For example, I entered 300,000,000 for the population size (just to get a nice round number.  past a certain point, population size doesn't really mean much), a response rate of 35% (the only thing that a higher response rate achieves is increasing the number of people invited to the survey), with an MoE of 2% and 99% confidence interval.  That resulted in about 12,000 people people being surveyed, and a sample size of 4147 (again, response rate 35%).

It is, however, a little difficult to tell exactly how they structured the survey and what the response rate was because it looks like they haven't published the study yet.  I'd be interested to see what their methodology was.  I'm also curious as to some of the claims in the article.  For instance, it said that the survey sampled approximately 4,000 gun owners, but it also stated that, "The study found that 22 percent of American adults say they personally own a firearm. "  I'm not sure whether there was a distinction made between having a firearm and OWNING a firearm (e.g. having a gun in the home vs. personally owning one), or if that's an oversight by the writer.  Regardless, if 4,000 gun owners were included in the sample, I don't see how you could draw out the 22% ownership rate from that.  I can definitely understand the line about 3% of gun owners having half of the guns, but I don't get the 22% figure.

Again, I'd like to see the survey itself before drawing conclusions about the sampling method, but the statistical reasoning has the potential to be sound.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 20, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Not necessarily.  You can design a nationally-representative survey with few respondents as long as your survey is designed well, and you achieve a strong response rate.  You can actually check the math here: Sample size calculator - CheckMarket
> For example, I entered 300,000,000 for the population size (just to get a nice round number.  past a certain point, population size doesn't really mean much), a response rate of 35% (the only thing that a higher response rate achieves is increasing the number of people invited to the survey), with an MoE of 2% and 99% confidence interval.  That resulted in about 12,000 people people being surveyed, and a sample size of 4147 (again, response rate 35%).
> 
> It is, however, a little difficult to tell exactly how they structured the survey and what the response rate was because it looks like they haven't published the study yet.  I'd be interested to see what their methodology was.  I'm also curious as to some of the claims in the article.  For instance, it said that the survey sampled approximately 4,000 gun owners, but it also stated that, "The study found that 22 percent of American adults say they personally own a firearm. "  I'm not sure whether there was a distinction made between having a firearm and OWNING a firearm (e.g. having a gun in the home vs. personally owning one), or if that's an oversight by the writer.  Regardless, if 4,000 gun owners were included in the sample, I don't see how you could draw out the 22% ownership rate from that.  I can definitely understand the line about 3% of gun owners having half of the guns, but I don't get the 22% figure.
> ...




Can you repeat that for those of us on crack?


----------



## Totentanz (Sep 20, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Can you repeat that for those of us on crack?



You don't have to have a colossal sample size for an accurate sample, if you set it up correctly (to accurately represent the population). 

I have some strong doubts that they did so in any meaningful way.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 20, 2016)

10,000 respondents is the accepted number for scholarly studies.


----------



## Brill (Sep 20, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> 1)  I'm not likely to tell anyone doing a phone survey if I own guns
> 2)  There is ZERO chance I am going to tell them how many and what types I own.



Bingo!

Hell, I'd say I have all kinda of crazy shit.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 20, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> 10,000 respondents is the accepted number for scholarly studies.


Not that I'm doubting you, but where are you getting this from?


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 20, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> According to the results of a Harvard-Northeastern survey of 4,000 gun owners,  just 3 percent of American adults own half of the nation’s firearms, according to t.
> 
> I say horse shit, this is  nothing more than the continued  media spin to show that gun owners are a minority segment of America and paint them as paranoid.
> 
> ...



I believe it. Think of how many people own a dhotload of guns, and how many own zero. It is still a shitload of people with 1-2 guns.




ThunderHorse said:


> 10,000 respondents is the accepted number for scholarly studies.



Ugh what? Did you literally just pull that out of your ass?


----------



## busdriver (Sep 20, 2016)

I'm curious how they accounted for regional differences when determining if they had an appropriate sample size.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 20, 2016)

A 10000 person sample would need something like 30-50k people surveyed. That would be soooooooo expensive.


----------



## compforce (Sep 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Ugh what? Did you literally just pull that out of your ass?



78% of all statistics are just made up...


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 20, 2016)

I do love when a study comes out how everyone including me has a fucking Ph.D in stats.... we are all like "the p-value...."


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I do love when a study comes out how everyone including me has a fucking Ph.D in stats.... we are all like "the p-value...."



When y'all starting talking null hypothesis and the Mann-Whitney U I am out of here...

Man, talk about blowing dust off some neurons....


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 20, 2016)

No matter what the sample size is, I just skew the results to reflect whatever pre-determined political view I had that drove me to undertake the study in the first place.  Sample size of 10, or 10,000, or 10 million.  No drama.


----------



## DocIllinois (Sep 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> A 10000 person sample would need something like 30-50k people surveyed. That would be soooooooo expensive.



Not to mention the colossal waste of time and effort involved in gathering data after you have all the data you need and your study has sufficient statistical power.


----------



## DocIllinois (Sep 20, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> No matter what the sample size is, I just skew the results to reflect whatever pre-determined political view I had that drove me to undertake the study in the first place.  Sample size of 10, or 10,000, or 10 million.  No drama.



Entering a study and results analysis with a distinct personal bias.

The Trump Science Methodology has officially begun it's spread.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 21, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Entering a study and results analysis with a distinct personal bias.



Every time I get a call or someone at my door with a "survey" or some such, I always give answers that don't reflect my "truth".  Certainly I am not the only one who does this.

Last night we had someone at the door from the League of Conservation Voters.  They asked who I was voting for.  I said "not Clinton."  She said, "So Trump."  I said, "I didn't say that."  She said, "well, who else is there?"  So I said, "good day, madam."

They have their game, I have mine.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 21, 2016)

I think the survey is crap.

Florida alone has issued--as of March 2015--1.4-million Concealed Weapons Licenses. The GAO estimates there are at least 8-million active concealed firearm carry permits in the US. Pennsylvania has issued 1.1-million since 2008. And twelve states have fully unrestricted carry laws.

Obviously, any toll of CCW permits doesn't account for the millions of legally owned firearms whose owners don't possess a CCW. I know people who have only a shotgun or a 22. What about people who got a CCW and only have one handgun, the one they carry? 

This bunch of shithot rocket aces up there at Harvard could've started with published data before hitting the phones.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 21, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I think the survey is crap.
> 
> Florida alone has issued--as of March 2015--1.4-million Concealed Weapons Licenses. The GAO estimates there are at least 8-million active concealed firearm carry permits in the US. Pennsylvania has issued 1.1-million since 2008. And twelve states have fully unrestricted carry laws.
> 
> ...



I like to think of this 'study' or poll with this analogy:

Conduct a similar poll, but instead of guns, use "silverware."  Now you tell me how can you conclude the real ratio of owners to silverware.  I mean, sure, everyone has at least one of each: one fork, one spoon, one knife.  How many have more than one?  Did they purchase them from Bed, Bath, & Beyond, or at a yard sale or an estate sale?  Is it fine silver that is boxed up, or your average Wal-Mart cutlery that you would use every day?

Sure, you don't need a permit to purchase; but nor do you need a permit to purchase a rifle, and if you get the rifle in a private face-to-face transaction, you don't need much at all.

There are far too many holes in this to be respectable, and far too hard to generalize.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 21, 2016)

And where do they get the _"rate of gun ownership has declined"_? How do they figure that?

I could understand a finding that says gun sales have declined. After the hysterical gun & ammo buying frenzy in the first few years of the Obama administration, I wouldn't be surprised to see a fall off.


----------



## AWP (Sep 21, 2016)

The funny thing about surveys and the like, is how do you trust them? I've quoted the FBI's data on crime and we all know it to be wrong, yet a study will come along and say the exact opposite of the FBI's crime data where guns are concerned. What if they are both wrong, then what?

That's right, we don't freaking know because we don't have the God's Eye view into the home of every American.

Besides, we're running studies against a Constitutional right in the hopes we can keep/ rewrite said right? (Sorry for the rhyme or whatever) Unbelievable.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 21, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Every time I get a call or someone at my door with a "survey" or some such, I always give answers that don't reflect my "truth".  Certainly I am not the only one who does this.
> 
> Last night we had someone at the door from the League of Conservation Voters.  They asked who I was voting for.  I said "not Clinton."  She said, "So Trump."  I said, "I didn't say that."  She said, "well, who else is there?"  So I said, "good day, madam."
> 
> They have their game, I have mine.



That is a pretty obstinate thing to do. Why not just be honest...?


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 21, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> That is a pretty obstinate thing to do. Why not just be honest...?



I guess I could blow them off.  Sometimes I do. They are wasting my time, so if I am going to participate, it will be on my terms.

When I tell them I have no interest, if they say "thank you" and are on their way, it's all good.  The ones who blurt out "but I only need a minute of your time....", I have no compunction to be the least bit helpful.  The census folks that come around every few years?  Don't even get me started.  I don't even allow them on my property any more.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 21, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I guess I could blow them off.  Sometimes I do. They are wasting my time, so if I am going to participate, it will be on my terms.
> 
> When I tell them I have no interest, if they say "thank you" and are on their way, it's all good.  The ones who blurt out "but I only need a minute of your time....", I have no compunction to be the least bit helpful.  The census folks that come around every few years?  Don't even get me started.  I don't even allow them on my property any more.



Why? Why not participate in the increase of knowledge?


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 21, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Why? Why not participate in the increase of knowledge?



Once upon a time I was a 'real' nurse; you know, at the bedside.  Now I am in an administrative job which affords me time to play around online participating in forums like this.  And time for grad school.  Can't forget that.  Anywho, when I call patients, I am hyper-aware of the timing.  I won't call at meal times, or early in the morning (when it's actually best for me).  I always ask them, "is this a good time?"

When I am home after a grueling day of being on the phone and playing online, the last thing I want to do in engage someone in a poll, especially when the "it'll just take a moment..." turns into 20 minutes.  I have never been asked if it was a good time for me.  I have even offered to call a couple back at a time that _would_ be good for me, but they decline the invitation.  When I get home I eat dinner, spend time with my wife and kids, and do some homeschooling.  That's all before MY schooling.

Again, when I tell them I am not interested or haven't the time, if they simply say "thanks" its a happy ending.  They are happy, I am happy.  If they want to press me on the issue, or God forbid tell me I "have a duty" (yes, I have been told that), then doom on you.  You wanna play stupid games, then you will get stupid prizes.  That's if I simply just don't hang up on them or shut the door in their face.

I lead a relatively private life.  The amount of PMs I have shared with folks here and other places are astounding compared to the amount of open dialogue.  If you want my opinion or to know about me or what I think, it's a mutually beneficial relationship.  I have no desire to open myself otherwise.

Contrary to what my sister would say, I am not an asshole.  But prodded enough I can be.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 21, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Entering a study and results analysis with a distinct personal bias.
> 
> The Trump Science Methodology has officially begun it's spread.



I had the CDC in mind, but tomato, tomatoe.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 21, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The funny thing about surveys and the like, is how do you trust them? I've quoted the FBI's data on crime and we all know it to be wrong, yet a study will come along and say the exact opposite of the FBI's crime data where guns are concerned. What if they are both wrong, then what?
> 
> That's right, we don't freaking know because we don't have the God's Eye view into the home of every American.
> 
> Besides, we're running studies against a Constitutional right in the hopes we can keep/ rewrite said right? (Sorry for the rhyme or whatever) Unbelievable.



It's also often hard to get people to give accurate answers about sensitive topics like gun ownership.  For example, if someone I didn't know called/emailed me to ask me how many guns I own, I'd answer "None... as in none of your f'ing business."  Or, if they're a representative of the government or are conducting a government-sponsored poll,  I might give a flippant answer, "Oh, about 187."


----------



## Gunz (Sep 21, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The funny thing about surveys and the like, is how do you trust them? I've quoted the FBI's data on crime and we all know it to be wrong, yet a study will come along and say the exact opposite of the FBI's crime data where guns are concerned. What if they are both wrong, then what?
> 
> That's right, we don't freaking know because we don't have the God's Eye view into the home of every American.
> 
> Besides, we're running studies against a Constitutional right in the hopes we can keep/ rewrite said right? (Sorry for the rhyme or whatever) Unbelievable.




True. To be fair, I would be equally leery of an NRA survey. Everybody has a goddam agenda.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 22, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> I had the CDC in mind, but tomato, tomatoe.


The left always wants us to let the CDC study gun violence...that's not a disease.  Althought I'm sure they study other "things" as well.


----------



## DocIllinois (Sep 22, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> The left always wants us to let the CDC study gun violence...that's not a disease.  Althought I'm sure they study other "things" as well.



The CDC tracks vital statistics, such as causes of injury and death.

Which other organization would you suggest study gun violence?


Besides, the CDC is, quite literally, prevented from studying the underlying causes of gun violence.  I would be surprised if gun advocacy groups didn't shut down that sort of research by any other organization, too.  

Quietly, Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 22, 2016)

Who cares if it was gun advocacy groups that put the kabash.  I don't think that should be in the CDC's purview especially since it's a question of crime and we have stats from the FBI for that.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 22, 2016)

The CDC posts nothing on their site for Gun Violence that I could find....:-"

I did find that Abortion and Obesity kill more then Guns....:wall:

Texting kills half as many people as guns and drug abuse twice as much.....damn statistics....:blkeye:


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 22, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Who cares if it was gun advocacy groups that put the kabash.  I don't think that should be in the CDC's purview especially since it's a question of crime and we have stats from the FBI for that.


The FBI only tracks violent crimes associated with firearms.  The CDC keeps stats on accidental firearm deaths, injuries, and suicides.  Those categories account for the largest proportion of firearm fatalities in the United States, and there is emerging research that gun ownership increases the likelihood of suicide success by a large amount.  Unfortunately, there's no research organization, save for the CDC, with the kind of resources to do the kind comprehensive research necessary to address this problem.  Looking at it as strictly a violent crime issue is incredibly short-sighted.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 23, 2016)

.......erm, i would fucking hope a firearm increases suicide success, else you need to buy a larger caliber next time. Lol9mm.


----------



## DocIllinois (Sep 23, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> The CDC posts nothing on their site for Gun Violence that I could find....:-"



Look on the Centers for Disease Control website, not the Citizens Democracy Corps.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 23, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Look on the Centers for Disease Control website, not the Citizens Democracy Corps.



Samsonite.....I was way off....:wall:


----------



## DocIllinois (Sep 23, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> *Who cares if it was gun advocacy groups that put the kabash.*  I don't think that should be in the CDC's purview especially since it's a question of crime and we have stats from the FBI for that.



Everyone interested in scientific research related to firearm safety and the public health impacts of guns.  

"The CDC isn't allowed to pursue many kinds of gun research due to the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association. 
As a result of the National Rifle Association's lobbying efforts, governmental research into gun mortality has shrunk by 96 percent since the mid-1990s, according to Reuters."

How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun Violence Research


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 23, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Everyone interested in scientific research related to firearm safety and the public health impacts of guns.
> 
> "The CDC isn't allowed to pursue many kinds of gun research due to the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association.
> As a result of the National Rifle Association's lobbying efforts, governmental research into gun mortality has shrunk by 96 percent since the mid-1990s, according to Reuters."
> ...



Private funding??

I don't have an issue with research of any type, but rather what happens with it.  It is no secret that the AMA (even though 15% of docs actually belong) uses it for their anti-gun/public health menace position, as does the AAP.

I think it may be better for the NRA to back off completely and use the research in the same manner to present their case.  But does the CDC need to be doing research on it anyway?  I don't know...I see both sides of it.


----------



## DocIllinois (Sep 23, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Private funding??
> 
> I don't have an issue with research of any type, but rather what happens with it. * It is no secret that the AMA (even though 15% of docs actually belong) uses it for their anti-gun/public health menace position, as does the AAP.*



Now I'm interested.  How many people are involved?  Who are they?  How is this effort resourced and maintained?


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 23, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Now I'm interested.  How many people are involved?  Who are they?  How is this effort resourced and maintained?



Regarding the AMA?  My info is anecdotal; it comes from a surgeon who had belonged (but no longer does).  He is a pretty conservative guy, certainly pro-2A, and speaks out about some liberal tendencies of that organization.

A former president of the AMA, Richard Corlin, was big on the anti-gun platform and apparently manipulated some stats, and was excoriated because of it.

I really don't have a dog in the fight but always cast a wary eye at any organization that is anti-gun and politicizes because of it.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 23, 2016)

HRC again shows the value of "lies, damn lies, and statistics":

Hillary Clinton: We Cannot End Terrorism Without Gun Control


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 23, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> HRC again shows the value of "lies, damn lies, and statistics":
> 
> Hillary Clinton: We Cannot End Terrorism Without Gun Control




It is just such backward thinking. They miss the point totally just to beat a drum. Anything that will resonate in the news will come across her teleprompter. In many ways, it just seems that the media is typing on her teleprompter. They are both in perfect lockstep.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 23, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> It is just such backward thinking. They miss the point totally just to beat a drum. Anything that will resonate in the news will come across her teleprompter. In many ways, it just seems that the media is typing on her teleprompter. They are both in perfect lockstep.



Now, I am no Mr. Spock.  But I DO try to argue logically.  They don't even try to do that.  And people still swallow the BS.  THAT'S what gets me.


----------



## DocIllinois (Sep 23, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Now, I am no Mr. Spock.  But I DO try to argue logically.  They don't even try to do that.  And people still swallow the BS.  THAT'S what gets me.



Using and manipulating the media to make your presence and positions known is somehow a surprising thing for high level U.S. politicians to do in an election year?  

Surely you jest.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 26, 2016)

I don't watch the Daily Show, but I do love people go about making my case for me:

Watch Trevor Noah Accidentally Destroy The Case For Gun Control


----------



## Gunz (Sep 26, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> HRC again shows the value of "lies, damn lies, and statistics":
> 
> Hillary Clinton: We Cannot End Terrorism Without Gun Control



She's delusional. You can't end terrorism _WITH_ gun control.  The Oklahoma City Federal Building. 9/11. The Boston Marathon. The recent NY pressure cooker bombs. The knife attack at the mall. She's just using terrorism as an excuse to push her agenda, which is to disarm law-abiding Americans.


----------



## Single Malt (Sep 26, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> She's delusional. You can't end terrorism _WITH_ gun control.  The Oklahoma City Federal Building. 9/11. The Boston Marathon. The recent NY pressure cooker bombs. The knife attack at the mall. She's just using terrorism as an excuse to push her agenda, which is to disarm law-abiding Americans.


By disarming law-abiding American citizen, do you literally mean knocking on doors and getting people to hand over their guns? Or some other way of accomplishing the collection of over 350 million guns that I am not aware of? Because ATF has said that they aren't up for the job for two big reasons. First, they still use papers thanks to NRA and don't have a reliable database to figure out where the guns are and who owns them, they are so far behind processing those papers that there are ship containers in the parking lot that they use to store those papers. Second, if they even knew who were all these gun owners and their addresses(which might have changed), they only have about 2,600 agents, so it would take some time for them to make it up to rural NH to get my guns. I am not losing any sleep over any bullshit gun control scare tactics that NRA or any gun manufacturers use to drive up their profits. My ex-father-in-law was the top lawyer for Gaston Glock, their lobbyists will whore-out their mothers if it would help their agenda and the sells. But Glock makes great pistols so I still conceal carry a G19, bought with their employee discount!


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 26, 2016)

Single Malt said:


> By disarming law-abiding American citizen, do you literally mean knocking on doors and getting people to hand over their guns? Or some other way of accomplishing the collection of over 350 million guns that I am not aware of?



You know she is smart enough to know better.  You also know she is smart enough to pursue "gun control" by other means....excessive tax on ammunition, bans on certain types of firearms, etc.

NO politician would agree to an outright gun grab, but there are ways to make it so painful to be a gun owner that they can effectively make change.


----------



## Single Malt (Sep 26, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> You know she is smart enough to know better.  You also know she is smart enough to pursue "gun control" by other means....excessive tax on ammunition, bans on certain types of firearms, etc.
> 
> NO politician would agree to an outright gun grab, but there are ways to make it so painful to be a gun owner that they can effectively make change.


Excessive tax on cigarettes hasn't stopped smoking, just paid for more research to show the harmful side effects and that has (I don't think we need much research on the effects of a .45 on human tissue). The bans, I understand, and some may or may not help control the high number of gun related homicides. The Clinton ban did work but the gun market is very different not than 20 years ago, so are the people. I think gun control has been blown out of proportion (on both sides) and that has given ridiculous power to NRA and gun manufacturers. I have enough guns and ammo to last me a few more administrations if not the rest of my life (as a civilian, unless the zombies or Canada, i.e. frozen zombies, attack). I think she is smart enough to talk about gun control, maybe even entertain some legislature but too smart to do anything. She knows full-well that unless we do what Australia did (and I don't think we should or could per my ATF comment above), whatever becomes law won't work and will just become more ammunition (excuse the pun) for For-Gun lobbyists.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 26, 2016)

In what way did the "Clinton ban" work?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 26, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> In what way did the "Clinton ban" work?


It brought us Kel-Tec!


----------



## policemedic (Sep 26, 2016)

The Clinton ban didn't work and that is the primary reason it was allowed to sunset. Australia is beginning to see the negative effects of their ban as well.  I wouldn't say the Aussie ban was a good move.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 26, 2016)

policemedic said:


> The Clinton ban didn't work and that is the primary reason it was allowed to sunset. Australia is beginning to see the negative effects of their ban as well.  I wouldn't say the Aussie ban was a good move.



You have a link for that?


----------



## policemedic (Sep 26, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> You have a link for that?



Which part?


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 26, 2016)

policemedic said:


> Which part?



How Australia is beginning to see negative effects. Increase in crime, mass shootings, terrorism, tyranny?


----------



## policemedic (Sep 26, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> How Australia is beginning to see negative effects. Increase in crime, mass shootings, terrorism, tyranny?



Thankfully I can't say tyranny. Some of my information is anecdotal from Aussie coppers, but give me a bit to line up some  sources.


----------



## chocolateboy (Sep 26, 2016)

policemedic said:


> The Clinton ban didn't work and that is the primary reason it was allowed to sunset. Australia is beginning to see the negative effects of their ban as well.  I wouldn't say the Aussie ban was a good move.


I wouldn't really call it a ban, just an extreme restriction. Reason being, you can still get an AR it's just you need the appropriate licencing with an 'appropriate reason'. Also you cannot use it for self defense in pretty much any circumstance without being thrown in jail for murder, manslaughter, or illegal possession of a deadly weapon.


TLDR20 said:


> How Australia is beginning to see negative effects. Increase in crime, mass shootings, terrorism, tyranny?


Australian Institute of Criminology -   Robbery statistics
There was an increase in robberies after the ban, but it seems to have simmered down.
Australian Institute of Criminology -   Victims of violent crime statistics
Also a pretty big increase in kidnappings, right after the NFA was introduced.
Australian Institute of Criminology -   Homicide weapon statistics
And you're more likely to get stabbed to death now than you were before, but I guess that just comes down to personal preference on how you would rather be murdered... :dead::dead::dead:

Also losing your right to self preservation for no more safety than you had before... :wall::wall::wall:
https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf


----------



## policemedic (Sep 27, 2016)

chocolateboy said:


> I wouldn't really call it a ban, just an extreme restriction. Reason being, you can still get an AR it's just you need the appropriate licencing with an 'appropriate reason'. Also you cannot use it for self defense in pretty much any circumstance without being thrown in jail for murder, manslaughter, or illegal possession of a deadly weapon.



I don't think you understand the content (or the ultimate purpose) of the Clinton assault weapons ban.

That said, the references were interesting.


----------



## chocolateboy (Sep 27, 2016)

policemedic said:


> I don't think you understand the content (or the ultimate purpose) of the Clinton assault weapons ban.
> 
> That said, the references were interesting.


Oh sorry, I didn't clarify properly. I was talking about Australia's NFA when I replied to you. Only thing I know about the Clinton Ban is that it did jack all.


----------



## policemedic (Sep 27, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> How Australia is beginning to see negative effects. Increase in crime, mass shootings, terrorism, tyranny?



Victims of violent crime (n per year) 

These numbers go to 2013; the buyback occurred in 1996.  Look at the climb in robberies (especially unarmed robberies), sexual assaults, and even kidnappings post-ban.

There is a definite increase in crime against persons following the buyback.   

More later.


----------



## policemedic (Sep 27, 2016)

chocolateboy said:


> Oh sorry, I didn't clarify properly. I was talking about Australia's NFA when I replied to you. Only thing I know about the Clinton Ban is that it did jack all.



Gotcha.  That changes things significantly.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 27, 2016)

Single Malt said:


> By disarming law-abiding American citizen, do you literally mean knocking on doors and getting people to hand over their guns? Or some other way of accomplishing the collection of over 350 million guns that I am not aware of? Because ATF has said that they aren't up for the job for two big reasons. First, they still use papers thanks to NRA and don't have a reliable database to figure out where the guns are and who owns them, they are so far behind processing those papers that there are ship containers in the parking lot that they use to store those papers. Second, if they even knew who were all these gun owners and their addresses(which might have changed), they only have about 2,600 agents, so it would take some time for them to make it up to rural NH to get my guns. I am not losing any sleep over any bullshit gun control scare tactics that NRA or any gun manufacturers use to drive up their profits. My ex-father-in-law was the top lawyer for Gaston Glock, their lobbyists will whore-out their mothers if it would help their agenda and the sells. But Glock makes great pistols so I still conceal carry a G19, bought with their employee discount!



Whoa Seabiscuit!

Allow me to clarify: I believe most anti-gun politicians would like to see, _in their perfect dream utopia_, either the outlawing of all personally-owned firearms, or at the least, restrictive gun laws--akin to the UK's--enacted in this country. _Eventually_. I don't think gun owners will let them get that far, but who knows? And to me, gun laws as restrictive as the UK's are tantamount to the disarming of law-abiding citizens.

As far as actual physical confiscation, it'll never happen. It would set off the kind of violence we haven't seen in this country since 1865.


----------



## Single Malt (Sep 27, 2016)

Referencing Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003.”
His findings were that the exceptions to the ban were the reason the ban didn't show significant short term results. He also concluded that the laws were written to be on-going and that there is evidence of long term effect. Gun violence (even suicide) is an issue in US that should be addressed rationally and this ban did show some promise. I personally don't think assault rifles are an issue whatsoever, but think that handguns are more of an issue as they count for the majority of gun-related crime. So yes, the Clinton ban didn't do any miracle but it was the closest thing to a law that worked, and showed some promise in the long term. As far as interpreting the results, the truth falls somewhere between LaPierre's and Feinstein's interpretations of the same study.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 27, 2016)

Unlike driving gun ownership is a protected right and I don't think you should have a database that pinpoints every gun owner.



Single Malt said:


> Referencing Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003.”
> His findings were that the exceptions to the ban were the reason the ban didn't show significant short term results. He also concluded that the laws were written to be on-going and that there is evidence of long term effect. Gun violence (even suicide) is an issue in US that should be addressed rationally and this ban did show some promise. I personally don't think assault rifles are an issue whatsoever, but think that handguns are more of an issue as they count for the majority of gun-related crime. So yes, the Clinton ban didn't do any miracle but it was the closest thing to a law that worked, and showed some promise in the long term. As far as interpreting the results, the truth falls somewhere between LaPierre's and Feinstein's interpretations of the same study.



Considering most crimes that involve firearms, are those executed with pistols, I doubt the efficacy of a rifle ban.  

But how much more security are you going to provide if you attempt to further limit my rights?


----------



## digrar (Sep 27, 2016)

I doubt the buy back had much impact on the crime statistics in Australia. No one was carrying in the first place and last stand protect the castle style gun use has never been a big thing here. 
The only real effects were felt by the guys who lost their weapons. Who by and large were using them for sporting purposes.


----------



## DocIllinois (Sep 27, 2016)

digrar said:


> *I doubt the buy back had much impact on the crime statistics in Australia.* No one was carrying in the first place and last stand protect the castle style gun use has never been a big thing here.
> The only real effects were felt by the guys who lost their weapons. Who by and large were using them for sporting purposes.



Injury Prevention 2004;10:280-286 doi:10.1136/ip.2003.004150

"Dramatic reductions in overall firearm related deaths and particularly suicides by firearms were achieved in the context of the implementation of strong regulatory reform."

Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform


----------



## chocolateboy (Sep 27, 2016)

policemedic said:


> Victims of violent crime (n per year)
> 
> These numbers go to 2013; the buyback occurred in 1996.  Look at the climb in robberies (especially unarmed robberies), sexual assaults, and even kidnappings post-ban.
> 
> ...


2001 was one hell of a year... 
This was obviously caused by the fact it was a new millennium and had nothing to do with the NFA! :troll:


----------



## digrar (Sep 28, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Injury Prevention 2004;10:280-286 doi:10.1136/ip.2003.004150
> 
> "Dramatic reductions in overall firearm related deaths and particularly suicides by firearms were achieved in the context of the implementation of strong regulatory reform."
> 
> Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform





> but statistical significance was reached only for suicide.



I was thinking more the assault/murder side of the coin. I'd assume a fair percentage of those firearms related suicides would have turned into hanging/OD/car left running in the garage/single vehicle accident on a straight road versus a big tree or oncoming truck style suicide.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 28, 2016)

What happens if Hillary gets elected? Another run on ammo and ARs? Eight years after Obama's election and I'm just now able to find a box or two of 22lr on the shelf at the local Wally World. :wall:


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 28, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> What happens if Hillary gets elected? Another run on ammo and ARs? Eight years after Obama's election and I'm just now able to find a box or two of 22lr on the shelf at the local Wally World. :wall:



What about ordering online?


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 28, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> What happens if Hillary gets elected? Another run on ammo and ARs? Eight years after Obama's election and I'm just now able to find a box or two of 22lr on the shelf at the local Wally World. :wall:



If that's the case I will sell mine and finally fund the GAP or Iron Brigade Armory M40 .308 I have been wanting.....


----------



## AWP (Sep 28, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> What happens if Hillary gets elected? Another run on ammo and ARs? Eight years after Obama's election and I'm just now able to find a box or two of 22lr on the shelf at the local Wally World. :wall:



Even if she does NOTHING in her first two years, good luck finding a gun or ammunition the day after the election.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 28, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Even if she does NOTHING in her first two years, good luck finding a gun or ammunition the day after the election.


And we say that gun owners aren't paranoid


----------



## Single Malt (Sep 28, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Even if she does NOTHING in her first two years, good luck finding a gun or ammunition the day after the election.


You see ammunition shortage, I see economic opportunity. Obama is the best gun salesmen, maybe Hillary will be the best ammunition broker!


----------



## DocIllinois (Sep 28, 2016)

digrar said:


> I was thinking more the assault/murder side of the coin. I'd assume a fair percentage of those firearms related suicides would have turned into hanging/OD/car left running in the garage/single vehicle accident on a straight road versus a big tree or oncoming truck style suicide.



Lack of statistical significance does not imply lack of importance.  Or that another factor didn't contribute to the fall in gun-related assaults, which happened.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 28, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> And we say that gun owners aren't paranoid



How does that ol' saying go?

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean "they're" not after you. "


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 28, 2016)

<EDITED BY Ooh-Rah>

Deleting post because after looking at it again, the story is two years old.

Thought it was current when I posted it .


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 28, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> ...and from the "I guess I haven't seen everything " file....
> 
> Beloit Police Ask Residents To Volunteer To Have Their Homes Searched For Guns
> 
> ._...hopes the program will encourage people to think about gun violence as an infectious disease like Ebola, and a home inspection like a vaccine to help build up the city's immune system_.



Lol.  "Volunteer home inspection."  I would have a copy of the Bill of Rights tacked on my door faster than Martin Luther tacked up his 95 theses in 1517.....


----------



## Gunz (Sep 28, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> What about ordering online?



Rog that, bro, I do...but still it'd be nice to be able to grab some off the shelf.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 28, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Whoa Seabiscuit!
> 
> Allow me to clarify: I believe most anti-gun politicians would like to see, _in their perfect dream utopia_, either the outlawing of all personally-owned firearms, or at the least, restrictive gun laws--akin to the UK's--enacted in this country. _Eventually_. I don't think gun owners will let them get that far, but who knows? And to me, gun laws as restrictive as the UK's are tantamount to the disarming of law-abiding citizens.
> 
> As far as actual physical confiscation, it'll never happen. It would set off the kind of violence we haven't seen in this country since 1865.



Disagree, as most of the gun owners will meekly turn stuff in when they lose their retire,emt check, SSDI, etc.  Or momma begs her man to turn it in "for the children".



Ocoka One said:


> What happens if Hillary gets elected? Another run on ammo and ARs? Eight years after Obama's election and I'm just now able to find a box or two of 22lr on the shelf at the local Wally World. :wall:


Yep.


Marine0311 said:


> What about ordering online?


Expect a Democratic Congress to kill on-line sales (can't have more than x amount per weapon)



Freefalling said:


> Even if she does NOTHING in her first two years, good luck finding a gun or ammunition the day after the election.


Yep



Deathy McDeath said:


> And we say that gun owners aren't paranoid



Why do you say this, the last 8 years of ammo shortages as the government buys/destroys ammo give a lot of people reason to think she will go after everything.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 28, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> ...and from the "I guess I haven't seen everything " file....
> 
> Beloit Police Ask Residents To Volunteer To Have Their Homes Searched For Guns
> 
> ._...hopes the program will encourage people to think about gun violence as an infectious disease like Ebola, and a home inspection like a vaccine to help build up the city's immune system_.





_*"Police Chief Norm Jacobs said he doesn't expect the phone to be ringing off the hook with requests for police to search their homes."*_

_Really? Ya think?_ What brand of crack have you been smoking, Chief? Legit gun owners won't be calling you. And if you expect da Boyz in da Hood to let the fuzz in, keep smoking.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 28, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Disagree, as most of the gun owners will meekly turn stuff in when they lose their retire,emt check, SSDI, etc.  Or momma begs her man to turn it in "for the children".



Yes and no. Most law-abiding families may meekly go along with it, but I truly believe there would be many pockets of violent resistance. I've got homeboys over in Texas _I know _would start organizing. Hell, they're ready to go now.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 28, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Why do you say this, the last 8 years of ammo shortages as the government buys/destroys ammo give a lot of people reason to think she will go after everything.


Gonna need to see some sources for this argument.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 28, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Gonna need to see some sources for this argument.



"Reason to think" why something might happen really doesn't need substantiation.  Kinda of an opinion I would think.  But I would say that all of the gun legislation thus far for reasons which are not substantiated by fact are inclusive of a government that is increasingly hostile to the 2A.  Or seemingly so.  And HRC has said things that were anti-2A.  So I could see why people would think she'll go after guns.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 28, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> "Reason to think" why something might happen really doesn't need substantiation.  Kinda of an opinion I would think.  But I would say that all of the gun legislation thus far for reasons which are not substantiated by fact are inclusive of a government that is increasingly hostile to the 2A.  Or seemingly so.  And HRC has said things that were anti-2A.  So I could see why people would think she'll go after guns.



Um no. He implied that the government was buying ammunition for the express purpose of destroying it to cause a shortage. That doesn't get a pass from a source.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 28, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Um no. He implied that the government was buying ammunition for the express purpose of destroying it to cause a shortage. That doesn't get a pass from a source.



Hmmm.  I re-read it.  You clearly interpreted differently than I.  I don't think I ever have to whip out a reference page when I have reason to think something.

But to his point, his point is valid.  Some people DO think it.  Whether or not there if fact to substantiate it is entirely different.  I know once there was a metric shit-ton of ammo; then there wasn't.  Most was because of panic buying, but I did hear the conspiracy theories.

But if what he implied it, so what?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 28, 2016)

Well let's examine the theory. At a time when government is cutting back ammunition expenditure for the military and law enforcement, they buying up in bulk to destroy it so Johnny and Bubba can't buy it at the local wally world...

Yep doesn't pass the sniff test.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 28, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Hmmm.  I re-read it.  You clearly interpreted differently than I.  I don't think I ever have to whip out a reference page when I have reason to think something.
> 
> But to his point, his point is valid.  Some people DO think it.  Whether or not there if fact to substantiate it is entirely different.  I know once there was a metric shit-ton of ammo; then there wasn't.  Most was because of panic buying, but I did hear the conspiracy theories.
> 
> But if what he implied it, so what?



He said "Why do you say this, *the last 8 years of ammo shortages as the government buys/destroys ammo* give a lot of people reason to think she will go after everything."

That is a statement that can be verified. The government is buying and destroying ammo.... What about that is an opinion?

As to your "so what" comment, check it out @Devildoc some requests for sources are not exactly requests. In an effort to keep the board professional, and not an echo chamber of bullshit, we do require sources. This is one of those cases. I am speaking to you not as another board member, but as a member of the staff. People do not get to come here, make an outrageous possibly unsubstantiated claim, then say "some people DO think it". That is irrelevant. Some people think the earth is flat. That doesn't make it factual. Continuing that line of thinking. If some idiot came here and said " The earth is flat, that is why some believe Obama is a lizard person." I don't care about the second part of that sentence. I care that this idiot made a facutal statement "the earth is flat" that is verifiable, that needs sources.

The second part is an opinion held by other idiots. "that is why some believe Obama is a Lizard person" while I will continue to think that person is an idiot, I cannot argue that this is something they believe.

Do not argue back. He was asked by a staff member to source his claim. That in itself is enough. Think twice before going behind a staff member questioning their posts. If you have any question, see the site rules, and role descriptions for the staff.


----------



## DocIllinois (Sep 28, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Hmmm.  I re-read it.  You clearly interpreted differently than I.  *I don't think I ever have to whip out a reference page when I have reason to think something.*
> 
> But to his point, his point is valid.  Some people DO think it.  Whether or not there if fact to substantiate it is entirely different.  I know once there was a metric shit-ton of ammo; then there wasn't.  Most was because of panic buying, but I did hear the conspiracy theories.
> 
> But if what he implied it, so what?



With a claim like this?  Yes, a source does need to be presented, IMO.

Otherwise, the "reason to think something" in this case is based upon wishful thinking, where one claims something to be true simply because they hope or imagine that its true, instead of judging any evidence.

$.02


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 28, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> With a claim like this?  Yes, a source does need to be presented.
> 
> Otherwise, the "reason to think something" in this case is based upon wishful thinking, where one claims something to be true simply because they hope or imagine that its true, instead of judging any evidence.
> 
> $.02



Where I was trying to go, and did not do a good job, is with the burden of proof argument and the argument from ignorance.  Generally, if you don't believe the argument you should offer evidence to the contrary.  But, I understand your and @TLDR20's point.


----------



## AWP (Sep 28, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Yes and no. Most law-abiding families may meekly go along with it, but I truly believe there would be many pockets of violent resistance. I've got homeboys over in Texas _I know _would start organizing. Hell, they're ready to go now.



Considering the military confiscated weapons during Katrina and there wasn't a deluge of outrage? I'm under no illusions about how a confiscation would play.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 28, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Considering the military confiscated weapons during Katrina and there wasn't a deluge of outrage? I'm under no illusions about how a confiscation would play.



Do you know/remember the details around this?  I've searched the Internet in the past and never really found what I was looking for...the process of how the confiscations took place.
- Door to door?
- Voluntary turn in?
- Penalty for not cooperating?

Truth be told, I pretty much blanked that part of Katrina out of my memory- cannot imagine a national emergency in Minnesota, and then have the "jack booted thugs" come to the door and attempt to take away the very tool I had accumulated to protect me and mine during such times.

I'll withhold further outrage until I actually get an opportunity to read more about this.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 28, 2016)

Report: Pentagon to destroy $1B in ammunition


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 28, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Report: Pentagon to destroy $1B in ammunition



Aside from this being an article dated two years ago, it never explains "why" (or even the type of ammo).

After reading it (did you read it?) I think it is saying that it is due to poor record keeping and not practicing FIFO (first in, first out).

Your single link without comment gives the impression that The Government is destroying the ammo specifically to limit availability. I certainly did not get that impression after reading the article.


----------



## compforce (Sep 28, 2016)

From a pro-2A site:

The Pentagon Is Not Destroying Civilian Rifle And Pistol Ammunition - Bearing Arms - Ammunition, ammunition shortage


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 28, 2016)

Somebody asked for a source, I provided one source.  I wouldn't be surprised if the government is purchasing at a greater rate than before though since governmental orders get filled first.  The destruction of that I won't comment on that.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 28, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Report: Pentagon to destroy $1B in ammunition



Mod Hat On: If you look at posted links on this site, you will generally see a comment regarding the link posted as well. It is rather presumptious to expect us to read your mind regarding your link. Members have been reminded that they should not post bare links. 

Mod Hat Off: Given the current discussions regarding firearms and ammunition, I guessed the link was a current article. To see it was dated April 2014 was surprising, and I wonder why you posted such an out of date article?


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 28, 2016)

How much of the ammo shortage was due to FedGov making sure that NOAA and every other federal department that wanted its own internal law enforcement capacity could get what they wanted?  Forestry, Customs, and certain other departments, I can understand. But not as many as are listed in bold in this Wikipedia listing (yeah, yeah, Wiki bad, but it's an extensive list).


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 28, 2016)

We also have a thread on here that talks about DHS buying a shit load of ammunition. I think we covered it pretty in depth, and showed pretty easily that it not only wasn't a lot of ammo, but it was going to be used for training purposes.


racing_kitty said:


> How much of the ammo shortage was due to FedGov making sure that NOAA and every other federal department that wanted its own internal law enforcement capacity could get what they wanted?  Forestry, Customs, and certain other departments, I can understand. But not as many as are listed in bold in this Wikipedia listing (yeah, yeah, Wiki bad, but it's an extensive list).



The NOAA has to do with fisheries. They are there to stop poaching, very much like the forestry service.

Also many of those "agencies" are the inspector generals for those organizations, they need to have enforcement abilities.


----------



## AWP (Sep 28, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Do you know/remember the details around this?  I've searched the Internet in the past and never really found what I was looking for...the process of how the confiscations took place.
> - Door to door?
> - Voluntary turn in?
> - Penalty for not cooperating?
> ...



If you Google it you'll find some details (I think the NOLA sheriff or LA governor called for their confiscation), but we have a well-respected member here who participated in the Katrina recovery. His Guard unit (and some others) refused to participate, so the local authorities shopped around until they found Guard units willing to confiscate weapons. 

When the government comes to take our weapons (and history says this will happen because that's a natural political cycle) all of this "cold dead hands" crap is just that. Guardsmen in uniform took the weapons, others knew and didn't intervene, and there were no riots or shootings or "rabble, rabble, rabble."


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 29, 2016)

Hate the situation, not the post.


----------



## chocolateboy (Sep 29, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> If you Google it you'll find some details (I think the NOLA sheriff or LA governor called for their confiscation), but we have a well-respected member here who participated in the Katrina recovery. His Guard unit (and some others) refused to participate, so the local authorities shopped around until they found Guard units willing to confiscate weapons.
> 
> When the government comes to take our weapons (and history says this will happen because that's a natural political cycle) all of this "cold dead hands" crap is just that. Guardsmen in uniform took the weapons, others knew and didn't intervene, and there were no riots or shootings or "rabble, rabble, rabble."


I'd have to agree, considering in Australia when we had our NFA confiscation, there didn't seem to be any evidence of riots, shootings etc. Although there is always the possibility of the government covering up some rebellious farmers "accidental fall".


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 29, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> When the government comes to take our weapons (and history says this will happen because that's a natural political cycle) all of this "cold dead hands" crap is just that. Guardsmen in uniform took the weapons, others knew and didn't intervene, and there were no riots or shootings or "rabble, rabble, rabble."



Do you _really_ think it'll come to that?  I think the government is stupid in many ways, but how do they go house-to-house to collect over 300 million guns?  I don't know that it's that stupid.

With face-to-face private sales, inherited guns, guns given away, guns acquired I think if they tried to collect all the 4473s they wouldn't make a dent.


----------



## The Accountant (Sep 29, 2016)

I don't see going house to house taking guns ever happening throughout the entire country. Maybe in certain states such as Cali and NY.. Im not a gun owner but have just learned about the NY unSAFE ACT. 

Wouldn't the Oath Sworn by those Guard members be broken if they confiscate guns that are apparently protected by the 2a?


----------



## AWP (Sep 29, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Do you _really_ think it'll come to that?  I think the government is stupid in many ways, but how do they go house-to-house to collect over 300 million guns?  I don't know that it's that stupid.
> 
> With face-to-face private sales, inherited guns, guns given away, guns acquired I think if they tried to collect all the 4473s they wouldn't make a dent.



I trust history because it is a pretty solid indicator of how men think and act. Given the right scenarios, and not that implausible mind you, it would easily happen in America. We like to think that we hold some moral high ground or something, that the American spirit will allow us to rise above it all and blah, blah....No. We're people and people are assholes. If America's in the "right" place for a weapons confiscation to happen, it will go down and it will barely whimper in the process. We're humans and our history won't change, no matter the flag.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 29, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I trust history because it is a pretty solid indicator of how men think and act. Given the right scenarios, and not that implausible mind you, it would easily happen in America. We like to think that we hold some moral high ground or something, that the American spirit will allow us to rise above it all and blah, blah....No. We're people and people are assholes. If America's in the "right" place for a weapons confiscation to happen, it will go down and it will barely whimper in the process. We're humans and our history won't change, no matter the flag.



I see your point.  I do think that when the screws are tightened people fold like a cheap tent.  I guess my point was less the historo-philosophical (I think I made a new word) and more logistical. 

I DO think that foundation has been laid to seriously erode 2A rights and limit gun ownership.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 29, 2016)

I think as a statistic, a lot of guys will turn in their weapons.  But you will have more than a few incidents where it will get bad.  I better not be here when that happens.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 1, 2016)

Interesting little article :Europeans turn to weapons in growing numbers after attacks


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 1, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Interesting little article :Europeans turn to weapons in growing numbers after attacks



I liked that to read. I hope it changes the mindset over there and allows people to arm themselves.


----------



## Brill (Oct 2, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> If you Google it you'll find some details (I think the NOLA sheriff or LA governor called for their confiscation), but we have a well-respected member here who participated in the Katrina recovery. His Guard unit (and some others) refused to participate, so the local authorities shopped around until they found Guard units willing to confiscate weapons.
> 
> When the government comes to take our weapons (and history says this will happen because that's a natural political cycle) all of this "cold dead hands" crap is just that. Guardsmen in uniform took the weapons, others knew and didn't intervene, and there were no riots or shootings or "rabble, rabble, rabble."



How did they know WHERE to look?


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 31, 2016)

Prevention of firearm-related injuries with restrictive licensing and concealed carry laws: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma systematic review

"CONCLUSION: PICO 1: We recommend the use of restrictive licensing to reduce firearm-related injuries.

PICO 2: We recommend against the use of concealed carry laws to reduce firearm-related injuries."


----------



## Brill (Oct 31, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Prevention of firearm-related injuries with restrictive licensing and concealed carry laws: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma systematic review
> 
> "CONCLUSION: PICO 1: We recommend the use of restrictive licensing to reduce firearm-related injuries.
> 
> PICO 2: We recommend against the use of concealed carry laws to reduce firearm-related injuries."



Deaths from traffic accidents would plummet if the US implemented restrictive licensing, mandatory training, and requiring a "just cause" for purchase.

Congress should close the car show loophole and stop allowing internet purchase where any crazy can just buy one online without a safety inspection.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 31, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Prevention of firearm-related injuries with restrictive licensing and concealed carry laws: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma systematic review
> 
> "CONCLUSION: PICO 1: We recommend the use of restrictive licensing to reduce firearm-related injuries.
> 
> PICO 2: We recommend against the use of concealed carry laws to reduce firearm-related injuries."



Marked for later.  I want to digest this paper before I respond.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 1, 2016)

lindy said:


> Deaths from traffic accidents would plummet if the US implemented restrictive licensing, mandatory training, and requiring a "just cause" for purchase.
> 
> Congress should close the car show loophole and stop allowing internet purchase where any crazy can just buy one online without a safety inspection.



Best part, the most trained and regulated vehicle operators continue to see more and more regulation throw onto the plate. Slippery slope is real.


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 1, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Best part, the most trained and regulated vehicle operators continue to see more and more regulation throw onto the plate. Slippery slope is real.



The best part, IMHO, is the slope we're already on that will take the driving out of everyone's hands.

RAND Research Report: Autonomous Vehicle Technology


----------



## Grunt (Nov 1, 2016)

I am always amused by the people who fail to understand that it's the "tool" using the tool that is the problem and not the tool itself.

Firearms that are left alone are nothing more than pretty paperweights. Once a "tool" picks one up and uses it for nefarious reasons, it becomes "evil" in the eyes of those who simply don't like weapons at all.

The nation needs to address the issue concerning the "people" who use weapons for bad purposes rather than simply try to prevent everyone from exercising their right to own a weapon.


----------



## Brill (Nov 1, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Best part, the most trained and regulated vehicle operators continue to see more and more regulation throw onto the plate. Slippery slope is real.



Drivers are protected by regulated vehicle safety measures too. Each gun manufacturer should include body armor with purchase. Kids have booster seats in cars so they need equal protection via smaller sizes.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 7, 2017)

NRA-ILA | California Governor Signs Draconian Gun Control Package into Law

Wow this sucks.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 7, 2017)

Marine0311 said:


> NRA-ILA | California Governor Signs Draconian Gun Control Package into Law
> 
> Wow this sucks.



Yep.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 7, 2017)

So. How do you have a handgun? Load it with 9 rounds?


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 7, 2017)

Fear not, citizen.  We're not coming after your guns... [/sarc]


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 7, 2017)

I don't see people flocking to leave California. In fact I think it is just the opposite.


----------



## pardus (Jan 7, 2017)

Marine0311 said:


> So. How do you have a handgun? Load it with 9 rounds?



10 rounds. Same as NY.



TLDR20 said:


> I don't see people flocking to leave California. In fact I think it is just the opposite.



Which is cool, everyone needs to find their niche. 
I think it's a fucked up set of laws though.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 7, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't see people flocking to leave California. In fact I think it is just the opposite.


They are flocking to Texas, unless you are referring to those entering illegally.


----------



## Rabid Badger (Jan 7, 2017)

Don't destroy your magazines.......I'll babysit them for you until you can move to a Gold Star State like the one I live in ------> NORTH CAROLINA. Fuk Kalifornia.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 7, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> They are flocking to Texas, unless you are referring to those entering illegally.


Lol.

Are you joking or serious?


Texas booming popular growth explained

An enormous part of Texas' new folks are illegal migrants. Saying that is California's main problem IS the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## Raptor (Jan 7, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Lol.
> 
> Are you joking or serious?
> 
> ...


The article says I need to be a subscriber to view past the first paragraph.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 7, 2017)

Raptor said:


> The article says I need to be a subscriber to view past the first paragraph.



Weird. I can see it fine.


----------



## Raptor (Jan 7, 2017)

This is what appears for me


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 7, 2017)

Raptor said:


> This is what appears for me
> View attachment 17628



Weird. Maybe it is because you are in Texas?


----------



## Raptor (Jan 7, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Weird. Maybe it is because you are in Texas?


It would not surprise me if that's the reason.
@DA SWO are you able to view the article?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 7, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't see people flocking to leave California. In fact I think it is just the opposite.


Officially no longer a CA resident.



TLDR20 said:


> Lol.
> 
> Are you joking or serious?
> 
> ...



Plenty of illegals, and they're not all Mexican.  Lots and lots from all of Asia.



DA SWO said:


> They are flocking to Texas, unless you are referring to those entering illegally.



Yeah...and they're liberal, going to Austin.



Raptor said:


> This is what appears for me
> View attachment 17628


Same, paywalls.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 7, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Officially no longer a CA resident.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol. California has a 5% growth rate. Which is fine. Their economy is almost equal to what 35 of the other states combined? California is fine with these laws, they did vote on them.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 7, 2017)

Naw...There is huge growth and businesses flocking to the Dallas metro area...Richardson, Plano, Frisco, McKinney.  Screw Austin.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 7, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> Naw...There is huge growth and businesses flocking to the Dallas metro area...Richardson, Plano, Frisco, McKinney.  Screw Austin.




That's cute.

California economy surges to No. 6 in global rankings

California exceeds Texas in almost a Trillion dollars in GDP.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 7, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't see people flocking to leave California. In fact I think it is just the opposite.



Your words imply that nobody is going to Texas from California. Please reconsider your thinking on that. While reading my favorite right wing rag, the Austin American Statesman, they linked through to this breakdown by CultureMaps of growth in Austin, and how much of it is attributed to Californians. While it may not be on the level of Jews fleeing the Pharaoh, it certainly is happening. 

I'm certain that, if I had more time, I could provide numbers for the rest of Texas, but the example will have to do.


----------



## AWP (Jan 7, 2017)

What if, and I'm just spitballing here, Californians were leaving in droves for TX, but TX's economy still lagged behind CA's? "Correlation does not imply causation" or something like that.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 7, 2017)

AWP said:


> What if, and I'm just spitballing here, Californians were leaving in droves for TX, but TX's economy still lagged behind CA's? "Correlation does not imply causation" or something like that.



What if, it didn't matter, because a shitload of other people are still moving to California? That is the reality. 

Conservatives love to bash California like it is some liberal shithole. Reality shows something totally different, GDP that destroys the rest of American states, trade that rivals other countries in the top 10. But when you are from there, or live there, it is just fine. California is a fantastic place to live and work. Particularly if you are in the military. Other than the shitty gun laws, there isn't that much bad there. 

Comparing Texas and California would be great if they were equals in any way. They aren't though.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 7, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> That's cute.
> 
> California economy surges to No. 6 in global rankings
> 
> California exceeds Texas in almost a Trillion dollars in GDP.



Sorry...was not addressing the GDP.  Was just commenting on "Yeah...and they're liberal, going to Austin."


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 7, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> Sorry...was not addressing the GDP.  Was just commenting on "Yeah...and they're liberal, going to Austin."


I'm just saying, trying to say everyone is leaving California and moving to Texas is bunk. 

People go to where there are jobs, in America, there are more jobs in California. 

People care about jobs first, gun rights aren't the reason people move somewhere unless they have the freedom of choice...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 7, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> People care about jobs first, gun rights aren't the reason people move somewhere unless they have the freedom of choice...



I guess I agree/disagree with this statement.  Assuming I would move to Cali, I had the opportunity to accept a promotion at a prior job.  I declined, for no reason other than I have had a carry permit for 20+ years and the idea of suddenly losing that freedom was not a sacrifice I was willing to make.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 7, 2017)

No worries TLDR20


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 8, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Lol. California has a 5% growth rate. Which is fine. Their economy is almost equal to what 35 of the other states combined? California is fine with these laws, they did vote on them.


I'm not, I'm also not cool with politicians that shit on rights.  That is why I gave up my claim to residency. 

If you enjoy the usurpation of your rights feel free to stay.  I personally don't like celebrities whom are protected by security details spouting about guns being the bad stuff. 

California is my home, my roots in my hometown are over a century old.  This is not ok, so I gave it up and chose not to come back.  As far as the Economy, it hasn't surged anywhere.  It has ranked 6th many times in my life.  I'm not sure what it will take, the state needs a balanced budget amendment, the deficit it's going to run in the next 20 years is going to break the government.

@TLDR20  Companies leave the state every week.

How many businesses have left California? This report claims to have an answer

California will always be a growth state in population, my history teacher called it the Rose Bowl Theory: When someone from Butt COLD Wisconsin flips the television on New Years Day to see 60 degrees and sunny, they say screw it and move.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 8, 2017)

Raptor said:


> The article says I need to be a subscriber to view past the first paragraph.


Try the cached version Texas booming popular growth explained


----------



## policemedic (Jan 8, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I'm just saying, trying to say everyone is leaving California and moving to Texas is bunk.
> 
> People go to where there are jobs, in America, there are more jobs in California.
> 
> People care about jobs first, gun rights aren't the reason people move somewhere unless they have the freedom of choice...



I dunno.  I love California. I think it's a beautiful state. I did my active duty time primarily at Fort Ord in the 7th ID (L) and it was great. 

However, I was 18 and it was the late '80s.  The only guns I had were the rifle and pistol Uncle Sam gave me.  Gun laws weren't on my radar then because of my age and other factors. 

Now, I do look at jobs in California but simply can't move there. San Francisco is a nightmare. I love LA and the surrounding counties but public sector jobs are out due to the CALPERS disaster. 

More importantly, even though I'm exempt from a lot of the gun laws in CA I'm still unwilling to abdicate my rights or personal security to the state. 

Other than certain private employers, California's big sell--to me, anyway--is good weather. I can get that in Florida,  NC, SC...hell, even Alabama if my Nittany Lion side could deal with hearing Roll Tide every five minutes. 

It's also true that I'm job hunting as a hobby. I don't need a new job; I want to move at some point so if the right job presents itself in the right place I'm ghost.  Others may need a job and would jump at an opportunity to work for Google or Apple or Disney, Constitutional usurpation be damned.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 8, 2017)

policemedic said:


> I dunno.  I love California. I think it's a beautiful state. I did my active duty time primarily at Fort Ord in the 7th ID (L) and it was great.
> 
> However, I was 18 and it was the late '80s.  The only guns I had were the rifle and pistol Uncle Sam gave me.  Gun laws weren't on my radar then because of my age and other factors.
> 
> ...



In California the pay for many jobs is out of this world better. Cops can make almost 100k a year after overtime, firefighters the same, cost of living can be higher dependent on where you are. Nurses salaries? Forget about it...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 8, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Nurses salaries? Forget about it...



Meaning good?


----------



## Grunt (Jan 8, 2017)

I'm simple. I live where I like it. The weather, the jobs, etc. I have gotten to where I don't put too much into other issues.  If there are things in a certain place that I don't agree with, I don't go there...or, I simply get over it. Again, I'm simple like that.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 8, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Meaning good?



Yeah. I would make more than double what I make in MD. Which pays pretty good. I would make more than my Ph.D wife who is a senior systems engineer.

The nurses have a union in California.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 8, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> In California the pay for many jobs is out of this world better. Cops can make almost 100k a year after overtime, firefighters the same, cost of living can be higher dependent on where you are. Nurses salaries? Forget about it...



Well, this is true. For example, Sunnyvale, CA pays close to 100k base to their public safety officers (which they should, because these guys function as cops/firefighters/EMTs).  LAPD/LASD come close, though not at entry (unless you're a lateral hire).  The problem is the retirement system and cost-of-living.

Anyone in the CALPERS system is getting buttfucked worse than @Wiener Licker recently was.

But then again, it's not unheard of for cops in Philly or elsewhere to hit those numbers. Jersey cops kill it, but again, their retirement plan isn't stable.

I agree about the nursing salaries.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 8, 2017)

All those salaries and socialist programs come at a cost and no matter what California's GDP is, the hole gets deeper.  The only other sub-sovereign state to be as fucked is where I live in Ontario and we have no where near the same population.  Try paying over half your salary in income taxes and then get tax raped for any other purchases; especially any resource based commodity.  

As for gun control, it boggles my mind how irrational the fear of law abiding gun owners increases the more Liberal an individuals thoughts are.  You can have socialist programs and still believe in keeping fundamental rights, like gun ownership.

 

 

http://www.debtclock.ca/provincial-debtclocks/ontario/ontario-s-debt/

State of California Debt Clock


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 8, 2017)

Yeah, you can clear 100k, why does that matter when you're seeing none of it?  Then you can't afford to live near where you work, or can't afford to live in the few nice parts of town.

Gun laws are important. Referendum government, Kamala Harris, overpaid legislature that does nothing because of referendum government. What's more important is the cost of living, where the median entry price to a small place in my hometown is 700k.  One reason why people are staying is because they're just a few years off their retirement.  Young people will always think California is where the opportunity is because we've been brainwashed our entire lives.  There's opportunity everywhere, you just have to hustle.

Arizona, home prices seem similar to the southeast and I don't have to worry about my rights being usurped by idiots.


----------



## digrar (Jan 8, 2017)

Agoge said:


> I'm simple.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 8, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> As for gun control, it boggles my mind how irrational the fear of law abiding gun owners increases the more Liberal an individuals thoughts are. You can have socialist programs and still believe in keeping fundamental rights, like gun ownership.



This is one of my favorite arguments.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 29, 2017)

Being that we have a new administration I wanted to bring this back up to the front and seek out everyone's thoughts and opinions.

Congress Scrapping Obama Gun Control Regulation

NRA-ILA | National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation

Rep. Hudson Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 29, 2017)

Very interesting, considering the new administrations stance (or at least campaign promises) on gun control. 

Most interesting is the third article about essentially a nationwide conceal carry initiative, of course excluding the states where CCW is illegal. 

Wouldn't that bill essentially be going against one of the constitution's basic ideas- that the bigger government shouldn't mess with state business?


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 29, 2017)

I think the Supremacy Clause would trump (pun not intended) in this case.

There might also be precedence with the Interstate Commerce Clause, that has been pretty good in the past in getting states in line with what the administration was pushing.


----------



## Etype (Jan 29, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Wouldn't that bill essentially be going against one of the constitution's basic ideas- that the bigger government shouldn't mess with state business?


States aren't supposed to be allowed to infringe upon constitutional rights, if they interpret the 2nd amendment to apply to concealed carry then the states may be facing a law suit.

Eta- @Marauder06 beat me to it.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 29, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Very interesting, considering the new administrations stance (or at least campaign promises) on gun control.
> 
> Most interesting is the third article about essentially a nationwide conceal carry initiative, of course excluding the states where CCW is illegal.
> 
> Wouldn't that bill essentially be going against one of the constitution's basic ideas- that the bigger government shouldn't mess with state business?



Yes on face value it would be. I am all for a National Right to Carry as I would enjoy a/the right to carry when I travel (for personal/vacation). Since I am not LEO and I don't fall under HR 218 I don't have that ability (like police officers do).

I do want to see it happen but I can see the other side of allowing states to say "no" or allowing states to set their own rules. Of course the gun hog in me says states like New York and Cail (some of the strictest carry laws around) can suck it hard.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 29, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Very interesting, considering the new administrations stance (or at least campaign promises) on gun control.
> 
> Most interesting is the third article about essentially a nationwide conceal carry initiative, of course *excluding the states where CCW is illegal. *
> 
> Wouldn't that bill essentially be going against one of the constitution's basic ideas- that the bigger government shouldn't mess with state business?



At this point, all 50 states have legal CCW.  There are some where it is nearly prohibitively bureaucratic and rife with red tape to obtain a license much less one that actually allows carry, but there are no states where it is completely illegal (not sure about territories and the like).  Illinois was the last one to jump in, forced by an injunction issued in Moore v. Madigan.


----------



## Etype (Jan 29, 2017)

Marine0311 said:


> New York and Cail (some of the strictest carry laws around)...


But they still can't get their criminals to obey the law.

Such an outwardly apparent fact that seems to remain lost on some.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 29, 2017)

Etype said:


> But they still can't get their criminals to obey the law.
> 
> Such an outwardly apparent fact that seems to remain lost on some.



I do strongly strongly agree. I live in a state (I'll PM you it) where we have some strong laws and yet in the big/major cites have seen a spike in shootings and firearms related crimes.

I always say to people during a debate "Criminals mock societies laws that's why they are criminals"

As if new (or existing) gun laws will cause the criminals to suddenly give up.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 29, 2017)

Interesting. So I wonder how that would work? Would the Federal Govt need to standardize guidelines for CCW licensing? 

There are some states you need 8 hours of training, fingerprints and a shooting evaluation, and some states you walk into your local sheriff's office with an ID and you're good. I assume there would have to be some sort of standardization.


----------



## Etype (Jan 29, 2017)

Marine0311 said:


> I always say to people during a debate "Criminals mock societies laws that's why they are criminals"


"These new laws make my life as a criminal really difficult," said no criminal ever, at least not in the US.

Maybe if the punishments were horrifying, like disembowelment, then gun laws might be effective.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 29, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Interesting. So I wonder how that would work? Would the Federal Govt need to standardize guidelines for CCW licensing?
> 
> There are some states you need 8 hours of training, fingerprints and a shooting evaluation, and some states you walk into your local sheriff's office with an ID and you're good. I assume there would have to be some sort of standardization.



Therein lies the rub, and the opposition from many in the pro-2A camp.  Specifically, that by the time NY, NJ, Mass, and Cali (et. al.) get done with it, "standardization" will severely curtail practices in states that have, shall we say "less infringement" and/or force recertification.  I'm not sure what that would entail, but I wouldn't put it past any of those states to impose restrictions outside of common practice purely for the sake of sticking it to the rest of the country.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 29, 2017)

Totentanz said:


> Therein lies the rub, and the opposition from many in the pro-2A camp.  Specifically, that by the time NY, NJ, Mass, and Cali (et. al.) get done with it, "standardization" will severely curtail practices in states that have, shall we say "less infringement" and/or force recertification.  I'm not sure what that would entail, but I wouldn't put it past any of those states to impose restrictions outside of common practice purely for the sake of sticking it to the rest of the country.


Yeah, exactly what I was getting at. I am just trying to wrap my head around what a national concealed carry looks like.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 29, 2017)

It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.  Here's a neat little place for checking your states reciprocity with other states.

State Reciprocity Map: Concealed Carry Laws by State - USCCA-Concealed Carry Self Defense Insurance & CCW Info


----------



## Gunz (Jan 29, 2017)

Why would 50-state reciprocity mean standardized licensing guidelines? Right now with my FL concealed weapons license I'm legal to carry in some 35 states, and most of them have different requirements for applicants. But they're not asking me to conform to, say, Utah's requirements, if I choose to carry while visiting that state. Obviously, it makes sense for me to understand SD ROE for any state I carry in but if they honor my license their SD laws must be similar.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 29, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> Why would 50-state reciprocity mean standardized licensing guidelines? Right now with my FL concealed weapons license I'm legal to carry in some 35 states, and most of them have different requirements for applicants. But they're not asking me to conform to, say, Utah's requirements, if I choose to carry while visiting that state. Obviously, it makes sense for me to understand SD ROE for any state I carry in but if they honor my license their SD laws must be similar.



Quite simply because places like California (who have a lot of seats in the house) won't let (for example) folks with a FL permit "just because".  They'll make sure *they* have their say in the licensing process of the other 49. 

I'm morbidly curious if this would force NYC to honor upstate permits.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 29, 2017)

Totentanz said:


> At this point, all 50 states have legal CCW.  There are some where it is nearly prohibitively bureaucratic and rife with red tape to obtain a license much less one that actually allows carry, but there are no states where it is completely illegal (not sure about territories and the like).  Illinois was the last one to jump in, forced by an injunction issued in Moore v. Madigan.


Get a carry permit in hawaii or ny city and come back to your statement..... 


National carry would establish a minimum standard, yes the haters would get a say, but all said it would be just as attainable as a drivers license when it came down to it.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 29, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> Get a carry permit in hawaii or ny city and come back to your statement.....
> 
> 
> National carry would establish a minimum standard, yes the haters would get a say, but all said it would be just as attainable as a drivers license when it came down to it.


That falls back to the "nearly prohibitive" ("nearly" qualifier only because those who are wealthy or connected can buy them in those venues). 

I was only pointing out that there aren't any states where CCW is completely illegal by statute (which is what amlove was discussing) - only those with artificial bans by way of prohibitive restrictions (see also Ezell v Chicago)


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 29, 2017)

Arizona has constitutional carry, so if you're a resident of a constitutional carry state, would you be good?

Of course not, but it would be a fun exercise.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 29, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> <snip>bigger government shouldn't mess with state business?



Haven't they been doing that for decades?  

- Seatbelt laws 
- .08 DWI laws
- Speed limit laws
- 21 years old to drink laws

 "We're not saying you have to do it, but if you don't we're taking away all of your Federal highway funding." <wink-wink>


----------



## Grunt (Jan 29, 2017)

At the end of the day, the Federal Government can do as they wish and with the swipe of a pen...institute national carry. The states can make their requirements "stricter" than the federal law, but not more lenient.

With that said, after .gov would pass it...they would then "bribe" the states through federal money to accept their national carry laws. It's that simple.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 29, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Haven't they been doing that for decades?
> 
> - Seatbelt laws
> - .08 DWI laws
> ...


Yeah and that's what Mara eluded to with the Supremacy clause that I so ham-handedly missed.  Long story short, if it's the law of the land then the states must respect the law of the land.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 29, 2017)

Trump may implement a national carry law, but it will be tied up in court over the next decade. Our liberal brethren will be sure to make it a total pain in the ass, but eventually 10-15 years from now, we will have something.

I think we should honestly have a citizen ID program. If you are a citizen of the US, you get to exercise all your goddamm rights period (like strapping your American 1911 45ACP to your hip and be bopping down the street). Everyone else  can take a leep. I know, I know, here comes the Nazi Germany "show me your paper's" crowd. If you are a citizen you have rights, if you are not a citizen, you have privileges. A government paid, national ID card would be a smart thing, especially for all the poor people in the inner city who cannot afford an ID. @TLDR20


As for standards, approved list of firearms safety courses, basic test on state and federal laws pertaining and background check (no felony, or domestic violence) should be all that is required. It ain't rocket doctor shit...


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 29, 2017)

Some of my liberal brethren like to talk about "common sense gun laws," which usually means restricting more of my rights to own guns as well as to bear them and retain the capacity to make them operational (e.g. ammunition).

To me if you want "common sense gun laws," the most common sense of them all is consistent laws in every state.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 30, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Trump may implement a national carry law, but it will be tied up in court over the next decade. Our liberal brethren will be sure to make it a total pain in the ass, but eventually 10-15 years from now, we will have something.
> 
> I think we should honestly have a citizen ID program. If you are a citizen of the US, you get to exercise all your goddamm rights period (like strapping your American 1911 45ACP to your hip and be bopping down the street). Everyone else  can take a leep. I know, I know, here comes the Nazi Germany "show me your paper's" crowd. If you are a citizen you have rights, if you are not a citizen, you have privileges. A government paid, national ID card would be a smart thing, especially for all the poor people in the inner city who cannot afford an ID. @TLDR20
> 
> ...



I agree with everything you wrote.

I don't think President Trump is pro-gun. We will see though.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 30, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Some of my liberal brethren like to talk about "common sense gun laws," which usually means restricting more of my rights to own guns as well as to bear them and retain the capacity to make them operational (e.g. ammunition).
> 
> To me if you want "common sense gun laws," the most common sense of them all is consistent laws in every state.



I think we should have common sense gun laws. 

Those would basically be what @Diamondback 2/2 listed out.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 30, 2017)

I think we already have a common sense gun law. It's the 2nd Amendment. 

Regarding national carry reciprocity, he will likely use the commerce clause to enact it.  That's how LEOSA came about.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 30, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I think we should have common sense gun laws.
> 
> Those would basically be what @Diamondback 2/2 listed out.



In Canada we have what you may call "Common Sense" gun laws but it doesn't do anything to stop criminals from accessing or using guns.  The shooting of the mosque in Quebec city last night is a prime example.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 30, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> In Canada we have what you may call "Common Sense" gun laws but it doesn't do anything to stop criminals from accessing or using guns.  The shooting of the mosque in Quebec city last night is a prime example.



I was remarking in terms of a nationwide concealed carry. I am on the record here if being pretty pro 2A. I am a gunowner. However I would greatly prefer if grandpa fuckhead wants to conceal carry his smokewagon, he has had a bit of training in at the very minimum the laws of the state he is in, and a safety class.

You want guns in your home? Go for it. You want to walk around with one, concealed from me, your rights end where public safety begins.

I have seen way too many shitbags at civilian ranges that are walking safety violations...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 30, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> However I would greatly prefer if grandpa fuckhead wants to conceal carry his smokewagon, he has had a bit of training in at the very minimum the laws of the state he is in, and a safety class.



And this is where most pro-gun groups (and gun boards) lose my interest.  It is all or nothing for them...please.  My step-dad was down at my house some years ago so I took him shooting.  Mistake.  He went out and bought a .44 revolver and carries that thing everywhere.   I love him, but he does not have the temperament .... <just deleted a bunch of stuff I should not post on a public forum> ...for carrying.  At least he took my advice on which instructor to get his permit from, step-dad has recently got lax about carrying because , "it will be more hassle than it's worth if I ever have to use this thing".  That's okay with me.  He would not think like that if all he had to do was go to Gander Mountain and buy a nifty holster and "those tactical bullets".  :wall:


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 30, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> You want guns in your home? Go for it. You want to walk around with one, concealed from me, your rights end where public safety begins.



Are you not in favor of CC?


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 30, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I was remarking in terms of a nationwide concealed carry. I am on the record here if being pretty pro 2A. I am a gunowner. However I would greatly prefer if grandpa fuckhead wants to conceal carry his smokewagon, he has had a bit of training in at the very minimum the laws of the state he is in, and a safety class.
> 
> You want guns in your home? Go for it. You want to walk around with one, concealed from me, your rights end where public safety begins.
> 
> I have seen way too many shitbags at civilian ranges that are walking safety violations...



Wasn't assuming you were anti 2A at all.  I'm just saying we have very extensive background checks, mandatory training and we can't carry.  The only open carry is usually for a trapper in the woods and it's still hard for then to get.  CC is only available to those with multiple verified death threats and typically only law enforcement, lawyers, judges, etc..  The average person won't be approved.
We have a minute amount of firearms related deaths compared to the US but most of them are from illegally acquired firearms.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 30, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> The only open carry is usually for a trapper in the woods and it's still hard for then to get.



I guess I didn't know it was that bad out there.  So in Canada you can't take a stroll in the woods or do some overnight camping and carry your favorite pistola with you?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 30, 2017)

Marine0311 said:


> Are you not in favor of CC?



That isn't at all what I said.

I said that with an understanding of the state you are in's laws, and a safety class(prolly with a proficiency demo) I am all for it. But in some states(Arizona) I don't even have to be a resident to get a CC. I can mail in apply and have reciprocity in something like 28 states. With no training? I think that is asinine.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 30, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I guess I didn't know it was that bad out there.  So in Canada you can't take a stroll in the woods or do some overnight camping and carry your favorite pistola with you?



Nope.  You can carry a rifle or shotgun.  And in the past you wouldn't be harassed but now, unless you're hunting or target shooting with appropriate licenses (firearms and hunting); chances are you'll be reported to the cops and rolled up.  You can only shoot a pistol at an approved range in most provinces, as you are required to hold membership at one in order to get your ATT approved.  Thankfully where I live membership is not mandatory and if I owned more property, I could shoot on it.


----------



## Blizzard (Jan 30, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I was remarking in terms of a nationwide concealed carry. I am on the record here if being pretty pro 2A. I am a gunowner. However I would greatly prefer if grandpa fuckhead wants to conceal carry his smokewagon, he has had a bit of training in at the very minimum the laws of the state he is in, and a safety class.
> 
> You want guns in your home? Go for it. You want to walk around with one, concealed from me, your rights end where public safety begins.
> 
> I have seen way too many shitbags at civilian ranges that are walking safety violations...


Generally speaking, I agree with one small difference.  Everyone has the right to carry and it should not be denied but with rights come responsibilities.  This may be a slippery slope but if you want to carry in public (concealed or not) there should be some fundamental safety training (the slippery slope is in how much training is needed).

Like you, and I'm sure many here, I've been to places where people that should know better are doing some stupid ass things.  There are ranges I will no longer go to due to an apparent culture of jackassery that exists as a result of their clientele.  Safety training doesn't/shouldn't need to be unnecessarily lengthy, complex or burdensome but should serve to raise awareness of a citizen's responsibilities.  I don't view it all that differently than getting a driver's license (a reasonable analogy since my driver's license affords me privilege in every state, just as a carry permit should).  This may not be a popular viewpoint but seems fairly reasonable to me.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 30, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> That isn't at all what I said.
> 
> I said that with an understanding of the state you are in's laws, and a safety class(prolly with a proficiency demo) I am all for it. But in some states(Arizona) I don't even have to be a resident to get a CC. I can mail in apply and have reciprocity in something like 28 states. With no training? I think that is asinine.



As a Canadian, there's several states that I can apply for a CC with only a copy of my license from here.  I understand and agree with the training requirement to carry.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 30, 2017)

Blizzard said:


> Generally speaking, I agree with one small difference.  Everyone has the right to carry and it should not be denied but with rights come responsibilities.  This may be a slippery slope but if you want to carry in public (concealed or not) there should be some fundamental safety training (the slippery slope is in how much training is needed).
> 
> Like you, and I'm sure many here, I've been to places where people that should know better are doing some stupid ass things.  There are ranges I will no longer go to due to an apparent culture of jackassery that exists due to their clientele.  Safety training doesn't/shouldn't need to be unnecessarily lengthy, complex or burdensome but should serve to raise awareness of a citizens responsibilities.  I don't view it all that differently than getting a driver's license.  This may not be a popular viewpoint but seems fairly reasonable to me.



In almost all ways a vehicle is a more dangerous weapon than a firearm. We have a standardized (generally) way of testing proficiency and punishing those who don't comply. I know driving isn't a constitutional right, but I don't think concealing a weapon is either.

I'm not a constitutional scholar and don't claim to be. I don't really care too much for that argumentative aim either as no one here is as well. They didn't have fully automatic, concealable pistols in the 18th century...


----------



## Dienekes (Jan 30, 2017)

I haven't taken my CCW class yet, but everyone I know is ultimately glad they went. Sure it's a pain in the ass at first, especially for people in bumfuck North Louisiana where you can get hunting tags just by walking up to a counter who think it's their "god given right" to carry, but I haven't heard a negative review about the class yet other than the price (~$100).


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 30, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I guess I didn't know it was that bad out there.  So in Canada you can't take a stroll in the woods or do some overnight camping and carry your favorite pistola with you?


If the Vice short Doc is remotely accurate...you can't have a loaded rifle until you're at a range.


----------



## pardus (Jan 30, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> If the Vice short Doc is remotely accurate...you can't have a loaded rifle until you're at a range.



I guess they banned hunting in Canada then...


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 30, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> If the Vice short Doc is remotely accurate...you can't have a loaded rifle until you're at a range.



Depends on the classification.  An AR variant would be restricted and only permitted use at the range.  You also need a special class of license with a more training and more extensive background check.  Plus you go on a registry and can have a daily background check.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 30, 2017)

pardus said:


> I guess they banned hunting in Canada then...


They didn't really talk about Hunting in this, of course hunting seems kosher based on outfitters taking 'Mericans hunting:


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 30, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> They didn't really talk about Hunting in this, of course hunting seems kosher based on outfitters taking 'Mericans hunting:



That's was an alright documentary but still with a healthy dabble of liberal bias.

Here's a couple.great sources of information. 
Ottawa criminal defence lawyer  Solomon Friedman - Firearms Law Canada
Canadian Firearms Program - Royal Canadian Mounted Police


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 30, 2017)

I love the Canucks but their gun laws are all fucked up. Poor bastards.

I think everyone wanting to carry should have to demonstrate that they are safe and can at least load, unload and hit a target out to 25 yards. Honestly, I think they should shoot the local police qual, once a year, pay the PD $25, bring a box of ammo and shoot the qual. If you are all fucked up, sorry come back and try again.

A small DMV style book on carry laws, use of force and recommendations on how to interact with the police. Study up, take the test, and done and done.

It doesn't have to overboard,  and it doesn't have to be a simple check the block. If they qualified at the same standard as your local cops, nobody should be bitchin about standards. Unless they want to finally admit how poorly trained our LEO's are in the use of pistol, but that's a different conversation for a different thread. 

Background check is straight forward.

Simple test on the study book and done.

Make it good for 4 years, as long as you have an updated yearly  PD Qual sheet with your permit. Have them retest on laws every 4 years, with update on background check. Too easy...


----------



## Gunz (Jan 30, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> They didn't really talk about Hunting in this, of course hunting seems kosher based on outfitters taking 'Mericans hunting:



That was interesting.

But there is a big problem with gun-related violence comparisons between the US and Canada because of the huge disparity of population. California has a bigger population than Canada (Canada 35 million; California 39 million), so population alone is going to account for markedly higher gun deaths in the US.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 30, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I love the Canucks but their gun laws are all fucked up. Poor bastards.
> 
> I think everyone wanting to carry should have to demonstrate that they are safe and can at least load, unload and hit a target out to 25 yards. Honestly, I think they should shoot the local police qual, once a year, pay the PD $25, bring a box of ammo and shoot the qual. If you are all fucked up, sorry come back and try again.
> 
> ...



I'd extend the retest/renewal time to 7 years, but other than that, yeah, too easy.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 30, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> I'd extend the retest/renewal time to 7 years, but other than that, yeah, too easy.



Technology in today's day, have them do the first test at the dmv, than have them update online every two years for state and federal law updates. I mean it's not like once a year qual and testing every two years from the comfort of your home is all that hard. Hell we all spend more time on this forum daily then it would take to read a few pages of law and take a test. $.02


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 30, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I love the Canucks but their gun laws are all fucked up. Poor bastards.
> 
> I think everyone wanting to carry should have to demonstrate that they are safe and can at least load, unload and hit a target out to 25 yards. Honestly, I think they should shoot the local police qual, once a year, pay the PD $25, bring a box of ammo and shoot the qual. If you are all fucked up, sorry come back and try again.
> 
> ...



Whether or not this is a good idea or if it'll work, here's the problem I see:  How much do you pay to vote?  Aside from a permit fee, how much do you pay to peaceably assemble?  How much do you pay to use any of the other Constitutional rights?  I don't think it's a bad idea, but I appreciate both sides.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 30, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> Whether or not this is a good idea or if it'll work, here's the problem I see:  How much do you pay to vote?  Aside from a permit fee, how much do you pay to peaceably assemble?  How much do you pay to use any of the other Constitutional rights?  I don't think it's a bad idea, but I appreciate both sides.



I agree with you, and throughout this thread, going a few years back, I've always stated that I thought all laws restricting ownership and carry were unconstitutional.  And I do believe they are. But I've shifted my position, unrestricted ownership and carrying is never going to happen. My meet them in the middle, is what I lined out. Funny thing is, @TLDR20 wrote about AZ CCW permit being stupid easy to get, he is right, I have my out of state through them because it's stupid easy and cheaper than TX. However, I would deal with what I outlined in order to have a national carry permit. 

The end of the day, I'm always going to own guns and be armed. Who decides to make me a criminal because of it is the one infringing on my rights. However, if I can jump through a few hoops and make the process acceptable for us both and still be armed, path of least resistance and all that jazz.

On personal level,  I don't think it's unreasonable to prove I'm safe and proficient in both the use of my weapon and my knowledge of the laws.


----------



## AWP (Jan 30, 2017)

"Bearing arms" is a bit vague. What qualifies...owning or concealed carry? Your ability to accidentally kill my family is almost nil if your untrained ass keeps your gun at home.

I'm very pro-2A, but 100% onboard with demonstrating proficiency before you leave your home carrying a gun.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 30, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> Whether or not this is a good idea or if it'll work, here's the problem I see:  How much do you pay to vote?  Aside from a permit fee, how much do you pay to peaceably assemble?  How much do you pay to use any of the other Constitutional rights?  I don't think it's a bad idea, but I appreciate both sides.


This is exactly the debate I was talking about earlier. If you're "pure" 2A- you carry whenever the constitution already lays that out, right? I'm preventing tyranny, I am not joining a club.

Even those that are very pro 2A- @Diamondback 2/2 and @Ocoka One - think there should be some "reasonable restrictions/common sense gun laws" put in place, background checks and courses and such. For the record I agree with that logic and won't mind continuing to abide by those laws. I can legally carry in 35 states (90% sure here) as it is.

So I am wondering how the administration will square that circle, because when they stop attacking the press and presenting "alternative facts" and decide to tackle the gun issues, _someone _that voted for Pres Trump is going to be upset by exactly what "very pro 2nd amendment" means to the POTUS.

It'll be interesting.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 31, 2017)

Yeah, it would be nice to know that every swinging dick packing legal heat had some decent training and knew how to use the damn thing, _and when not to_ _use it_.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 31, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> Yeah, it would be nice to know that every swinging dick packing legal heat had some decent training and knew how to use the damn thing, _and when not to_ _use it_.


Fully agree.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 31, 2017)

Debt to society paid in full: Hero in Tonopah-Area Shooting That Saved State Trooper's Life Had Gun Rights Restored in 2003


----------



## xGenoSiide (Jan 31, 2017)

Reading these articles had watching these videos has me happy I qualify and possess my LEOSA. I don't have to worry about 90% of state bullshit, though I was in the fortunate position of being able to shoot and train next to guys like @amlove21... even after I so eloquently put my foot in my mouth.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 31, 2017)

xGenoSiide said:


> Reading these articles had watching these videos has me happy I qualify and possess my LEOSA. I don't have to worry about 90% of state bullshit, though I was in the fortunate position of being able to shoot and train next to guys like @amlove21... even after I so eloquently put my foot in my mouth.


lol, you're all good man.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 22, 2017)

And this happened today: Maryland's Assault Weapons Ban Upheld by US Appeals Court

As I understand it...the homicide rate has continued to climb in Baltimore since the passage of this law. 
Here's some current statistics.
Baltimore MD crime rates and statistics - NeighborhoodScout


----------



## Single Malt (Feb 22, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> And this happened today: Maryland's Assault Weapons Ban Upheld by US Appeals Court
> 
> As I understand it...the homicide rate has continued to climb in Baltimore since the passage of this law.
> Here's some current statistics.
> Baltimore MD crime rates and statistics - NeighborhoodScout



So as you understand it, the reason homicide rates have continued to climb in Baltimore is because of the MD's Assault Weapons Ban? A lot of things also have continued to climb since the passage of the law, like the number of iPhone 6 owners.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 22, 2017)

Single Malt said:


> So as you understand it, the reason homicide rates have continued to climb in Baltimore is because of the MD's Assault Weapons Ban? A lot of things also have continued to climb since the passage of the law, like the number of iPhone 6 owners.


Nope.  Just said that since the passage of the Law, Homicide rates have climbed, also violent crime rates have climbed.  My correlation would be that the passage of that law did nothing to change the trend of criminal activity in Baltimore and Maryland in general.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 22, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Nope.  Just said that since the passage of the Law, Homicide rates have climbed, also violent crime rates have climbed.  My correlation would be that the passage of that law did nothing to change the trend of criminal activity in Baltimore and Maryland in general.



Do you think most gun crime is committed with assault weapons? 

I don't get your point?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 22, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Do you think most gun crime is committed with assault weapons?
> 
> I don't get your point?



Not attempting to understand anything cav oriented because it just makes my head hurt, but the simple fact is that the vast majority of bans by states are not against weapons used in offense or defense of the individual... but of weapons used for those purposes most often against "the state"...


----------



## AWP (Feb 22, 2017)

Considering one of the major rationales behind banning "assault" weapons is to decrease crime, an increase in crime while they are banned helps to further disprove this fallacy. Even the FBI's own incomplete numbers show a massively disproportionate count between crimes committed with handguns vs rifles. An AWB is an emotional bandaid, not something that contributes to an increase in public safety.


----------



## Single Malt (Feb 22, 2017)

AWB come out of a desire to prevent mass shootings. Their ban doesn't lower crime rates nor do they prevent the few and far in between mass shootings that happen using a Assault Rifle. AW are the weapon of choice for psychos for the same reason they are that of the military, they are light, accurate, have a lot of fire power, and most importantly are easier to successfully operate than hand guns (success factor being eliminating targets). Their ban doesn't stop psychos, just makes them pick another tool.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 22, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Do you think most gun crime is committed with assault weapons?
> 
> I don't get your point?


I'm not being obtuse and y'all know it.  The point.  AWB in Maryland has done nothing to curb the homicide or violent crime rate. 

The statistics if we all chose to deep dive rather than being dicks just to be dicks are out there, you also know them off the top too.  The vast majority of crimes involving firearms overwhelmingly involve pistols, not rifles.  So, what's the purpose of an AWB which only stops law-abiding citizens from arming themselves? It seems the purpose of AWB is just that, stop law-abiding citizens from being able to purchase firearms at the same grade of local LEOs and the military.  Which, this plays into the fears of conspiracy theorists that say tyrannical government is just around the corner.


----------



## CDG (Feb 22, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> I'm not being obtuse and y'all know it.  The point.  AWB in Maryland has done nothing to curb the homicide or violent crime rate.
> 
> The statistics if we all chose to deep dive rather than being dicks just to be dicks are out there, you also know them off the top too.  The vast majority of crimes involving firearms overwhelmingly involve pistols, not rifles.  So, what's the purpose of an AWB which only stops law-abiding citizens from arming themselves? It seems the purpose of AWB is just that, stop law-abiding citizens from being able to purchase firearms at the same grade of local LEOs and the military.  Which, this plays into the fears of conspiracy theorists that say tyrannical government is just around the corner.



So why didn't you make your whole point in the first place, instead of your usual passive aggressive bullshit?  You made the point that the ban didn't contribute to a lower gun crime rate.  The obvious conclusion to draw from that is that you think it should have.  Jesus Christ dude.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 22, 2017)

Okay...


----------



## policemedic (Feb 22, 2017)

Why are we using the made-for-TV, sound-bite-ready term assault weapons? Adopting a term made up to serve a public relations purpose by the anti-gunners does not serve our interests and lets them control the narrative.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 22, 2017)

policemedic said:


> Why are we using the made-for-TV, sound-bite-ready term assault weapons? Adopting a term made up to serve a public relations purpose by the anti-gunners does not serve our interests and let's them control the narrative.



I couldn't agree more!


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 22, 2017)

The recent ruling in favor of the Maryland gun ban is very interesting.  Many of the weapons covered by the ban are specifically the ones that a reasonable person would think are necessary in order to keep the Militia well-regulated and to preserve the security of a free State.  You're not going to resist tyranny with deer rifles and skeet guns.  Not successfully, anyway.


----------



## pardus (Feb 22, 2017)

CDG said:


> So why didn't you make your whole point in the first place, instead of your usual passive aggressive bullshit?  You made the point that the ban didn't contribute to a lower gun crime rate.  The obvious conclusion to draw from that is that you think it should have.  Jesus Christ dude.



Take it down a notch. Thank you.


----------



## busdriver (Feb 24, 2017)

I figure it's far less tin foil hat-y than anything about keeping certain types of guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.  It sure as hell isn't about preventing crime on any real level.  There's no easy policy lever to go after the socio-economic root causes of urban violence.

It's very simple, red team vs blue team.  Any law that restricts firearms gets put in the win column by the blue team and a loss to the red team.  It's zero sum game identity politics.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 2, 2017)

Your 2017 California compliant Glock - <I think>

How the hell do you Kydex this holster?


----------



## Gunz (Mar 2, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Your 2017 California compliant Glock - <I think>
> 
> How the hell do you Kydex this holster?




...the fuck


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 28, 2017)

ATF: Minnesota permit to carry now satisfies background check for buying guns

Minnesota residents with a permit to carry may now purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer without the normally required background check, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives announced Friday.

The ATF has determined that the state’s requirement for getting a permit to carry complies with the background check requirements under federal law for purchasing a firearm.

Any carry permits with expiration dates of Aug. 1, 2019, or later now qualify as alternatives to usual the FBI instant background checks.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 28, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> ATF: Minnesota permit to carry now satisfies background check for buying guns



I would certainly hope that this would catch on in more states. When it comes to gun laws these days...I will take any victory that I can!


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 28, 2017)

Agoge said:


> I would certainly hope that this would catch on in more states. When it comes to gun laws these days...I will take any victory that I can!



I want to see how it plays out with Trump in office.


----------



## Topkick (Apr 29, 2017)

Agoge said:


> I would certainly hope that this would catch on in more states. When it comes to gun laws these days...I will take any victory that I can![/
> 
> This went into effect in Ohio last year. However, its still up to the dealer. Some will run a check on you anyway claiming they don't have to sell you a gun if you won't agree to it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 2, 2017)

Looks like I won't be getting that Springfield AR...Springfield Armory & Rock River Arms Made Campaign Contributions to Anti-Gun Rights Politicians - The Truth About Guns


----------



## SpitfireV (May 3, 2017)

It's probably a lot more complicated than it appears at face value. Do some research before you make a knee jerk reaction.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 3, 2017)

My point is that I won't support a company that works against their customers.


----------



## RackMaster (May 3, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Looks like I won't be getting that Springfield AR...Springfield Armory & Rock River Arms Made Campaign Contributions to Anti-Gun Rights Politicians - The Truth About Guns



Do some research... this took all of 2 seconds...

The 2017 NRA Show Controversy | SOFREP


----------



## AWP (May 3, 2017)




----------



## Marauder06 (May 3, 2017)

AWP said:


>



Not sure "checking facts" and "SOFREP" necessarily go together though.


----------



## AWP (May 3, 2017)

You go to war with the memes you have...


----------



## Marauder06 (May 4, 2017)

AWP said:


> You go to war with the memes you have...



Well played.


----------



## RackMaster (May 4, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Not sure "checking facts" and "SOFREP" necessarily go together though.



It was the only source I found at the time.  How about This?

Controversial state-level gun dealer licensing bill passes in Illinois Senate


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 26, 2017)

SCOTUS won't hear concealed carry case from California:

U.S. Supreme Court leaves California’s concealed-guns law intact


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 26, 2017)

...did they use a BB gun for the featured pic in that  article???


----------



## Gunz (Jun 26, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> SCOTUS won't hear concealed carry case from California:
> 
> U.S. Supreme Court leaves California’s concealed-guns law intact




_"...Sheriff’s offices in urban counties generally deny licenses to private citizens, in contrast to rural areas, where those asserting a need to carry a handgun for self-defense can often obtain concealed-weapons licenses..."_

Liberal logic: You're denied a license to carry in the state's most dangerous, gang-banger-infested urban shitholes. If you live out in bumfuck, where a raccoon might get in your garbage can, you'll likely get a CCL.


----------



## AWP (Jun 26, 2017)

Best line of that article:



> prohibit sale of semiautomatic weapons with *“bullet buttons”* that enable speedy reloading.



Join us next week when "gun safety" (because "gun control" is an awful phrase so anti-2A groups church it up for better acceptance) advocates try to ban those "notch thingies" that enable speedy aiming.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 29, 2017)

So the NRA has been busy. 

Great job putting together an ad that will circle the wagons on lawful gun ownership and bring people from all sides together, focused on one topic.  :wall:

Apparently everyone in the media, blacks, gays, and anyone who was supported Obama is an anti-gun zealot.  Who wrote this shit?


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 29, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> So the NRA has been busy.
> 
> Great job putting together an ad that will circle the wagons on lawful gun ownership and bring people from all sides together, focused on one topic.  :wall:
> 
> Apparently everyone in the media, blacks, gays, and anyone who was supported Obama is an anti-gun zealot.  Who wrote this shit?



The NRA really know their audience for ads. 

 From what I can tell, the two primary motivators for most gun rights advocates are guns giving a feeling of personal safety, and the need to fight against a society that is threatening the exercise of individual rights and freedoms.

That ad very solidly appeals to both.  I need to see if their marketing team does any advising.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 30, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> So the NRA has been busy.
> 
> Great job putting together an ad that will circle the wagons on lawful gun ownership and bring people from all sides together, focused on one topic.  :wall:
> 
> Apparently everyone in the media, blacks, gays, and anyone who was supported Obama is an anti-gun zealot.  Who wrote this shit?



Is that shit real? Do people really believe they live in an America that bad?


----------



## Frank S. (Jun 30, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Is that shit real? Do people really believe they live in an America that bad?



To believe is to choose. So there's the justification.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 1, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Is that shit real? Do people really believe they live in an America that bad?


Kamala Harris is my exhibit A.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 1, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Kamala Harris is my exhibit A.



Your example is a politician elected by a majority of the vote in the most liberal state in America where you don't even live? Cool.

The reality is you live in a country with a Republican majority in every part of the government. A "republican" president, congress and Senate...


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 1, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Kamala Harris is my exhibit A.


What do you mean by this?


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 1, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> Your example is a politician elected by a majority of the vote in the most liberal state in America where you don't even live? Cool.
> 
> The reality is you live in a country with a Republican majority in every part of the government. A "republican" president, congress and Senate...



And they still can't get shit passed. Fucking slackers.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 3, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> What do you mean by this?


Agents seized 500 guns from a Clovis family. After a court fight, they got them back

@TLDR20 no I'm very glad I'm no longer a resident.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 8, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> So the NRA has been busy.
> 
> Great job putting together an ad that will circle the wagons on lawful gun ownership and bring people from all sides together, focused on one topic.  :wall:
> 
> Apparently everyone in the media, blacks, gays, and anyone who was supported Obama is an anti-gun zealot.  Who wrote this shit?



Black Lives Matters responds with a video of their own....personally I disagree with their opinion and perceptions in the video, but I prefer their responding like this, vs. closing highways.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jul 9, 2017)

I


----------



## AWP (Jul 9, 2017)

FL needs to hurry up with my CCW application because...freedom.


----------



## AWP (Jul 12, 2017)

Some people will do anything to get around the "adding a stock to a pistol makes it an SBR" problem.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 12, 2017)

AWP said:


> FL needs to hurry up with my CCW application because...freedom.



Mine took about 4 months...but that was during the Obama election hysteria in '08. It should be much quicker now.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 12, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> So the NRA has been busy.
> 
> Great job putting together an ad that will circle the wagons on lawful gun ownership and bring people from all sides together, focused on one topic.  :wall:
> 
> Apparently everyone in the media, blacks, gays, and anyone who was supported Obama is an anti-gun zealot.  Who wrote this shit?




The NRA tends to make things worse for itself and gun owners. If it were smart it would promote the fun aspects of safe shooting and the growing sport of shooting competition.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 12, 2017)

So down here in the land of awesomeness, we shall wear swords about our person. 

You'll Soon Be Able to Open Carry Swords and Daggers in Texas

I'm totally putting an edge on my NCO sword.

Put me together a Zorro outfit and mask, find me running around your neighborhood jumping from bushes "woogy-boogy" and shit.:-":wall:


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 12, 2017)

Samurai time!


----------



## DocIllinois (Jul 12, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> So down here in the land of awesomeness, we shall wear swords about our person.
> 
> You'll Soon Be Able to Open Carry Swords and Daggers in Texas
> 
> ...



Something to draw the attention of both cops and medieval live action role play fans at the same time.

Finally.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 12, 2017)

@amlove21

And this is why I carry a gun in the deep woods of Minnesota....


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 13, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> So down here in the land of awesomeness, we shall wear swords about our person.
> 
> You'll Soon Be Able to Open Carry Swords and Daggers in Texas
> 
> ...



Hang on, you guys could carry a rifle and pack a pistol but swords were out of the question?! 

Also, I would like immigrate to the nation state of Texas. Where do I get my passport?


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 14, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Hang on, you guys could carry a rifle and pack a pistol but swords were out of the question?!
> 
> Also, I would like immigrate to the nation state of Texas. Where do I get my passport?



Yeah...strange huh?

Here is a link to our weapons laws, for your reading pleasure...

PENAL CODE  CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS

We (LEO) were very happy when the state passed Sec. 46.15.  NONAPPLICABILITY.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 14, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Also, I would like immigrate to the nation state of Texas. Where do I get my passport?



No passport required, just buy a hat and some boots and you will fit in just fine.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 9, 2017)

*Filed under:*








Texas professor wears body armor and helmet to class | Daily Mail Online

A Texas professor is taking a stand against the state's campus carry law by wearing protective combat gear to classes he is teaching.

San Antonio College professor Charles K. Smith teaches geography and went to his class wearing a camouflaged bulletproof vest and helmet because he says he doesn't feel safe.

'It definitely makes me feel uneasy that there are more firearms on campus than there should be,' Smith told mySA.com. 'Dressing this way was just a statement on how I felt.'


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 9, 2017)

Some one needs to bring a flash bang or arty sim into class.  Then hand him an e-tool and tell him to dig in.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 9, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> San Antonio College professor Charles K. Smith teaches geography and went to his class wearing a camouflaged bulletproof vest and helmet because he says he doesn't feel safe.
> 
> 'It definitely makes me feel uneasy that there are more firearms on campus than there should be,' Smith told mySA.com. '*Dressing this way was just a statement on how I felt.'*




Here's a statement: The rest of Texas thinks your a twat so fuck off.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 9, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> No passport required, just buy a hat and some boots and you will fit in just fine.




And a truck. A truck would help.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 9, 2017)

I wouldn't even be sorry: Mom who killed home intruder: 'It was either him or me and I wasn't going'


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 3, 2017)

Insert from other thread:
Tim Kaine talking, I didn't like him [his politics] when I was in VA.  Don't like him [sic] now.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 3, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Insert from other thread:
> Tim Kaine talking, I didn't like him [his politics] when I was in VA.  Don't like him [sic] now.



Kaine is such a toolshed.  

To quote: _ "He was only stopped because he didn’t have a silencer on his firearm, and the sound drew people to the place where he was ultimately stopped."  Give me a freeking break.  _


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 3, 2017)

Never a fan of bumpfire type mods, my guess is the ATF finally kills them off because of Vegas.


----------



## Topkick (Oct 3, 2017)

Pro-gun but always believed it's necessary that military and police maintain an advantage. Civilians with auto/ bumpfire scare me.


----------



## The Pooze (Oct 3, 2017)

Gentlemen,  I have two videos that sum up my feelings :






and






that is all.


----------



## CQB (Oct 3, 2017)

This is not the time to bring up these issues...


----------



## Topkick (Oct 3, 2017)

CQB said:


> This is not the time to bring up these issues...


Agree that the American public should let the smoke clear but Shadowspearians can always discuss these issues with even keel👍


----------



## policemedic (Oct 3, 2017)

Bump fire is a red herring; it really doesn’t matter whether that’s what he used or not.


----------



## Topkick (Oct 3, 2017)

policemedic said:


> Bump fire is a red herring; it really doesn’t matter whether that’s what he used or not.


Can you explain? Yeah, he coulda killed a few without it...but he injured 500 + with auto/ bump.  I think it matters.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 3, 2017)

It doesn’t matter at all.  People can shoot quickly without bumpfire adapters; I can outshoot them and I’m not Jerry Miculek.  Artificially increasing the rate of fire wasn’t a big factor and neither was accuracy.  He was shooting unimpeded from an elevated position at a dense mass of people in a contained venue.  In other words, he was spraying an area target.  Bumpfire or pulling the trigger quickly, the result would have been about the same.

It’s also important to note that ‘injured’ doesn’t mean ‘injured by gunfire’.  My bet is at least half of the 500 or so injured were not hit but were injured trying to escape.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 3, 2017)

Bump Fire Stocks do not make your rifle into a fully-automatic rifle.  Makes you shoot faster of course.  But many people have bump-fired AR and AK platforms without modifying anything.  Just takes practice.


----------



## Topkick (Oct 3, 2017)

Ok. Good points. I agree that injured doesn't always equate to bullet wounds. Yes, one could inflict a lot of damage in that setting on semi alone. But...he chose an area where he could use plunging fire to inflict the most damage. This is where auto/ bump is most effective. 

Edited to clarify plunging vs grazing fire.


----------



## CDG (Oct 3, 2017)

CQB said:


> This is not the time to bring up these issues...



You would think.  But within 24 hours there were people saying the victims didn't deserve sympathy, because they were country music fans who probably voted for Trump.

ETA:  There has been a petition to the New York State Bar Association started for a formal ethics review of Hayley Geftman-Gold for her comments on social media following the LV shooting.  Sign the Petition


----------



## Florida173 (Oct 3, 2017)

Levin: What gun law would have stopped the Las Vegas lunatic?

Good write up from Levin


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 3, 2017)

CQB said:


> This is not the time to bring up these issues...


You're right, I expected better of our leaders once upon a time.  But the quote never let a tragedy go to waste is attributed to Rahm Emanuel.  Perhaps ask the Democrats why they couldn't even give it 48 hours before they started thumping.


----------



## trin (Oct 4, 2017)

Florida173 said:


> Good write up from Levin



Another interesting article, from the Washington Post:

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 4, 2017)

trin said:


> Another interesting article, from the Washington Post:
> 
> I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.



One of the best articles yet. It's making traction here in Canada; most major media outlets have it.


----------



## CQB (Oct 4, 2017)

Yes, quite interesting. I think the ban on semi-auto should be repealed in Australia. Considering we've had no incidents for some time, it's time to rethink the options.


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 5, 2017)

CQB said:


> Yes, quite interesting. I think the ban on semi-auto should be repealed in Australia. Considering we've had no incidents for some time, it's time to rethink the options.



Sadly that’s what is likely coming here in Canada.  They already gave the RCMP the power to classify and ban firearms; we are now basically a police state.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 5, 2017)

Well I'll be damned.  First the Hughes Amendment, and now this. 

Never thought I'd see the NRA Blink -

NRA endorses more regulation on bump stocks that boost guns' firing rates


----------



## Florida173 (Oct 5, 2017)

It's an easy out since bump stocks are getting all the hate.


----------



## AWP (Oct 5, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Well I'll be damned.  First the Hughes Amendment, and now this.
> 
> Never thought I'd see the NRA Blink -
> 
> NRA endorses more regulation on bump stocks that boost guns' firing rates



This is a good move by the NRA. It gives it some political credibility without sacrificing more important issues.


----------



## Florida173 (Oct 6, 2017)

The people interested in the banning all guns won't see this as a win. This is dangerously close to becoming another bullshit AR ban of the '90s that only really banned cosmetic/comfort mods. Does a collapsible buttstock increase the lethality of  a rifle? How about a flash suppressor?


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 1, 2017)

Demolition Ranch just did a video in Canada on our gun laws. They don't get to detailed but enough to show most of our laws are idiotic.


----------



## AWP (Nov 7, 2017)

Obviously I disagree with the article, but these are the kinds of arguments being made for gun control. Like any debate, we focus on what we want to believe in support of that cause.

Trump Said the Presence of Another Gun Stopped the Sutherland Springs Shooting From Being Worse. Did It?



> Gun advocates argue it’s hard to know how many shootings were nipped in the bud by armed civilians before those incidents became mass shootings, and some say the reason more armed bystanders don’t stop mass shootings is because the killers target gun-free zones such as schools. The statistics cited in gun debates can vary and are often interpreted differently. What’s clear, however, is the strong relationship shown in several studies between the number of guns and the number of gun-related deaths, even when controlling for factors such as poverty and crime. The armed bystander in the Sutherland Springs shooting might have saved lives. But his actions do not necessarily mean that this mass shooting was not, as Trump put it, a “guns situation.”


----------



## Gunz (Nov 7, 2017)

In the event the perp is gunned down _in medias res, _the ammo and artillery he brings to the show is a pretty good indication of his intentions. If a guy walks in armed with only a six-gun, it's pretty clear he wasn't planning a mass cas event.

The only way it would've stopped being worse is if somebody in the church managed to cap the motherfucker in progress.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 7, 2017)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527/amp


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 7, 2017)

I am as pro-2A, pro-gun as you can get.  I admit it's a shit sandwich...there are no 'easy answers.'  On the very end of the spectrum, if they illegalized every gun today, there is no way they can confiscate the estimated 300 million guns out there.  But they aren't going to illegalize every gun; they may try to illegalize _some_ guns (a la Brady Bill), which do nothing to prevent, deter, or decrease gun crime.  "Sensible" gun laws usually aren't, and the pro-gun/anti-gun lobbies force a kind of tension with equal force pulling, so nothing moves.

If I had the answers, I would be on TV every night.  But I don't, so the best I can do every time shootings occur is pray for the families and folks involved, and move on.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Nov 7, 2017)

Be it the topic of guns or anything else - 

I love the notion that we as a society subscribe to en masse that problems stemming from irrationality are solved with what supposed rational individuals perceive to be rational policies..


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 7, 2017)

If we are to live in a Free society, and I mean Free.  Then there needs to what is considered an acceptable number of casualties in regards to gun crimes as well as Terrorist attacks.  Shall Not Be Infringed is non-negotiable and some states are currently infringing on their population.

The stats are clear, the more legal ownership, the less crime on the aggregate.  

Saying the 2nd Amendment is anachronism of the 18th century is the same thing as saying the 1st Amendment is.  If you want it removed from the Constitution, there are avenues of approach to do that.  However, we restricted drinking once...the country half rebelled.  And we have way more DUI related deaths than firearms related deaths today.


----------



## AWP (Nov 7, 2017)

One of the problems with gun reform or whatever is who will they find to modify the 2nd Amendment? Exactly. Since no one can or will do that, people attempt to legislate around it, eroding the Constitution because we are too weak to make the hard choice. This applies to other amendments as well, but it is clearly displayed with the 2nd.


----------



## CDG (Nov 7, 2017)

I'm not even 100% sure why gun control is a topic after the TX church shooting, other than it's people's knee jerk reaction.  The laws were in place to prevent this guy from getting a gun legally, but he wasn't properly entered into a database, and therefore slipped through the cracks.  So more laws would have done what here?


----------



## policemedic (Nov 7, 2017)

CDG said:


> I'm not even 100% sure why gun control is a topic after the TX church shooting, other than it's people's knee jerk reaction.  The laws were in place to prevent this guy from getting a gun legally, but he wasn't properly entered into a database, and therefore slipped through the cracks.  So more laws would have done what here?



Not to mention the several federal crimes and state crimes he committed by buying the gun.  He still knew he was a prohibited person 7 ways from Sunday.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 7, 2017)

We can not legislate away one's desire to inflict pain and death on others because they feel they have the right to do so.

People may think they can do so by legislating the "tools" away, but you can't legislate the true weapon (their minds). If someone wants to inflict mass casualties, they will find a way to do so -- whether by firearm or vehicle.


----------



## x SF med (Nov 8, 2017)

The biggest issue is the 1% - irresponsible individuals that own guns that shouldn't, are the driving force behind the media outrage and 'need' to drive gun control.  The 99% of the legal, responsible and honorable gun owning populace pays for the transgressions of the few...

Is there a way to fix this?  I'm not sure, fear is driving the train, not rationality.  I firmly believe not everyone should own guns, but those that prove they are competent and law abiding, should.


----------



## CQB (Nov 8, 2017)

AWP said:


> Obviously I disagree with the article, but these are the kinds of arguments being made for gun control. Like any debate, we focus on what we want to believe in support of that cause.
> 
> Trump Said the Presence of Another Gun Stopped the Sutherland Springs Shooting From Being Worse. Did It?


Yep, confirmation bias can be a killer.


----------



## AWP (Nov 9, 2017)

An interesting take from an admitted gun-control advocate. Short version: popular gun-control methods won't work because they don't protect at-risk groups. I posted both articles because they are slightly different in wording.

http://nypost.com/2017/10/05/the-depressing-truth-about-gun-control/

Opinion | I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.



> Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
> 
> Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.


----------



## CQB (Nov 9, 2017)

It sounds like more a social services solution which is of value. The Australian approach is very similar to your first option. Everyone can shoot & is entitled to: primary producers are a special category, sport shooters both short & long arms of all calibres can put rounds down range as much as they like. But there’s no reason for the general public to have semi-auto weapons, which is the essence of the legislation.
The interesting thing is that generally legal gun ownership here is slowly increasing without any loss of life due to guns and my own full bore club is booming. Then there's lies, damned lies & statistics; the Fact Check article linked below does indicate a downward trend post reform, though the cause is unclear, so I would dispute two articles positions that the Australian policy didn't make a difference. What is apparent, however is in the Libresco opinion piece, which is the amazing drop in the suicide rate, which is reflected in our own statistics.

Fact check: Have firearm homicides and suicides dropped since Port Arthur as a result of John Howard's reforms?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 9, 2017)

CQB said:


> It sounds like more a social services solution which is of value. The Australian approach is very similar to your first option. Everyone can shoot & is entitled to: primary producers are a special category, sport shooters both short & long arms of all calibres can put rounds down range as much as they like. But there’s no reason for the general public to have semi-auto weapons, which is the essence of the legislation.
> The interesting thing is that generally legal gun ownership here is slowly increasing without any loss of life due to guns and my own full bore club is booming. Then there's lies, damned lies & statistics; the Fact Check article linked below does indicate a downward trend post reform, though the cause is unclear, so I would dispute two articles positions that the Australian policy didn't make a difference. What is apparent, however is in the Libresco opinion piece, which is the amazing drop in the suicide rate, which is reflected in our own statistics.
> 
> Fact check: Have firearm homicides and suicides dropped since Port Arthur as a result of John Howard's reforms?




That's where we differ, as there's no reason the general public, if properly vetted, shouldn't have everything below oh, automatic grenade launcher.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 9, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> That's where we differ, as there's no reason the general public, if properly vetted, shouldn't have everything below oh, automatic grenade launcher.



Reasonable people can disagree about where the line is for "reasonable restrictions" on our rights.   None of our rights are absolute, even the 2nd Amendment.

For me, the 2nd Amendment exists to protect our individual rights from government over-reach.  To do this, the average citizen needs access to the civilian equivalent to the standard light infantry weapon that would be used by those who would oppress them.  That to me this generally includes many of the weapons dubbed "assault weapons" and specifically includes AR-15s and similar weapons.

To me, it is reasonable to restrict civilian access to automatic weapons, very large-caliber anti-material weapons (like .50s), and anything "explody."  Others will disagree and that's fine.

I think it's silly to ban most suppressors. I think most politicians think suppressors work like the do in the movies.  They don't.  

I'm totally fine with banning trigger cranks, bumpfire stocks, and related accouterments.  We can resist just fine with semi-auto.

I'm uncomfortable with the banning of standard sized (i.e. 30 round for rifle and 15 round for pistol) magazines.

The definition of "assault weapon" based on cosmetic features is absolutely ridiculous.  My daughter's 10/22 is not any less lethal now than it was when it was my 10/22.  The difference is that until I took off the folding stock and put on a fixed one and gave it to her, it was an evil assault weapon in this state.  Until recently, New York's desired policy on "high capacity" pistol mags was that you could have a ten-round mag but only put seven bullets in it (wtf?).  Utterly useless rules like those simply serve to make it look like politicians are "doing something" about gun violence while actually only making things harder for the law-abiding.

The big problem for me in the "reasonable gun control laws" discussion is that "reasonable gun control laws" always--ALWAYS--means me giving up more of my rights as a gun owner.  If gun control advocates were serious about compromise and common sense they'd back a plan to make a universal concealed carry law that is 1) cheap and easily obtainable by every eligible US person and 2) good in every state and every city (looking at you NYC).

But that's not going to happen.  So I'm more inclined to resist every new gun law until we get people who are actually interested in common sense and compromise. When/if that happens, I'm happy to reconsider.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 9, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Reasonable people can disagree about where the line is for "reasonable restrictions" on our rights.   None of our rights are absolute, even the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> For me, the 2nd Amendment exists to protect our individual rights from government over-reach.  To do this, the average citizen needs access to the civilian equivalent to the standard light infantry weapon that would be used by those who would oppress them.  That to me this generally includes many of the weapons dubbed "assault weapons" and specifically includes AR-15s and similar weapons.
> 
> ...



I have very similar views and wish we had a 2nd Amendment here. Talking about arbitrary mag law's, I can buy a 30 round mag BUT it needs to be pinned with a single rivet blocking to 5 rounds.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 15, 2017)

Joe Biden on the recent church shooting....

Biden: Hero Who Stopped Texas Shooter Was Wrong To Have A Gun


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 15, 2017)

[!


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 15, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> Joe Biden on the recent church shooting....
> 
> Biden: Hero Who Stopped Texas Shooter Was Wrong To Have A Gun



Maybe he should have had a shotgun.  A double-barreled shotgun.


----------



## policemedic (Nov 15, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Maybe he should have had a shotgun.  A double-barreled shotgun.



And fired it blindly through the door   🚪


----------



## Topkick (Nov 15, 2017)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Unbelievable!




And he could be the next President.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 15, 2017)

.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 15, 2017)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Yeah, here's Joe on owning a gun,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was hoping someone would get the reference :)

This is the video I had in mind:


----------



## Gunz (Nov 15, 2017)

Biden is an asshole. That is all. Carry on.


----------



## AWP (Nov 15, 2017)

People want to restrict our rights, but the system is failing.

Top Army officer says 'significant amount' of soldiers' crime data not reported to feds



> The Army’s top officer said Wednesday that his service had many "gaps" to fill when it comes to sharing soldiers' criminal history with federal law enforcement agencies in the wake of this month's Texas church shooting, which was carried out by an Air Force veteran with a history of domestic violence.
> 
> "We have a significant amount of omissions," admitted Gen. Mark Milley, the Army chief of staff. "There are gaps and failures on our part." Milley was the first service chief outside the Air Force to publicly admit to widespread lapses in sharing data on violent service members.



Army chief of staff: Army has made a "significant amount of omissions" in relaying criminal information to firearms database - CNNPolitics



> (CNN) — The chief of staff of the Army, Gen. Mark Milley, said Wednesday that the Army had made a "significant amount of omissions" following a review launched in the wake of revelations that Texas church shooter Devin Kelley's military criminal history was not properly relayed by the Air Force to the appropriate databases, which would have prevented Kelley from purchasing a firearm.
> 
> "There are gaps and failures on our part to report into the FBI; not just the FBI but other law enforcement agencies," Milley told reporters at the Pentagon.



The system's failing so the answer is to add more overhead? Our nation doesn't have a gun problem, the system is failing us and this is one example.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 15, 2017)

Haters will hate...that's all they know.

They don't even truly know WHAT or WHY they hate something...they simply do!

At the end of the day...no one truly cares for what Joe Biden has to say about weapons except for those cretins who already hate guns and their owners.


----------



## pardus (Nov 18, 2017)

This is pretty cool.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 8, 2017)

House passes bill loosening gun restrictions - CNNPolitics

I am on the fence about this. I am all about carrying but I want background checks done.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 8, 2017)

Agree....I hope it is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Florida173 (Dec 8, 2017)

Marine0311 said:


> House passes bill loosening gun restrictions - CNNPolitics
> 
> I am on the fence about this. I am all about carrying but I want background checks done.



Did I miss where this has something to do with background checks?


----------



## amlove21 (Dec 8, 2017)

Doesn’t this completely negate states rights? 

I seem to remember states’ rights being REALLY importantly.


----------



## AWP (Dec 8, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Doesn’t this completely negate states rights?
> 
> I seem to remember states’ rights being REALLY importantly.



They are to me, but being a white male from the South every time I bring it up the room gets quiet....


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 8, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> Doesn’t this completely negate states rights?
> 
> I seem to remember states’ rights being REALLY importantly.



Two things to consider:

1) Supremacy Clause of the Constitution 

2)  During the Civil Rights movement, many states had laws that infringed on the rights of African Americans and other minorities.  Those laws don't exist anymore.  No state (and certainly no city) should be able to create laws that unnecessarily infringe on my right to protect my life, liberty, and property with a firearm.  My driver's license is good in every state.  Every state recognizes my marriage license.  Why is my gun permit any different?


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 8, 2017)

Meh, CCW/CHL/LTC gets treated like a driver's license.
This wouldn't be that big an issue if NYC and a few other cities would let airline travellers transit without arresting them.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 8, 2017)

I have had gun permits from Georgia, North Carolina, and Connecticut.  Getting a permit in Connecticut was a huge pain in the ass.  They don't recognize any other state's permit, and my local PD slow-rolled me to the point that it took me four times to get fingerprinted and cost me over a hundred dollars and several hours of my life over the course of more than six months for me to get a permit that allowed me to take my handguns from my house, where I'm legally allowed to have them, to the range, where I'm legally allowed to shoot them.  And finally, I was able to carry a handgun to protect myself, my family, and my property in the crime-ridden city of New Haven.  

Then I moved to New York.  Yay.  First of all, I had to sell off a couple of my long guns so I wouldn't be a felon the moment I crossed state lines.  Then, I had to get another permit.  That's right, NY doesn't recognize anyone else's permits, either.  Here's the thing:  NY's permit process requires several hundred dollars in direct and indirect fees to get a carry permit.  I have to go through the fingerprint process all over again (um, don't you have like a database you can tap into for that?), they sent a deputy to my home, I have to get four (count them four) "character references (as if it's anyone else's business that I want a gun permit), and oh yeah it all has to be notarized.  I even have to write a letter to the freakin' judge explaining why I want a permit.  And apparently it can't simply be a copy of the 2nd Amendment or a summary of DC vs. Heller.  Bottom line, they make it as difficult, expensive, and time-consuming as they can to get a permit in this state.  And even then, I can't carry in New York City, which is probably where I need it the most.


----------



## amlove21 (Dec 8, 2017)

@Marauder06 thanks, as always, I hadn’t thought of it like that. 

I personally have Florida, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Ohio CCW. That gets me about 38 states. I was literally ok with that from the second I wanted to legally carry as many places as possible. Because full disclosure? I carry. 

I would love a tightly regulated national CCW, but I am now a lot more educated on states rights and national policy!


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 8, 2017)

I wouldn't be opposed to a national CCW permit.....States could make sure the training gets done and background checks, then issue one national CCW card. As long as the states get the money, why not? besides the fact the federal govt would screw it up somehow....but it would be nice.


----------



## SaintKP (Dec 8, 2017)

I have nothing of real value to add, but I have learned never to move to New York...literally ever.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 8, 2017)

I still can't believe there wasn't a stomping of this a long time ago.  2nd Amendment seems pretty clear to me, so that means the Feds government firearms.  NICS check exists, why does there need to be more?


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 8, 2017)

Florida173 said:


> Did I miss where this has something to do with background checks?



I would have to read that article again, I was more making it a point that I like background checks for everyone before you buy a gun and carry it everywhere or anywhere.

 I'm as pro 2A as they come however there are people who should not be able to obtain firearms due to their background, ah, that is from a state where the gun laws are loose.

I was just making a observation that's all


----------



## Dame (Dec 9, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> @Marauder06 thanks, as always, I hadn’t thought of it like that.
> 
> I personally have Florida, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Ohio CCW. That gets me about 38 states. I was literally ok with that from the second I wanted to legally carry as many places as possible. Because full disclosure? I carry.
> 
> I would love a tightly regulated national CCW, but I am now a lot more educated on states rights and national policy!



Nevada was probably the loosest state to carry in even when you were here. It's looser now. You were the only person to ever open carry in my home and I have to say I appreciated it. What Mara has to go through to even own guns in certain states is clearly infringement on the rights of We the People. When do I feel safest? When I'm with someone else I know has a firearm and knows how to use it. Plain and simple.

ETA: Responsible gun ownership means a lot to me, as you well know A. I have to say that good people police themselves and their family and seek outside help when necessary. Don't forget that.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 9, 2017)

National CCW reciprocity has existed for law enforcement since 2004. Generally, LEOs can carry anywhere in the US or its possessions. The caveat is we have to qualify annually with the weapon type we carry. 

The qualification/training requirement is the only thing different between this bill and LEOSA (the individual states will determine their licensing/training requirements instead of Congress), but the concept is not new. 

There is a potential here for unintended consequences to occur.  We currently grant full faith and credit to driver’s licenses and marriage/divorce decrees. Same/same for vehicle registration. But what we don’t do is recognize professional licensing. 

Nurses, physicians and others with professional licenses in their state still have to apply for a new one if they move.  Will this new proposed law set precedent for interstate acceptance of other licenses?


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 9, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> @Marauder06 thanks, as always, I hadn’t thought of it like that.
> 
> I personally have Florida, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Ohio CCW. That gets me about 38 states. I was literally ok with that from the second I wanted to legally carry as many places as possible. Because full disclosure? I carry.
> 
> I would love a tightly regulated national CCW, but I am now a lot more educated on states rights and national policy!



Let's say amlove is flying from Florida, where he is licensed to carry, to Maine, which recognizes his permit.  He wants to take his handgun with him because... you know what "because" doesn't matter because assuming it's for a lawful purpose that's his business not ours.  Anyway, in accordance with applicable laws, he unloads, locks, and declares his handgun at the check-in counter in Florida.  No drama.

He then has a connecting flight in New York.  No wait, that's too obvious, let's say New Jersey.  It's winter and after several hours of delays, his connecting flight gets cancelled.  The airline gives him all his stuff back, including his gun, books him a room in a hotel attached to the airport, and arranges for a new connecting flight the next day.  He gets a good night's sleep, is first in line for check in the next morning, and once again declares his handgun, still in its case from the day before.

And then he gets arrested.    
John Stossel Interviews Gun Owners Arrested for Traveling in New York

Or mara, who is licensed in Connecticut, wants to go home to Kentucky for Christmas.  After more than a year of trying, he finally gets his CT permit.  He already has one from Kentucky, which is good in something like 40 of the 50 states.  But it's not valid New York.  And NY doesn't recognize anyone else's permits, and apparently they don't issue permits to out-of-state residents except under some very specific circumstances.  Mara, not wanted to break the law, dutifully locks up his handgun inside his vehicle before he crosses into New York State.   Just before he crosses into Pennsylvania, where he can legally carry again,  mara and his family stop for gas.  It's late, it's dark, and it's a somewhat-sketchy looking area but hey they need a stop.  While pumping gas, he and his family are confronted by three young men armed with knives who demand his money and his vehicle.  You know, the vehicle that holds his legally-purchased handgun, that for some reason he can't be trusted to carry on his person in the state of New York.  I'll let you imagine how this hypothetical story ends.

I don't stop being an American citizen when I cross state lines.   My individual rights, enshrined in the Constitution and validated by multiple Supreme Court decisions, shouldn't change from state to state.  If people are serious about "common sense gun laws," then certainly one of the top five things on the list should be national concealed carry.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 9, 2017)

Marine0311 said:


> I would have to read that article again, I was more making it a point that I like background checks for everyone before you buy a gun and carry it everywhere or anywhere.
> 
> I'm as pro 2A as they come however there are people who should not be able to obtain firearms due to their background, ah, that is from a state where the gun laws are loose.
> 
> I was just making a observation that's all



So by indirect admission,  you actually don't know gun law.  Restricted people are restricted in all 50 states, period. If a state wants subjects not citizens (NY, CT, CA)  they should not be allowed to fuck over/with other Americans.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 9, 2017)

policemedic said:


> National CCW reciprocity has existed for law enforcement since 2004. Generally, LEOs can carry anywhere in the US or its possessions. The caveat is we have to qualify annually with the weapon type we carry.
> 
> The qualification/training requirement is the only thing different between this bill and LEOSA (the individual states will determine their licensing/training requirements instead of Congress), but the concept is not new.
> 
> ...



This would be a great thing, as relicensure is one large reason many people do not move from areas, to areas they could make more in.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 9, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> So by indirect admission,  you actually don't know gun law.  Restricted people are restricted in all 50 states, period. If a state wants subjects not citizens (NY, CT, CA)  they should not be allowed to fuck over/with other Americans.



I do know gun law. I could have worded my original statement more clearly.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 9, 2017)

policemedic said:


> National CCW reciprocity has existed for law enforcement since 2004. Generally, LEOs can carry anywhere in the US or its possessions. The caveat is we have to qualify annually with the weapon type we carry.
> 
> The qualification/training requirement is the only thing different between this bill and LEOSA (the individual states will determine their licensing/training requirements instead of Congress), but the concept is not new.
> 
> ...


One is a constitutional right, one is a privilege.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 9, 2017)

When LEOSA came out....I was hoping it would pave the way for a national carry law.  I am hoping this new reciprocity CCW was influenced in some way by the success of LEOSA.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 10, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> One is a constitutional right, one is a privilege.



You are simultaneously right and wrong.

The right to keep and bear arms is indeed a right recognized (though not granted) by the constitution.  Driving is a privilege, which is what I suppose you’re referring to.

However, this bill is not about respecting or expanding your 2nd Amendment rights.  Remember that, because it’s important.

The legislation allows someone who is licensed to carry a handgun—only a handgun!—in one state to receive reciprocity for his license in another state in the same manner that we respect driver’s licenses.  It even goes further, by stating that a facially valid document is prima facie proof of licensure.  If one lives in a state like Vermont or Alaska that does not require licensing to carry a concealed handgun, then one is also good.  So far, it sounds great, right?

Except there is an easy way for a state that wishes to exclude people from this law to do so.

This federal bill is predicated on two things—possession of a valid license to carry from State A and the existence of licensing laws for concealed carry in State B (or, like VT or AK, the absence of a legal prohibition).  If New Jersey wants to prevent people from Pennsylvania carrying concealed handguns in Jersey all they have to do is repeal their concealed carry law.  Individual states have the right to make and enforce their own laws, and this would effectively prevent the federal bill from having any applicability in their state.

The law also does not remove many of the restrictions on concealed carry in federal law.  It does not, for example, allow you to carry into the post office or an IRS building or in fact any building in which federal employees regularly work.

If this were about respecting your 2nd Amendment rights, Congress would simply pass a law saying notwithstanding any state law to the contrary, non-prohibited people possessing commonly recognized identification documents can carry concealed weapons that have been shipped in foreign or interstate commerce without the need for a state license. 

But it’s not.  This is about extending full faith and credit to a state-issued license.  As such, it sets the groundwork for other licenses to be accepted, though it’s likely that this will require enabling legislation or a recognition by the federal judiciary that the public records referred to in Article 4 section 1 include publicly accessible professional licenses.  For example, many professional licenses are public records in PA, including every level of healthcare provider.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 10, 2017)

The 2nd Amendment is all encompassing, and therefore I don't think States have any right at this juncture to regulate it.  The Federal Government does.  

I spent most of my life in California where if you sneeze wrong and apply for a CCW you get denied.  If you don't donate to the Sherriff's campaign you get denied.  If you get assaulted and state that is the reason for wanted a CCW: denied.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 10, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> The 2nd Amendment is all encompassing, and therefore I don't think States have any right at this juncture to regulate it.  The Federal Government does.
> 
> I spent most of my life in California where if you sneeze wrong and apply for a CCW you get denied.  If you don't donate to the Sherriff's campaign you get denied.  If you get assaulted and state that is the reason for wanted a CCW:denied.



Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 10, 2017)

policemedic said:


> You are simultaneously right and wrong.
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms is indeed a right recognized (though not granted) by the constitution.  Driving is a privilege, which is what I suppose you’re referring to.
> 
> ...



^I thought this was a really good post.

I'm not sure though about your concern about "State B."  States and DC have tried in the past to outlaw concealed carry or the licensing of handguns, and rebuffed by either Appeals Court or the Supreme Court.  (Illinois in 2012  and DC v. Heller).

It's true that states have a lot of leeway in determining their own laws, but they can't have laws that interfere with the sovereignty of the US or that unnecessarily infringe on individual liberties.  Again, Jim Crow laws in the Civil Rights era.\

Universal concealed carry is a huge win for the law abiding public.  Even if I had to go through the ridiculous hoops of licensing in NY, if it was good everywhere else in the US *and our territories* I'd be thrilled.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 10, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> ^I thought this was a really good post.
> 
> I'm not sure though about your concern about "State B."  States and DC have tried in the past to outlaw concealed carry or the licensing of handguns, and rebuffed by either Appeals Court or the Supreme Court.  (Illinois in 2012  and DC v. Heller).
> 
> ...



You’re right, but keep this in mind. The Supreme Court has never resolved the issue of bearing arms outside the home. They may in the future, as the federal judiciary is divided on the issue and clarity is needed.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 10, 2017)

I was going to ask @policemedic his opinion but he beat me to it haha

Are you in favor of this law?


----------



## Gunz (Dec 10, 2017)

It ain't about the weapon. It ain't about mag capacity. It's all about the individual. That's why I agree with @Ranger Psych that, properly vetted, there's no reason why responsible law-abiding individuals shouldn't own whatever they want.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 10, 2017)

Marine0311 said:


> I was going to ask @policemedic his opinion but he beat me to it haha
> 
> Are you in favor of this law?



I see no reason why a licensed civilian shouldn’t be able to carry nationwide, as LE can.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 10, 2017)

It wasn't that long ago that LE couldn't legally carry in other states off duty....there was a lot of professional courtesy, but you couldn't always count on it.  This is a step in the right direction and will set ground work for national carry to expand.....but it will take some time.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 10, 2017)

I have absolutely no problem with anyone carrying concealed weapons any where until it's proven that they shouldn't be allowed to do so. 

I don't fear the thought of people being armed. I have always lived my adult life as if everyone is anyway. 

There are still plenty LEO's who don't fear an armed populace. The press does a good job at portraying those that do. Many believe what they are told to believe versus what they truly do. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of LEO's who don't fully understand their own state's open carry laws and have to be schooled on those alone.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 10, 2017)

Local LEOs recommend people get guns


----------



## policemedic (Dec 10, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Local LEOs recommend people get guns



People are quite shocked when I recommend they get a gun, training to use it, and a license to carry it.  It’s funny to watch.

Much of the resistance to this comes from politically appointed chiefs and not the rank and file.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 10, 2017)

policemedic said:


> People are quite shocked when I recommend they get a gun, training to use it, and a license to carry it.  It’s funny to watch.
> 
> Much to the resistance to this comes from politically appointed chiefs and not the rank and file.



That is funny.

In addition to that group of people who train very often and take shooting courses.


----------



## Dame (Dec 10, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Local LEOs recommend people get guns


The link name is a little misleading. The article is about the Sheriff. I know I've sung this song here before but an encore seems in order.
Sheriffs have more power than most people realize. They are usually the ones who come out publicly to say the people who have carry permits should carry. Why? Because like Andy Griffith, they CAN and DO deputize people in emergencies.
Legal grounds are founded in...

The 10th Amendment
Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
ETA: PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES, (1997) et al.
Modern Example: The Pitkin County, CO, Sheriff in 1977 called on armed citizens to form a posse to capture escaped serial killer Ted Bundy.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 10, 2017)

Dame said:


> The link name is a little misleading. The article is about the Sheriff. I know I've sung this song here before but an encore seems in order.
> Sheriffs have more power than most people realize. They are usually the ones who come out publicly to say the people who have carry permits should carry. Why? Because like Andy Griffith, they CAN and DO deputize people in emergencies.
> Legal grounds are founded in...
> 
> ...



It’s also true that sheriffs are elected. They are free to express whatever opinion they like without fear of being fired.  They only risk political capital, but usually know the electorate well enough that this isn’t an issue.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 10, 2017)

policemedic said:


> Much of the resistance to this comes from politically appointed chiefs and not the rank and file.



This is so true.....modern day Chiefs and Sheriffs (large agencies) that get the lime light or are used as media talking heads are so far removed from what is actually happening on the streets.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 10, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> ...Chiefs and Sheriffs ...



Those titles could be interchanged with "Politicians."

There comes a time in LE that one has decide whether to take the road whereby you remain a career LEO or you take the road that leads you down the political avenue. It's a choice! Those political hack leaders are simply that...hacks of their governments. They should be recognized as such and nothing more. LEO's they are not!


----------



## Gunz (Dec 11, 2017)

Agoge said:


> I have absolutely no problem with anyone carrying concealed weapons any where until it's proven that they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
> 
> *I don't fear the thought of people being armed. I have always lived my adult life as if everyone is anyway.*
> 
> There are still plenty LEO's who don't fear an armed populace. The press does a good job at portraying those that do. Many believe what they are told to believe versus what they truly do. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of LEO's who don't fully understand their own state's open carry laws and have to be schooled on those alone.



Good policy. 

My situational awareness tends to drift into complacency sometimes. I have to admonish myself when I snap out of it.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 11, 2017)

policemedic said:


> People are quite shocked when I recommend they get a gun, training to use it, and a license to carry it.  It’s funny to watch.
> 
> Much of the resistance to this comes from politically appointed chiefs and not the rank and file.




I would guess it depends somewhat on the AO. In rural areas, like where I am, the deputies pretty much assume everybody's got guns and dogs. The politics are different than the cities.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 11, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> I would guess it depends somewhat on the AO. In rural areas, like where I am, the deputies pretty much assume everybody's got guns and dogs. The politics are different than the cities.



Very true.  Philly is a bastion of liberal thought, so people are somewhat taken aback by the notion that they are responsible for their own safety.


----------



## jackmick (Dec 11, 2017)

Would anyone be opposed to mandatory training before being able to purchase a handgun? Local gun shops/NRA-type instructors would get some business and it would hopefully reduce the amount of idiots with guns. Many gun ranges already require a training session with an instructor before they'll let you shoot there. I appreciate firearms and plan to own several of my own when the time comes, but we can't ignore that there are a lot of idiots with guns that give everyone else a bad image. My state just allowed anyone over 21 to carry concealed without a permit, which isn't necessarily entirely bad, but I know a lot of morons that I wouldn't want carrying a gun, let alone without any training.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 11, 2017)

jackmick said:


> Would anyone be opposed to mandatory training before being able to purchase a handgun?



Purchase?  Yes I would be opposed.

Carry? No, I am not opposed. In fact that is one of the reasons I am not for a national carry law unless there is a defined standard of training.  
That opinion alone my friends, is what has gotten me “uninvited” from events and get-togethers that my gun-carrying buddies at the range attend.


----------



## jackmick (Dec 11, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Purchase?  Yes I would be opposed.
> 
> Carry? No, I am not opposed. In fact that is one of the reasons I am not for a national carry law unless there is a defined standard of training. And that opinion alone my friends, is what has gotten me “uninvited” from events and get-togethers my gun-carrying buddies at the range attend.


I'm not definitively against having the standard for carrying instead of just purchasing, I just think it'd be hard to prevent someone from carrying if they already own the gun.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 11, 2017)

Agoge said:


> Those titles could be interchanged with "Politicians."
> 
> There comes a time in LE that one has decide whether to take the road whereby you remain a career LEO or you take the road that leads you down the political avenue. It's a choice! Those political hack leaders are simply that...hacks of their governments. They should be recognized as such and nothing more. LEO's they are not!



Very true....I cringe whenever the good idea fairies write an article in the ICAP magazine.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 11, 2018)

How's your blood pressure?  Good?  I can fix that...just watch tonight's 60 Minutes.

Oh yeah.  This will be a hack job, no questions asked.  Just watch the preview video within the 60 Minutes link.

Recognizing concealed carry permits across state lines


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 18, 2018)

"6 reasons why your right wing friends isn't coming over to your side."  One of the better summaries I've read on this subject.

6 Reasons Your Right-Wing Friend Isn’t Budging On Gun Control


----------



## CQB (Feb 18, 2018)

Interesting post, Point 4: policy has worked here & seen a decline in domestic homicide accordingly. Point 5: correct, as we didn’t have a revolution here. Though surprisingly our Constitution is based in part on the US model. 

Additionally, POTUS focus on mental health would be a good place to start.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 19, 2018)

Congrats Douche-knuckle, you just made a SBR which the last time I checked was illegal as fuck in NY where you live.

He takes the saw to it at the 4:00 mark.





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1993503840910042


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 19, 2018)

I didn't know guns walked around...


----------



## 256 (Feb 19, 2018)

Any mandate, and maybe this point has been made, is going to need Local LE to enforce it. The day the Governement attempts to disarm the citizens is the day many (including me) will walk away from the career field.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 19, 2018)

CQB said:


> Point 5: correct, as we didn’t have a revolution here. Though surprisingly our Constitution is based in part on the US model.



One of the biggest challenges (read: bang head against wall), is trying to educate our fellow anti-gun 'Mercans how 2A different.  The suggestions are always restrict access, license and test like owning a car, etc.  Just imagine changing the name of the argument:  would you think it rational to have to register your home computer because you choose to have a blog a la 1st Amendment?  Do you ban Westboro Baptist Church because they are nutbags (freedom of religion)?  Of course not.

The sticky wicket is that the high court has ruled that none of the rights are absolute: there can be limitations to the first and second amendments.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 19, 2018)

jackmick said:


> I'm not definitively against having the standard for carrying instead of just purchasing, I just think it'd be hard to prevent someone from carrying if they already own the gun.



Which means that they intended to break the law out the gate, which is something you can't do anything about without prior convictions involved.

HEY
LETS RESTRICT MAGAZINE SIZES
IT WILL SAVE THE KIDS


----------



## Kraut783 (Feb 19, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Congrats Douche-knuckle, you just made a SBR which the last time I checked was illegal as fuck in NY where you live.
> 
> He takes the saw to it at the 4:00 mark.
> 
> ...



Something tells me the cycling on that will be bad.....gas tube be damned!


----------



## AWP (Feb 19, 2018)

256 said:


> Any mandate, and maybe this point has been made, is going to need Local LE to enforce it. The day the Governement attempts to disarm the citizens is the day many (including me) will walk away from the career field.



They did it in the aftermath of Katrina. National Guard units at least.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 19, 2018)

AWP said:


> They did it in the aftermath of Katrina. National Guard units at least.



The NOPD participated as well.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 20, 2018)

@AWP @policemedic do you know if Katrina was a state or a federal thing that they invoked to justify a gun grab?

I know NC's law reads that in a state of emergency 2A rights/ownership is not suspended.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 20, 2018)

Ranger Psych said:


> Which means that they intended to break the law out the gate, which is something you can't do anything about without prior convictions involved.
> 
> HEY
> LETS RESTRICT MAGAZINE SIZES
> IT WILL SAVE THE KIDS




With training lack of a detachable mag dosent matter.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 20, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> @AWP @policemedic do you know if Katrina was a state or a federal thing that they invoked to justify a gun grab?
> 
> I know NC's law reads that in a state of emergency 2A rights/ownership is not suspended.


I don't believe any of the units were federalized. Chances are the NG was there in support of NOPD and the order and actual confiscation took place by the NOPD. Usually, in situations where the NG is in place, they act as a support/security element to augment local PDs. The actual arrests and confiscations are conducted by local LE. Example, a squad goes out on a patrol/confiscation mission and one or two local LE will go along and act as the authority granted by the state to actually take action. Granted, not every state is the same and there are minor variations in statute and policy, but overall I think that is a fair assessment of how things work.

Florida's laws are similar to NC in that respect.


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 20, 2018)

ke4gde said:


> I don't believe any of the units were federalized. Chances are the NG was there in support of NOPD and the order and actual confiscation took place by the NOPD. Usually, in situations where the NG is in place, they act as a support/security element to augment local PDs. The actual arrests and confiscations are conducted by local LE. Example, a squad goes out on a patrol/confiscation mission and one or two local LE will go along and act as the authority granted by the state to actually take action. Granted, not every state is the same and there are minor variations in statute and policy, but overall I think that is a fair assessment of how things work.
> 
> Florida's laws are similar to NC in that respect.



Usually there will be a dual status commander under title 10/32 that is designated through support of NORTHCOM.  That's what we do now, but I don't think it was the case in 2005. DSCA had changed a bit over the last 10 years. It would be interesting on which authorities the commander would be working under for disarmament.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 20, 2018)

Florida173 said:


> Usually there will be a dual status commander under title 10/32 that is designated through support of NORTHCOM.  That's what we do now, but I don't think it was the case in 2005. DSCA had changed a bit over the last 10 years. It would be interesting on which authorities the commander would be working under for disarmament.


Isn't that assuming they have been federalized? Title 10/32 are federal and wouldn't necessarily apply. Technically, the guard could be deployed without federal involvement. In which case the commander or any service member wouldn't be able to take law enforcement action under FL statutes unless accompanied by a sworn LEO. At least that's my interpretation of it. I'll admit my info is a bit rusty, but I don't think it has changed too much lol. 

Then, that would also beg the question concerning guardsmen that are activated for state active duty but are civilian LE in their day jobs. Would one supersede the other? They have a duty to act when off duty, but when outside of their jurisdictions how would that be handled? Could there be a successful conviction for a crime, or would it be a case of beating the charge but not the ride? 

 I think we need a thread to ponder legalities concerning LE. That could be a fun brain exercise.


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 20, 2018)

ke4gde said:


> 't that assuming they have been federalized? Title 10/32 are federal and wouldn't necessarily apply.



The title 10 part is federal and the title 32 is national guard. Through DSCA I don't believe they need LEO present since they're in the capacity of ESF13 through the Emergency Operations Center or other emergency management.

It's been a bit for me too, but DSCA training is required yearly. I just separated the Florida guard though and moved on to the reserve side. So I'll probably dump all of that.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 20, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> @AWP @policemedic do you know if Katrina was a state or a federal thing that they invoked to justify a gun grab?
> 
> I know NC's law reads that in a state of emergency 2A rights/ownership is not suspended.



The order came from then-Mayor Nagin.


----------



## Dame (Feb 20, 2018)

policemedic said:


> The order came from then-Mayor Nagin.


I was just thinking that. He was real piece of work.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 20, 2018)

Did anyone ever take him to court over that?


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 20, 2018)

This young man may catch hell from his peers but at least he is thinking for himself.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 20, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> Did anyone ever take him to court over that?



I recall an article that said that the people who had guns stolen--er, _confiscated_--actually had a federal civil rights argument because the theft--er, _confiscation_--was applied selectively and to disproportionately impoverished neighborhoods.  I had wondered what ever came from that.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 20, 2018)

Looks like Trump is directing the Justice Department to ban gun modifications like bump stocks.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 20, 2018)

Yo...


	
	






__ https://www.facebook.com/MichaelHarveyFair/posts/10211010998016898


----------



## 256 (Feb 20, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> Yo...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They were smart enough to pull off a fake school shooting but not smart enough to switch out the crisis actor....


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 20, 2018)

The media assumes we are not smart enough to notice...


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 20, 2018)

I don't believe most of what I see on the interwebs but sometimes shit just don't add up.


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 20, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> I don't believe most of what I see on the interwebs but sometimesshit just don't add up.


----------



## AWP (Feb 20, 2018)

ke4gde said:


> IChances are the NG was there in support of NOPD and the order and actual confiscation took place by the NOPD.



Guard units took place. I'll try to find the post later, but I think it was surgicalcric who mentioned it and how our alma mater told the powers that be to fuck off. That didn't stop other NG units (I don't know which ones) from participating.


----------



## 256 (Feb 21, 2018)

I tried watching Fox New this afternoon and they have the students from Florda speaking about gun control. Call it crude for me to say but, why are children with zero life experience given a stage to speak about this? There's nothing worse than pointing out problems and not having any solutions. We can't even expect them to have solutions, they are children. 

If one of the survivors complained to me about “common sense” gun control I would say, “great, what is common sense gun laws? How would we implement it? No, answer? Go back and sit down.” 

It would be like entering the 1SGs office as a PFC and telling him “PT is stupid” when he tells the company he has an “open door” policy.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 21, 2018)

So these kids are calling the protection of their second amendment rights tyranny in our legislative bodies...who is feeding them this garbage?  It was on a twitter moment cuz somebody decided to march on the FL state capital.  Thank god I live in a constitutional carry state.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 21, 2018)

The only reason I give them any leeway is that I think for some of them they are simply projecting their frustration and anguish over what happened.  It's a form of displacement. 

That said, they are kids.  Their emotion-based coping and illogical displacement isn't going to sway my mind (or anyone else's) and it's just gonna be counterproductive.  Plus, they are being manipulated because they are..._kids_.  The left's new weapon.


----------



## Fl_Ag (Feb 21, 2018)

A friend of mine posted this article on social media this morning - pretty in-line with the current thread discussion. It's just further traumatizing these kids that are being exploited to meet an unrealistic political agenda.

WALSH: Stop Using Traumatized Kids To Push Your Political Agenda, You Despicable Cowards


----------



## 256 (Feb 21, 2018)

Now, these kids are yelling (inside the FL State House), "no justice, no peace." So...if we don't get our way, we'll resort to violence? Sounds like something that happened at a Florida School not too long ago.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 21, 2018)

256 said:


> Now, these kids are yelling (inside the FL State House), "no justice, no peace." So...if we don't get our way, we'll resort to violence? Sounds like something that happened at a Florida School not too long ago.



They are so young, so naïve, so blindingly stupid they don't know what they don't know.


----------



## 256 (Feb 21, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> They are so young, so naïve, so blindingly stupid they don't know what they don't know.



You’re right, the childish adults accompanying them are yelling the same. Scary that some of the adults are probably parents..


----------



## 256 (Feb 21, 2018)

Everyone needs to be packin!


Terrifying attempted rape of coffee shop barista caught on video


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 21, 2018)

My $.02.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 21, 2018)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Whatever else is done, without taking a critical look at the care patients suffering from mental illness, only part of the problem is being considered. The bed space for acute mental illness, and severe chronic mental illness is way short of what we need. The bulk of the interface between the general population and patients with mental illness is handled by law enforcement, the courts and various correctional institutio;s.  Without states spending the money needed on this corner of healthcare, violent behaviors will take lives.
> 
> Being able to identify patients for treatment and removing them from access to dangerous devices, including motor driven. vehicles, the threat of sudden violent behavior will continue. Right now this is 100% on the back of our LEO community, it should be on the front burner on state departments of mental hygiene.
> 
> My $.02.



Never going to happen.  The same people screaming to ban guns will be screaming about the mentally ills rights.  This is exactly why North America moved away from inpatient facilities and moving them to group homes, etc.  And now that's a billion dollar health care industry with just as strong lobby groups as any other.  This is a result of our own doing and a complete failure of society.


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 21, 2018)

RackMaster said:


> Never going to happen.  The same people screaming to ban guns will be screaming about the mentally ills rights.  This is exactly why North America moved away from inpatient facilities and moving them to group homes, etc.  And now that's a billion dollar health care industry with just as strong lobby groups as any other.  This is a result of our own doing and a complete failure of society.



The largest provider of mental health services, and the largest houser of people with severe mental health issues, is the prison system, at least in the US.  So that problem of for profit businesses making a profit could be a lot worse.

What evidence is there that serious mental illness plays a major part in mass shootings, or any gun violence, other than folks assuming that it is?  

Wait, I've already put in that request.  Twice.  Disregard.


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 21, 2018)

DC said:


> Actually it’s on you to show how anyone can commit mass murder and not be mentally ill.



Shifting the burden of proof?  

Come on, dude.


----------



## CQB (Feb 21, 2018)

Shameful, you lot for blaming the victims for being immature. I’d say as a life experience being in a mass murder & surviving it would rate as a critical event & a life experience. They have a voice.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 21, 2018)

Seriously, @DocIllinois are you honestly stating that someone could be rational and sane with regards to mass murder outside of politically sanctioned necessity of governmental force?

Even that fucks with sane people. We do what we must for the greater good and so nobody else has to in our stead or should we fail, not because we enjoyed it.


----------



## DC (Feb 21, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> Shifting the burden of proof?
> 
> Come on, dude.



I have yet to see you put up information based on your experience. You keep posting up fluffy pieces developed by the same ilk that said OxyContin isn’t addicting or cigarettes won’t hurt. Maybe the big brains are the obstacles. Ever think of that? I am medically educated as a DMT so the mumbo jumbo doesn’t snow me. I get your view but common sense and experience will always trump big brain 🧠 papers all day long.


----------



## SaintKP (Feb 21, 2018)

While I don't agree with their stance on the subject I agree with @CQB on this. Regardless of how unnuanced or emotional or "misguided" they may be, they still have a voice and a right to be heard. Just because they haven't grown up or matured yet doesn't mean their stance is any less valid.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 21, 2018)

*- Pause -*

No one has said anything wrong, but I can see frustration heating up.

Friendly MOD reminder to keep it professional.

Thanks.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 21, 2018)

It's a felony in FL to make a direct threat of bodily injury or death. If this asshat's death threats had been reported to LE he would have been arrested and convicted... and hence not permitted to own firearms.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 21, 2018)

I think Mr. Pollack expressed it very well.  
WATCH: Trump-Supporting Dad Who Lost Daughter In Florida Shooter Gives Powerful Speech At White House



> I’m here because my daughter has no voice.
> 
> She was murdered last week, and she was taken from us, shot nine times on the third floor. We as a country failed our children. This shouldn’t happen. We go to the airport, I can’t get on a plane with a bottle of water, but we leave some animal to walk into a school and shoot our children. It is just not right.
> 
> ...


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 21, 2018)

Ranger Psych said:


> Seriously, @DocIllinois are you honestly stating that someone could be rational and sane with regards to mass murder outside of politically sanctioned necessity of governmental force?
> 
> Even that fucks with sane people. We do what we must for the greater good and so nobody else has to in our stead or should we fail, not because we enjoyed it.



I'm not stating anything besides what experts in the fields which apply to this subject have already stated. 

I've gathered the information, checked it for sources of bias, read what experts have to say and their references, and formed my opinion.

I didn't know that a 'It just makes sense' position would have been fitting for a subject that's been studied.


----------



## DC (Feb 21, 2018)

WATCH: Youth Mental Illness On the Rise, Social Media Could Be to Blame | One America News Network


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 21, 2018)

CQB said:


> Shameful, you lot for blaming the victims for being immature. I’d say as a life experience being in a mass murder & surviving it would rate as a critical event & a life experience. They have a voice.


No.  If you're out there calling the protection of your own rights tyranny of legislative bodies you need a tune up.  Which was said today by an idiot 17/18 yr old at the Florida State House today.  However, I'm pretty sure that numpty wasn't a student at the school either.


----------



## SaintKP (Feb 21, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> No.  If you're out there calling the protection of your own rights tyranny of legislative bodies you need a tune up.  Which was said today by an idiot 17/18 yr old at the Florida State House today.  However, I'm pretty sure that numpty wasn't a student at the school either.




Do you have a link to that? I'm not challenging but I'm interested in seeing/hearing the entire statement instead of an excerpt/bullet point.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 21, 2018)

SaintKP said:


> Do you have a link to that? I'm not challenging but I'm interested in seeing/hearing the entire statement instead of an excerpt/bullet point.



@ThunderHorse - I agree with Saint.  Do you have a link?  I ask because you have a habit of calling people names without the context.  I'd like to know what makes this 17/18 year old kid an idiot.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 21, 2018)

Here's the video 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/966342390696108032
There's tons of crap in there where these kids are definitely being used: 122:00 "The NRA is murdering me, the NRA is murdering you"

The kid who starts at 144, the exact line is at 147. 

Rally outside the Florida Statehouse.


----------



## CDG (Feb 21, 2018)

#BanMachineGuns??? I was unaware the shooter used a machine gun. This is the problem. If you are so ignorant that you don't understand basic terms and definitions, then educate yourself before proffering opinions.


----------



## SaintKP (Feb 21, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> There's tons of crap in there where these kids are definitely being used: 122:00 "The NRA is murdering me, the NRA is murdering you"
> 
> The kid who starts at 144, the exact line is at 147




I'll watch more of it tomorrow after work  to see how these kids are being "controlled", I don't have the time tonight to go through a 2 hour long video. 

However I listened from the 144 mark to 150 and not once did the "idiot" say what you stated. I even relistened to see if for some reason I was missing it, and no I hadn't. I heard a teenager laying the victims of the mass shooting at the feet of Congress and how it's complete and total inaction will be the cause of the next shooting. You can argue the whether that is false or grandstanding etc. However she has a completely valid point, Congresses lack of action in either direction of gun cointrol is not helping solve the situation and to an extent letting it slide.


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 21, 2018)

I agree with @CQB .

Why rail against children who are speaking out in nascent activism?  The only reason I can surmise is that it's the result of the fear that their messages will be heard and considered. 

Otherwise, why even bother paying attention to them?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 21, 2018)

The NRA is an Association of Americans that advocates on behalf of protecting yours and my 2nd Amendment rights.  How they're being controlled, it doesn't matter.  They're uneducated, they can have their views, but they are not the majority.  

Parkland was preventable.  This has nothing to do with guns.  Schools are a soft target, we've talked about that for a long time.


----------



## SaintKP (Feb 21, 2018)

I'm well aware how the NRA plays into the grand scheme of preserving our 2A and even goes as far as fear mongering to generate support, nor was i going into how a school will always be a soft target given our current practices as a nation. Are they uneducated because they don't hold the same viewpoint as you or me? Or are they uneducated for not knowing firearm terminology? 

The latter is ignorance and can be corrected easily, the former should never be shied away from...


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 22, 2018)

More on the bucket of fail from the school system on Parkland.  I wonder how many people are going to take to the streets en masse to protest the actions or more accurately the inaction of the school's poor decisions involving Nicholas Cruz.  How many other Nicks are walking the halls of our schools?  We have all of these checks and balances but so many failures both of law enforcement not following their protocols (as the FBI has admitted to in this case) as well within the school system itself.  But everyone keep screaming "ban guns"!   I think until we scrutinize our mental health measures, the protocol at the schools as well as the failures in the lack of diligence of law enforcement agencies with the same rabid attentions paid to simply banning guns, we are going to see violence on this scale in our schools again and again.  If a kid cant get a gun, he or she will simply use another form of weapon. (Case in point Alex Hribal, Franklin Regional High School)  

School board knew of Parkland shooter's obsession with guns and violence, documents show



> Exclusive documents obtained by Local 10 News show the education plan for school shooter Nikolas Cruz; a plan that left clear signals that should have alerted officials of the danger he posed to the community, according to a former Broward County ESE specialist who reviewed the information at the station's request.
> "What you're discussing from the plan seems to be the profile of a mass killer," said Dottie Provenzano, who retired from Broward County Public Schools in 2017.





> The education plan shows that, even as Cruz was making progress at the Cross Creek School for emotionally and behaviorally disabled students in late 2015, but that he was known by administrators to have an obsession with guns and violence. Here are some passages from the plan:
> 
> "Nikolas at times, will be distracted by inappropriate conversations of his peers if the topic is about guns, people being killed or the armed forces," wrote Cross Creek educators.
> "He is fascinated by the use of guns and often speaks of weapons and the importance of  'having weapons to remain safe in this world.'"
> ...


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 22, 2018)

@CQB I don't think that they should not have a voice or be able to vent or be proactive, but I will say is that I think they are indeed being manipulated, and they have no political, policy knowledge, social context, or experience or in order to render an objective opinion on the subject.

It would be like if my spouse smoked 4 packs of cigarettes a day and just died of lung cancer I would be on the defensive and blaming the cigarette industry.


----------



## CQB (Feb 22, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> No.  If you're out there calling the protection of your own rights tyranny of legislative bodies you need a tune up.  Which was said today by an idiot 17/18 yr old at the Florida State House today.  However, I'm pretty sure that numpty wasn't a student at the school either.


Well, I'm sure you're on the wrong side of history.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 22, 2018)

Seems that strict gun laws do not deter criminals...

Father worried 'he would die' after being confronted by armed men

Pair wanted over Vic tattoo shop shooting - 9News


----------



## CQB (Feb 22, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> @CQB I don't think that they should not have a voice or be able to vent or be proactive, but I will say is that I think they are indeed being manipulated, and they have no political, policy knowledge, social context, or experience or in order to render an objective opinion on the subject.
> 
> It would be like if my spouse smoked 4 packs of cigarettes a day and just died of lung cancer I would be on the defensive and blaming the cigarette industry.


I disagree, I saw the young man in question on TV today & whilst his facts regarding the Port Arthur incident here were incorrect, what he said was unfiltered, it was raw. I don't see the dab hand of any influence in what he had to say. To labour the point, if there was influence perhaps he would have been more accurate. (Moot point). His opinion wasn't objective, it was subjective. Not only here, but Europe & the UK scratch their heads at where this debate is at for the US as it makes sense to us. POTUS is taking some measures and I hope they pass & get up.
Do not think you are being disarmed. As I've said before, legal ownership here is increasing, homicides are decreasing.


----------



## CQB (Feb 22, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> Seems that strict gun laws do not deter criminals...
> 
> Father worried 'he would die' after being confronted by armed men
> 
> Pair wanted over Vic tattoo shop shooting - 9News



Well of course not. If I had my time over I would be a criminal lawyer. Thousands of years of civilization haven't prevented crime, (though globally it is decreasing) which is a risk/reward proposition. I'd be richer than I am now if I studied law instead of security and representing the crooks would be like a rainbow hitting you in the arse.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 22, 2018)

CQB said:


> I disagree, I saw the young man in question on TV today & whilst his facts regarding the Port Arthur incident here were incorrect, what he said was unfiltered, it was raw. I don't see the dab hand of any influence in what he had to say. To labour the point, if there was influence perhaps he would have been more accurate. (Moot point). His opinion wasn't objective, it was subjective. Not only here, but Europe & the UK scratch their heads at where this debate is at for the US as it makes sense to us. POTUS is taking some measures and I hope they pass & get up.
> Do not think you are being disarmed. As I've said before, legal ownership here is increasing, homicides are decreasing.



I don't think we are going to be disarmed.  Even if they said "henceforth ownership of any gun is prohibited and illegal," we ain't going to be disarmed.  The people will tell the government F.U.

I agree with raw, unfiltered comments, and because of their grief, I will give them a bit of a pass but recognize they are on a short leash.

What people in the UK and Europe think of US gun laws is the least of my concern.  But I will say they need to be careful; glass houses and all.

I will say if these kids really were concerned about the validity of what happened last week, you'd hear more about the FBI's incompetence and how the school board and school system dropped the ball.  The fact all they are saying is "guns" tells me all I need to know about their willingness to discuss the problem rationally and objectively.

I will also add, the world and the democrats/liberals think mass shootings are a US problem and that rifle-related deaths are somehow rampant.  Both of which are just simply not true.

Edited to add, you want to know why I think these kids are being manipulated?

Florida shooting survivor: CNN gave me 'scripted' question for town hall, quashed question on armed guards


----------



## CQB (Feb 22, 2018)

As far as the FBI goes, Intel in never perfect from my POV. In the rear view mirror it becomes crystal clear sometimes. I wouldn't say the FBI was incompetent: 'a guy online is making threats.' Right, OK. Unleash the hounds. Security is never perfect and if some one says it is because they're selling you something or they're lying, or both. As for the prevalence of rifle-related deaths (wot no hand guns?) don't occur here. Over here the main deaths are by hand gun, no self respecting crook wants to carry a long arm. They want to shoot the target, bug out, burn the car & go home to _habipti._ All without shooting themselves in the gonads as they do so.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 22, 2018)

The FBI isn't perfect, but even it admitted it fucked up:  Video: FBI admits it dropped the ball after being warned about school shooting suspect

The point being, you would think if these kids really wanted to be serious about the debate, they would give at least equal time in how the system failed; but no, all they want to do is talk about gun control.

The Land Down Under may not have rifle deaths, but the rest of the word does, and in far worse numbers and with more gun control than does the US.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 22, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> ...Video: FBI admits it dropped the ball after being warned about school shooting suspect...
> 
> The point being, you would think if these kids really wanted to be serious about the debate, *they would give at least equal time in how the system* *failed*; but no, all they want to do is talk about gun control.
> .



They do, Brother...on the ABC video you posted. (1:13)

This was something a lot of people saw coming and an epic failure on the part of the authorities. Gun issues aside, as I posted above, this might've been prevented by LEAs doing their fucking job and making a felony arrest for the threats he made.

There are some pretty mentally fucked up teenagers out there, and the ones with a history of torturing and killing animals are classic future mass-shooters or serial killers.

BTW, I think a plea bargain saving this motherfucker from the death penalty should be flatly rejected by prosecutors. He needs to fucking burn and I only wish "Old Sparky" was still the means for execution in this state.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 22, 2018)

@DocIllinois given that a good percentage of the shooters end up committing suicide before being caught, it's a fair assumption they were mentally ill.  

As for your comment about the % of mentally ill that are incarcerated, it's a similar issue here in Canada and we don't have for profit prisons.  They just end up with reduced sentences and in a group home on probation.  Many end up reoffending as well.  The problem is that we are a reactionary society and always looking for a quick fix.  We need to accept that some people can not be rehabilitated and some should never be permitted in regular society. Reopen institutions with modern standards of care and make them as comfortable as possible.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 22, 2018)

I don't have any evidence-based research about shooters and mental illness; however, we DO know that many of them were on pysch meds.  Harris (Columbine) was on antidepressant, the Va Tech shooter was on antidepressant, Kinkel was on Prozac, Hoffman was on antidepressant, the Colorado movie theater guy was under a shrink's care.  While it's pretty well-known that depression is not a MO for murder, the meds seem to be.  SSRIs have been linked to violence in those who take them.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 22, 2018)

CQB said:


> Well, I'm sure you're on the wrong side of history.


The wrong side of history will be when the second amendment is removed from our constitution, you want to see Tyranny.  We'll both be long dead when that happens.  Removing firearms from our society is not going to stop mentally unstable people from killing others.  This kid was adopted, was jacked up from losing his adopted dad and then it blew up when his adopted mother died in November.  FBI fucked up, and instead of that being the headline, we had children not knowing their own rights because they've been fed bullshit their whole life.  You don't want to own firearms, cool, you want to revoke the rights of the people?  I have a problem with that.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Feb 22, 2018)

It kills me that a certain side of the political spectrum is using these kids and grief stricken parents, who lost their children to the Florida shooting, to call out for the authoritarian laws to be enacted. Meanwhile the MSM is spinning these events to fit with the political ideology of it's owners, all while making a petty penny out of the outrage and fear resulting from this tragedy.

Useful idiots, the lot of them.


----------



## Bypass (Feb 22, 2018)

Cost the DNC a lot of money busing in those protestors and hiring extras who are feigning outrage so they can enact new gun laws on their way to their goal of disarming Americans. I say we cut them some slack I mean come on they just want to do whats right for all Americans. Seriously, why do we even need guns? Not like we would ever have to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government like the founding fathers intended. Right?

I guess I will just give all my guns to the Salvation Army since they are an actual army unlike me. I'm sure they will protect me when I need it. Or I could call the police since they are only 10 minutes away when seconds count.


----------



## Bypass (Feb 22, 2018)

These topics push my buttons. It is hard to give a logical argument when the other side of the debate is so illogical and driven by emotions. "But do it for the kids." ??? You mean the same kids who are killing each other because of a failed government and educational system? The same kids who would shoot my mother for a fucking pair of shoes. No,,, not all kids today are miscreants and mental cases just as all gun owners are not insane. I mean fuck I'm crazy but you don't see me running around killing people indiscriminately. No because I believe in GOD and I know Jesus wouldn't approve. People today have no moral compass and the liberal education they are receiving is making everything PROGRESSIVELY worse. See what I did there "PROGRESSIVE". So what exactly does the LEFT want us to progress into?

*In today’s world with President Trump getting hit daily a little Bible Lesson might be appropriate.*

Remember what Jesus said: 'Goats on the left, sheep on the right' (Matthew 25:33).

Jesus also told Peter that if he wanted to catch fish do it from the right side of the boat He did and filled the boat with fish.

John 21:6 (NIV) ... He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish."

Origin of Left & Right..I have often wondered why it is that Conservatives are called the "right" and Liberals are called the "left".

By chance I stumbled upon this verse in the Bible: Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV) - "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."

Thus sayeth the Lord. Amen


End of lesson! ...Test to follow on November 6, 2018.

Remember, November 2018 is to be set aside as rodent removal months

"So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God."

Why don't we ever hear about the 'left' hand of God?   Yeah.....


----------



## SaintKP (Feb 22, 2018)

Seriously?


----------



## Lefty375 (Feb 22, 2018)

Bypass said:


> These topics push my buttons. It is hard to give a logical argument when the other side of the debate is so illogical and driven by emotions. "But do it for the kids." ??? You mean the same kids who are killing each other because of a failed government and educational system? The same kids who would shoot my mother for a fucking pair of shoes. No,,, not all kids today are miscreants and mental cases just as all gun owners are not insane. I mean fuck I'm crazy but you don't see me running around killing people indiscriminately. No because I believe in GOD and I know Jesus wouldn't approve. People today have no moral compass and the liberal education they are receiving is making everything PROGRESSIVELY worse. See what I did there "PROGRESSIVE". So what exactly does the LEFT want us to progress into?
> 
> *In today’s world with President Trump getting hit daily a little Bible Lesson might be appropriate.*
> 
> ...



You implications of the left and right in the Bible corresponding to modern political parties is unfounded and laughable, bibically speaking. However, maybe there are some New Testament scholars who provide evidence of this, but I doubt it. I would love for you to explain how the early Jewish/Christian community predicted the political split in US politics, though.

Moreover, with talk about emotions and the common sentiment of "reals over feels" I'm surprised you didn't see the flaw in your argument about human progress. That is, in almost every measurable metric, violence has decreased in the short and long term and we live in the safest time period, ever. See: Graphic evidence: Steven Pinker's optimism on trial

If you want to talk data points and not emotions or bible verses, I'm game. My positive claim is that very few things, if any, are worse for all people in the United States, currently. Of course, that can turn the other direction and trend on a negative side. To be clear, what I am claiming is that for most people, things are getting better. Equality of rights, standard of living, rates of violence are just a few factors that are better for Americans now than ever before. This news, supported by data, does not support the doom and gloom agenda that fuels the cancerous 24-hour news cycle so it's not talked about.


----------



## Crimson (Feb 22, 2018)

Bypass said:


> All of this



I can accept the first paragraph and your emotional stance/feelings on this subject, and that's fine, I read that stuff on here every day. However, as a student of the Bible and an avid proponent of Christian values in American culture (which begins in the home), I will have to say that everything from the bold face type down set Christianity back a few notches. And I truly don't think I need to back this up...it was cherry picking, at best. 

And like @Lefty375 said, if there is any scholarly basis for this, I truly would enjoy the opportunity to read this persons interpretation of The Word.


----------



## Lefty375 (Feb 22, 2018)

Bypass said:


> Clearly you don't understand the difference between an argument and a STATEMENT. I'm not arguing anything. I refuse to argue with leftists.
> 
> Since you clearly got emotional in your response maybe you could tell me your stance on gun control and liberal ideology. I'd find it fascinating.



Perhaps you are correct and I just can't grasp the concept of an argument and a statement. That's within the realm of possibility, however, your statement "people today have no moral compass and the liberal education they are receiving is making everything PROGRESSIVELY worse." seems to be a positive claim about the state of affairs, thus an argument. Moreover, I have only taken one formal logic class but I believe an argument is a set of statements or premises that support a conclusion. Therefore your statement can be seen as an argument and it might help putting it into premise form which will illuminate why it is, in fact, an argument.

P1: People today have no moral compass.
P2: There is a lack of moral compass because of the rise in liberal education people are receiving.
_____________________________________
Therefore, everything is getting progressively worse with the rise of progressiveness and liberal thought.  

This argument could then be evaluated for validity and soundness. If you can explain what doesn't make this an argument then I would like to be informed, for my own knowledge. 

Moreover, I'm sorry if it seemed as though I was getting emotional as that was not my intention. I posted data points and would love to discuss data on violence and how much worse off or better we are as a society and world. The data suggests it's decline which I stated in my first post along with a graphs. 

I'm quite unclear as to why you assume my political leanings. I'm not sure where I stand now as I have much to learn about the world. I do enjoy the works of Nozick, The Friedman's, Sowell along with people like John Rawls. Surely, if I could just pick a "side" like it seems you have, my life would be easier. However, I don't think political philosophy is quite so simple and spend a lot of time reading papers and thinking about it. Hopefully this answer does give you some insight to where I might possibly stand.



Bypass said:


> Another thing that chaps my ass. How in the hell can you serve or have served in the military and swore an oath to defend the constitution and want the government to take away your second amendment rights. I get people from other countries want to see us disarmed but how can you?
> 
> "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and *defend the Constitution* of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States ...



Without digressing too much, there are surely different ways of interpreting the Constitution. That is to say, on the Supreme Court we have some of the brightest legal minds who have thought about the Constitution very likely more than anyone on this board. They don't always agree because legal Constitution scholarship probably isn't as easy as some on this board would have us believe. If you were addressing me, I don't think Americans should be disarmed, however, your post might have just been to the forum at large.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Feb 22, 2018)

Lefty375 said:


> . My positive claim is that very few things, if any, are worse for all people in the United States, currently. Of course, that can turn the other direction and trend on a negative side. To be clear, what I am claiming is that for most people, things are getting better. Equality of rights, standard of living, rates of violence are just a few factors that are better for Americans now than ever before. This news, supported by data, does not support the doom and gloom agenda that fuels the cancerous 24-hour news cycle so it's not talked about.


I agree, that over the past hundred years, things have gotten better for the average American due to advances in medicine, agriculture, technology and our rise as a first world power. The issue for many Americans, is that for some reason the more liberal elements in our society (largely democrat with a good smattering of republicans/centrists/pick a flavor) are pushing for firearms laws that are similar to our globalized counterparts.

I think that the push for a globalized standard of civilian firearm ownership is flawed and will lead to abuses of power by governmental entities. I think the sentiment that Bypass was trying to convey, was that the American people are tired of being ruled by leaders who have a vision that does not correlate with the average American. That certain elected leaders are trying to rule by force and not by principle. If we look at the stage for the Trump presidency and his resulting treatment, at the hands of the political elite from both parties, does one start to see the unscrupulous character of those same politicians pushing to enact more rules and regulations for firearm ownership.

The problem I'm seeing nowadays, is that media and misinformation alter reality to a certain extent. It is too easy to sensationalize a tragic event, paint it as 'normal' or 'a cultural thing', in an effort to both profit off a tragedy and smear the law abiding America public.


----------



## Fl_Ag (Feb 22, 2018)

@ThunderHorse I definitely see where you're coming from, bro. I used to have the very same hardline stance on the Second Amendment. I carry a pocket Constitution and Bill of Rights I try to read over at least a couple times a year because, as @Bypass just mentioned, we swear an oath to support and defend it. Here's my hang-up, though: in the non-combat arms military of which I'm a part, dude, there are many, many people I don't think I would feel comfortable handling a rifle to. So if that holds true (it's an opinion) of fellow military members, how many more civilians must be out there incapable of responsibly owning and handling certain types of firearms. Hell, my room mate's girlfriend (another Air Force EW officer) is straight up nervous when we're cleaning our weapons after a day at the range and afraid to handle them herself. 

I think the Second Amendment is critical to our way of life, for sure, but in the light of recent arguments, I'm starting to think the idea of limiting who can obtain certain types of weapons isn't so far fetched. I'm no expert in Constitutional law, but really do believe there is a way to reform gun control while meeting the intent of our founding fathers when they ratified the Second Amendment. 

@CQB, you mentioned that legal ownership of firearms has gone up while violent crimes has gone down. Can you expand on that? Genuinely interested in the advancement of gun rights (is that a phrase?) in Australia.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 22, 2018)

Fl_Ag said:


> @ThunderHorse I definitely see where you're coming from, bro. I used to have the very same hardline stance on the Second Amendment. I carry a pocket Constitution and Bill of Rights I try to read over at least a couple times a year because, as @Bypass just mentioned, we swear an oath to support and defend it. Here's my hang-up, though: in the non-combat arms military of which I'm a part, dude, there are many, many people I don't think I would feel comfortable handling a rifle to. So if that holds true (it's an opinion) of fellow military members, how many more civilians must be out there incapable of responsibly owning and handling certain types of firearms. Hell, my room mate's girlfriend (another Air Force EW officer) is straight up nervous when we're cleaning our weapons after a day at the range and afraid to handle them herself.
> 
> I think the Second Amendment is critical to our way of life, for sure, but in the light of recent arguments, I'm starting to think the idea of limiting who can obtain certain types of weapons isn't so far fetched. I'm no expert in Constitutional law, but really do believe there is a way to reform gun control while meeting the intent of our founding fathers when they ratified the Second Amendment.


I suppose the difference for me is that I grew up in SoCal where most people don't possess firearms in the open to an extent.  I only knew two of my friends whose father's hunted.  The town south of us would have drive bys every weekend during Children's birthday parties.  I used to believe that we needed pretty hard gun control in this country before I studied government and the Constitution at a higher level when I entered VMI.  Sic Semper Tyrannis.

My view changed following that formative period and my first few years in the Army.  I wholeheartedly believe that the Second Amendment is there to protect not only the First, but an individual's rights against a tyrannical government.  The views of people from Europe and Down Under doesn't work for me because most refuse to understand that tenet.  Or has been my experience.  And when totalitarian regimes enact confiscation methods, a lot of people tend to die following the disarmament of the populace through governmental tyranny.

Now, I'd say the Air Force is failing your fellow Officer and that she's failing the Air Force by not practicing outside of work to gain confidence.  Just my view.


----------



## Fl_Ag (Feb 22, 2018)

I appreciate the background that's shaped your beliefs. Once again, I'm not suggesting anything near a firearms confiscation, just that I believe there is a middle-ground that restricts certain levels access while meeting the Second Amendment's intent - "[protecting] individuals' rights against a tyrannical government," just as you said.



ThunderHorse said:


> Now, I'd say the Air Force is failing your fellow Officer and that she's failing the Air Force by not practicing outside of work to gain confidence.  Just my view.



I agree wholeheartedly that someone, somewhere is failing if a commissioned officer is afraid of handling a firearm when there is a standing requirement for them to be qualified for deployment (as they are in this case). 

Thanks for your input, brother.


----------



## Fl_Ag (Feb 22, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> ...contrary to what the left paints, violent crime and the murder rate have down in the US, too.  Interestingly, the cities with the toughest gun laws have the most gun-related violence and murders.[/QUOTE] .



Yeah, I'm definitely tracking on this. I think our national media is out of goddam control and we're going through phase of sensationalism as a country which makes rational discussion a lot of these topics damn near impossible.

Edit: Handicapped at handling quotes.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 22, 2018)

I am putting a pause on this thread via lock until a mod or admin has time to come in and straighten things out. 

Come on guys. Professional conversation, right?  I’m telling you now that points and or/thread bans may be assessed after reviewing comments.


----------



## ShadowSpear (Feb 22, 2018)

I just cleaned this thread up a bit.  A couple of your fellow members  were awarded a thread ban for a week.  

Do I really need to remind people to keep it professional?


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 22, 2018)

DC said:


> So what’s A or a combinational solution?



Great question.  What I know is that laws controlling access to guns, or prohibiting where guns can be carried, do not work.  Since 1990 (school gun-free zone law was passed), there have been 15 school shootings resulting in 174 deaths.  Additionally, the AWB was passed in 1994, so there was a period of significant inactivity or selling, but they were still being used.  Charles Whitman did not have an AR in the U of Texas bell tower and we know that turned out.  

So I don't think additional laws will work.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 22, 2018)

Teach children respect for firearms. Teach children gun safety. Teach children that when they pull the trigger they can’t bring that bullet back. Teach children kindness. Teach our children to think of others above themselves.


----------



## Fl_Ag (Feb 22, 2018)

DC said:


> Also social media monitoring to see markers of dangerous behavior.



All for this. But who would be responsible for its implementation? This is the question I'm struggling with. The schools? Law enforcement? Is it a zero tolerance sort of thing that would have ousted Cruz before he got a chance to carry out the shooting, or is it case-by-case so we don't fry the 15 year-old, hormone-crazed, bullied kid who had a particularly bad day?


----------



## Gunz (Feb 22, 2018)

Remington has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. One of the reasons is that the gun and ammo panic buying craze during the Obama years plummeted when gun-friendly Trump took office.

Be that as it may, I've become increasingly disappointed in the Remington product over the years, both guns & ammo.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Feb 22, 2018)

I think we should focus on enforcing the numerous laws already on the books. Heck, I honestly think we could do to get rid of some of the ridiculous laws put in place while being tougher on gun violence. As for punishing the people that commit egregious acts of violence on innocents, we need to bring back hanging. 

Now I know that I'm going to catch a lot of flack for my statement above, but hear me out. Human beings are social creatures and in this day and age image plays a big role in our society. With hanging there is a deeply negative social stigma attached to it, as it's not a dignified way to die. The way things are set up, people are able to commit heinous acts of violence on their fellows and get to keep on living in a shitty, but closed, prison system. Instead granting someone their 15 minutes of fame and three meals for the rest of their miserable lives, humans that commit these sort of violent crimes need to be hung and have their body disposed of in a quick and efficient manner.

If we as a country start to really punish crime, to include political corruption, and stop sensationalizing/glorifying gun violence (looking at certain cultural norms in the US) the 'need' for firearm regulation simply wouldn't exist. Instead, people are going to wring their hands and demand that we all give up our privacy and collective rights, so they can futz off and pretend that they've solved the problem.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 22, 2018)

Fl_Ag said:


> @ThunderHorse I definitely see where you're coming from, bro. I used to have the very same hardline stance on the Second Amendment. I carry a pocket Constitution and Bill of Rights I try to read over at least a couple times a year because, as @Bypass just mentioned, we swear an oath to support and defend it. Here's my hang-up, though: in the non-combat arms military of which I'm a part, dude, there are many, many people I don't think I would feel comfortable handling a rifle to. So if that holds true (it's an opinion) of fellow military members, how many more civilians must be out there incapable of responsibly owning and handling certain types of firearms. Hell, my room mate's girlfriend (another Air Force EW officer) is straight up nervous when we're cleaning our weapons after a day at the range and afraid to handle them herself.
> 
> I think the Second Amendment is critical to our way of life, for sure, but in the light of recent arguments, I'm starting to think the idea of limiting who can obtain certain types of weapons isn't so far fetched. I'm no expert in Constitutional law, but really do believe there is a way to reform gun control while meeting the intent of our founding fathers when they ratified the Second Amendment.
> 
> @CQB, you mentioned that legal ownership of firearms has gone up while violent crimes has gone down. Can you expand on that? Genuinely interested in the advancement of gun rights (is that a phrase?) in Australia.



Don't take offense to this but if someone is wearing the uniform and is uncomfortable around personal weapons; they are in the wrong job.  Even if they don't carry one day to day.  That blame is solely on your leadership.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 22, 2018)

Why is it that Some of you still call it “gun violence”?


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Feb 22, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> Why is it that Some of you still call it “gun violence”?


Because there is all sorts of violent crime that doesn't get the same amount of traction as violence perpetrated with firearms. In this case, since we are discussing firearm related violence, the term 'gun violence' is easier to use.

edit: Should have written, 'Because there is all sorts of violent crime that is not categorized as violence perpetrated with firearms'.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 22, 2018)

The gun did not commit the violent act. When someone is stabbed to death do you call it knife violence? When people are killed by some vile twat ramming a truck through a crowd do you call it “truck violence”?

By referring to it as “gun violence” you omit the human factor. You minimize the person pulling the trigger.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 22, 2018)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Because there is all sorts of violent crime that doesn't get the same amount of traction as violence perpetrated with firearms. In this case, since we are discussing firearm related violence, the term 'gun violence' is easier to use.



Just call it violence then. Hell, call it human violence. Charge the human with the act not the tool used.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 22, 2018)

A qu


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Feb 22, 2018)

@Malone


Malone said:


> Just call it violence then. Hell, call it human violence. Charge the human with the act not the tool used.


I get what you're saying, but in this case I'm advocating against criminals who specifically use firearms as a way to disproportionately apply force to a civilian populace. There are a bunch of things way more violent and intimate than firearms, but I figured I should stay on the topic at hand.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 22, 2018)

R.Caerbannog said:


> @Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone
> 
> I get what you're saying, but in this case I'm advocating against criminals who specifically use firearms as a way to disproportionately apply force to a civilian populace. There are a bunch of things way more violent and intimate than firearms, but I figured I should stay on the topic at hand.



When you call it gun violence you vilify the wrong part of the act. I'll state again, in no other violent act do we blame the tool used. the ease of your conversation creates a biased view of an inatimate  object.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 22, 2018)

Ok ladies and gents. We are all members of the profession of of arms. We should be able to disagree without coming to verbal blows. We are brother and sisters and should be able to have civil discussion.

I will ask @ShadowSpear  to allow all offending parties back into to the thread. If after a second chance they continue to behave like temperamental children allow @AWP  to drop the ban hammer.

This issue needs attention and stifling it does no benifit to any of us.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 22, 2018)

I subscribe to no political party. I am a patriot and I believe in the ideas of our founding fathers. I want nothing more than for my countrymen to be safe, but I will not relinquish my god given rights for a false sense of safety for the sake of our children.


----------



## ShadowSpear (Feb 22, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> Ok ladies and gents. We are all members of the proeffsion of of arms. We should be able to disagree without coming to verbal blows. We are brother and sisters and should be able to have civil discussion.
> 
> I will ask @ShadowSpear  to allow all offending parties back into to the thread. If after a second chance they continue to behave like temperamental children allow @AWP  to drop the ban hammer.
> 
> This issue needs attention and stifling it does no benifit to any of us.



The best I’m willing to do is reduce it to 24 hrs. They wasted my time with the juvenile bullshit so they have to pay the man.


----------



## DC (Feb 22, 2018)

The percentage of mental illness has not changed that much over the years. What has changed is the care and tracking of the mentally ill. 

This is huge


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 22, 2018)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Diagnosis categories ranged from severe psychotic disturbance to *mental retardation and simply needed folks to watch out for them*.



In California, up until the Mid-2000s we still had facilities for the severely disabled.  My Aunt was one them.  She now, somehow, lives in a group home.  She was admitted to Lanterman Developmental Center when she was 10.  She was blind and deaf when she was born, she became mute a bit later.  My mother sees her sister often, but I'm not a supporter of the group home concept with how much care is required.  My aunt was somehow on the lower end of that spectrum.  There were 22 of these State Hospitals separate from the California Mental Health hospitals that existed.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 22, 2018)

ShadowSpear said:


> The best I’m willing to do is reduce it to 24 hrs. They wasted my time with the juvenile bullshit so they have to pay the man.



That is an acceptable compromise. Thank you.


----------



## DC (Feb 22, 2018)

This whole issue needs to focus on the criminal and/or mental heath issues of use of a weapon to commit these acts. Intel, protective measures are a good proactive start.


----------



## AWP (Feb 22, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> That is an acceptable compromise. Thank you.



Please be aware that the staff is tired of this behavior. I say this to everyone, first both Trump threads and now this, if you can't take some of the emotion out of your post, if you are incapable of discussing a topic without personal attacks, then either stay out of a thread or "get got." We've banned members over this, people we like, so none of you are immune. We actually had a staff member send the rest of us a message: please watch this thread. I'm at work and can't keep an eye on this mess. 

It isn't a person's message, but their delivery. Deliver like UPS or we'll deliver like a Ju-87.

Carry on, everyone.


----------



## AWP (Feb 23, 2018)

I love it when background checks are brought up because it ties into an earlier observation: enforce the laws on the books. A dirty "secret" missed in the discussion: the system is broken...literally the system that handles the background checks. Submitting data is voluntary and the system is understaffed and runs on antiquted equipment. You're talking a billion plus dollars easily for the network and hundreds of new investigators just to make the current process work...and this is without any additional laws to further burden the system.

If you have a truck that can barely tow a boat, don't buy a bigger boat; You either downsize the boat or buy a bigger truck.


----------



## CQB (Feb 23, 2018)

So background checks can be part of the mix, good idea. We've heard mental health being discussed & the bump stock debate again. POTUS doesn't have a tin ear when it comes to his constituents and this may result in some steps forward.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 23, 2018)

AWP said:


> I love it when background checks are brought up because it ties into an earlier observation: enforce the laws on the books. A dirty "secret" missed in the discussion: the system is broken...literally the system that handles the background checks. Submitting data is voluntary and the system is understaffed and runs on antiquted equipment. You're talking a billion plus dollars easily for the network and hundreds of new investigators just to make the current process work...and this is without any additional laws to further burden the system.
> 
> If you have a truck that can barely tow a boat, don't buy a bigger boat; You either downsize the boat or buy a bigger truck.




This is what gun owners have been screaming for years, because all of us who have them that are clean, positive members of society, don't want trashbads to have guns either. Just because I like guns doesn't mean I like everyone who has guns.


----------



## CQB (Feb 23, 2018)

I wasn't aware of that push & I hope the creaky system can reform.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 23, 2018)

CQB said:


> I wasn't aware of that push & I hope the creaky system can reform.



Issue number one is state compliance. There's quite a few states that don't actually submit their lists of prohibited persons up to the federal level. Think if you guys still allowed guns on a wider level. Someone gets a conviction bad enough to be restricted in Sydney. They move to Brisbane. Sydney didn't put their conviction into the system... now, even though THEY know they're prohibited, they go to try to buy a gun on a whim.... and get approved, because their record isn't in the system.

That happens. Federal restrictions on domestic violence can't be enforced because they don't get submitted. Oregon's legislature is chest thumping right now because they just, literally/specifically/retardedly, made a state version of the Lautenberg Amendment which makes anyone who has a domestic violence conviction OR a restraining order with DV as a reason for the order, unable to posses or purchase firearms.

The other aspect is that if you do a purchase specifically to hand the gun over to someone else out the gate, it's supposed to be illegal. Proper gifts don't apply, but if you're giving it to a restricted person that shouldn't have a gun and can't buy it themselves, then it's a straw purchase and a federal felony. Just like if you lie on the paperwork.

The feds have like 48 convictions for 48,000 current falsifications/straw purchases that were logged. How these people are still walking around is on the system, not the legal gun owner.

The system is actually rigorous and thorough in design, the problem is enforcement.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 23, 2018)

The Air Force failed to report people to the Feds.


----------



## CQB (Feb 23, 2018)

Ranger Psych said:


> Issue number one is state compliance. There's quite a few states that don't actually submit their lists of prohibited persons up to the federal level. Think if you guys still allowed guns on a wider level. Someone gets a conviction bad enough to be restricted in Sydney. They move to Brisbane. Sydney didn't put their conviction into the system... now, even though THEY know they're prohibited, they go to try to buy a gun on a whim.... and get approved, because their record isn't in the system.
> 
> That happens. Federal restrictions on domestic violence can't be enforced because they don't get submitted. Oregon's legislature is chest thumping right now because they just, literally/specifically/retardedly, made a state version of the Lautenberg Amendment which makes anyone who has a domestic violence conviction OR a restraining order with DV as a reason for the order, unable to posses or purchase firearms.
> 
> ...



So there's some work to be done & with 50 states...
We have similar concerning DV, with a type of writ issued here known as an AVO (Apprehended Violence Order) putting restrictions on a person approaching another. They are virtually worthless, & don't really do much at all except to prevent purchase & ownership for 10 years. Yep, you read it correctly. IMO very severe but gives one pause to think. If an owner gets hit by one, bye bye guns...equally for 10 years.
I'm not suggesting that this should be adopted where you are, I'm contributing to a tyre kicking for a solution as the circumstances are different in the US, but we don't have the enforcement problem that looks to be the norm Stateside, our cops are on it.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 23, 2018)

Red Flag 1 said:


> A question to ask, is "How many are mentally ill and should not have access to weapons?" The answer is rather elusive today and a look into out history may provide some insight. I have typed and deleted this twice, I think it needs looking at.
> 
> If you look at mental health care back to the early 1900's and up through the 1960's you will find that there were large mental health facilities with staggering inpatient populations. Looking at just NY State shows around half a dozen or more Hospitals managed by the NYS Dept of Mental Hygiene. Patient populations range from 2,500 in Binghamton, NY to the huge Pilgrim State Hospital which was just one facility for NYC. It was where "One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest" was filmed, and saw numbers over 10,000, and there was still a couple more in and around NYC. The numbers showed a large percentage of the population that required inpatient beds for mental illness. The percentage of people needing mental health care stayed pretty constant up to the early 1970s. These hospitals were a large institution that was self-sufficient and was very separate from the surrounding communities. Institutions had large farms, bakeries, laundry shops, carpenter shops, police/fire Depts., etc to the point of needing nothing from the "outside world". Patients who were able to actually worked in the shops, on the farms, landscaping, and other parts of the institution. The institutions were expensive to maintain and took a pretty large chunk of state budgets.
> 
> ...



Thank you once again for putting into words exactly what I was trying to do.  

Until every level of the current system is funded and run properly, as it's intended; this "debate" is useless.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 23, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> Ok ladies and gents. We are all members of the profession of of arms. We should be able to disagree without coming to verbal blows. We are brother and sisters and should be able to have civil discussion.
> 
> I will ask @ShadowSpear  to allow all offending parties back into to the thread. If after a second chance they continue to behave like temperamental children allow @AWP  to drop the ban hammer.
> 
> This issue needs attention and stifling it does no benifit to any of us.


So the rest of the staff did a great job handling the prior nonsense in the thread. Reading through, I wanted to address the above quote for a couple reasons, mainly because words have meanings and some things were said here that deserve specific reply.

I like the self policing, that's the goal. When an organization/culture/whatever finds a way to police their own without involvement from the authority, that's a good thing. 

You can ask staff members to reconsider their punitive decisions, but you might not wanna do that when it's the boss that does it, 1. 2, you wouldn't "allow" the Amoral War Profiteer to do anything. And 3, we don't "stifle" any issues here in any way. 

You all? The members? You "stifle" conversations when you force the staff to engage because you can't follow guidance and we have to lock things down. 

Moving on...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 23, 2018)

The NRA has over 5MM adult members, these companies are only costing themselves money: NRA Corporate Partners Hit With Boycott Calls


----------



## Frank S. (Feb 23, 2018)

RackMaster said:


> Until every level of the current system is funded and run properly, as it's intended; this "debate" is useless.



I can't conceive of any system being run and funded properly, ever.
Once the decisions were made and implemented to phase out the psychiatric communities RF1 spoke of and the rubber room was put on the road, so to speak, there was no going back.
A bullet/taser cartridge is cheaper than housing, staff and meds.


----------



## Fl_Ag (Feb 23, 2018)

There's been some talk of having armed guards at schools. Were you all tracking this? First I've heard of it was this morning.

Cop who didn't enter school during Florida shooting resigns, has home guarded, is slammed as 'coward' by Trump

"Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said Peterson, who was armed when gunman Nikolas Cruz opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, “never went in[to]” the building that was under attack. He said the school resource officer instead took up a position viewing the western entrance of the building."


----------



## Fl_Ag (Feb 23, 2018)

This is the level of thinking we're dealing with. There really is no rationalizing you can have with people like this. I keep this person around, a peer from high school, as a sober reminder there are folks who fiercely believe this kind of stuff.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 23, 2018)

Fl_Ag said:


> There's been some talk of having armed guards at schools. Were you all tracking this? First I've heard of it was this morning.
> 
> Cop who didn't enter school during Florida shooting resigns, has home guarded, is slammed as 'coward' by Trump
> 
> "Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said Peterson, who was armed when gunman Nikolas Cruz opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, “never went in[to]” the building that was under attack. He said the school resource officer instead took up a position viewing the western entrance of the building."


Yeah, the Sheriff burned him to.  Armed Stoneman Douglas resource officer 'never went in' during Florida shooting

He got thumped all over social media yesterday well before POTUS found out.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 23, 2018)

Frank S. said:


> I can't conceive of any system being run and funded properly, ever.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 23, 2018)




----------



## DC (Feb 23, 2018)

40k a year to work 6 months...sign me up.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 23, 2018)

DC said:


> 40k a year to work 6 months...sign me up.


Get after it! Troops to Teachers


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 23, 2018)

Ummm wow.  There was a time I had wanted to see her as a Presidential candidate.  Disappointing.

Condoleezza Rice: It’s time to discuss what Second Amendment ‘means in the modern world’

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday that it’s time to discuss what the Second Amendment “means in the modern world” in light of last week’s mass school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Ms. Rice, who served under President George W. Bush, said that while the Second Amendment remains “indivisible,” she doesn’t think civilians should have access to guns like the AR-15, which was used by 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz to fatally shoot 17 students and teachers on Valentine’s Day.

“I think it is time to have a conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern world,” she told radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt. “I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons. We wouldn’t say you can go out and buy a tank.”

“But I believe that the rights that we have in the Constitution are indivisible,” she added. “We can’t throw away the Second Amendment and keep the First.”


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 23, 2018)

*- Mod Hat On -*

I've been moving posts between threads all afternoon.

Threads related to the school shooting should go in that thread.  That includes discussions around the school security (or lack there of).
School shooting thread

Thanks.

- Rah -


----------



## DC (Feb 23, 2018)

Political poison can ruin the minds of some of the best. Money can buy anyone. Starting to smell a soros agenda. Interesting to see what the next few weeks gives up.


----------



## DC (Feb 23, 2018)

Getting worse. Sheriff chastised the NRA and stated he can keep us safe. We don’t need guns. Then deputies outed for dereliction of duty and failure to act. He put a 6 man team on the resource officers house now. Gov let Parkland down. We have had proactive threat investigations here now at 4 schools I know of. The gun free zones are now killing fields.


----------



## AWP (Feb 23, 2018)

DC said:


> Getting worse. Sheriff chastised the NRA and stated he can keep us safe. We don’t need guns. Then deputies outed for dereliction of duty and failure to act. He put a 6 man team on the resource officers house now.



Wait, the sherriff went on the offensive against the NRA and then discovered his officers sat in the parking lot like turds? Now he's taken 6 officers off the street (or paying OT) to protect that trash? He should be run out of town on a rail for being that incompetent. Maybe the entire department for that matter.


----------



## DC (Feb 23, 2018)

Correct. I am running down the OAN piece that Liz Wheeler did tonite about it. I can’t even fathom how this will go down for the vitums families. Take our guns then let us die? Unbelievable even for the ADMIN EDIT  *people I don't agree with but I've been told time and again to stay away from calling names so I wont anymore* left. Indefensible.


----------



## DC (Feb 23, 2018)




----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 24, 2018)

The amount of people telling folks that don't agree with them on Facebook to step in front of the line for the next shooting is mind boggling.  We've fucked up.  People in their Mid 20s really don't understand why we have the bill of rights and think AR platforms should only be fore Military and Police Forces.  Legit that's like saying you should only have freedom of speech in the 18th century way in the back of my mind.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 24, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> The amount of people telling folks that don't agree with them on Facebook to step in front of the line for the next shooting is mind boggling.  We've fucked up.  People in their Mid 20s really don't understand why we have the bill of rights and think AR platforms should only be fore Military and Police Forces.  Legit that's like saying you should only have freedom of speech in the 18th century way in the back of my mind.


Well, compare that with the "other side"- the people that hold the 2nd Amendment so sacrosanct that the very notion of exploring what it means today and how to apply it reasonably to our culture as it stands today is akin to heresy and makes you immediately a non-patriot.

I don't know if there was a real watershed moment where we had to choose sides and we couldn't explore topics without becoming polarized- but it happened.


----------



## DC (Feb 24, 2018)

Your right we fucked up. We let complacency allow the left to brainwash a generation. Not the left of my time. A completely dark powerful left.


----------



## DC (Feb 24, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> Well, compare that with the "other side"- the people that hold the 2nd Amendment so sacrosanct that the very notion of exploring what it means today and how to apply it reasonably to our culture as it stands today is akin to heresy and makes you immediately a non-patriot.
> 
> I don't know if there was a real watershed moment where we had to choose sides and we couldn't explore topics without becoming polarized- but it happened.



Again an act of complacency. Seems to the byproduct of over pampered entitled society. A dangerous one.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 24, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> Well, compare that with the "other side"- the people that hold the 2nd Amendment so sacrosanct that the very notion of exploring what it means today and how to apply it reasonably to our culture as it stands today is akin to heresy and makes you immediately a non-patriot.
> 
> I don't know if there was a real watershed moment where we had to choose sides and we couldn't explore topics without becoming polarized- but it happened.


What it means today is the same thing it meant when it was written.  That the people have the right to own firearms because the State will need to raise a militia to fight something.  In addition, to make the government fearful of it's people so that it did not overstep.  The Constitution is a limit on Government rather than rights guaranteed to us.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 24, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> What it means today is the same thing it meant when it was written.  That the people have the right to own firearms because the State will need to raise a militia to fight something.  In addition, to make the government fearful of it's people so that it did not overstep.  The Constitution is a limit on Government rather than rights guaranteed to us.


The time, technology, and context of when that was written has changed. The country as we know it didn't exist when that was written- or, if you want to be real precise, the country was 11 years old. Blacks weren't technically human, women couldn't read or vote, and we were busy burning people alive for practicing magic. It was a weird time. 

Before everyone gets their respective undergarments in a bunch, I think the right to bear arms is one of the fundamental principles of our way of life and I would never seek to remove it from the Constitution.

Never questioning a document written 200 years ago as if it applies unquestioningly to today's environment despite mounds of evidence to the contrary and calling that 'patriotism' isn't a great plan either. Maybe we can leave the 2nd just the way it's written, but enact legislature that applies restrictions more reasonably to today's society.


----------



## J.S. (Feb 24, 2018)

@Red Flag 1 's posts in this thread are some of the most informative things that I've read in a while. They really show why this forum is such a good resource for students like me, I'm always learning from members here.

I recently watched a video on Randy Stair, a Pennsylvania man who shot three people in a supermarket. The dude was batshit crazy, believed that he would be reincarnated as a transgender ghost based on an animated children's show. He posted loads of videos online idolizing the Columbine killers and stating his own desire to perpetrate a similar massacre. Similar theme with shooters like the Parkland killer who often flood social media with their intentions before they commit the act.

I'm interested in hearing from members here (especially law enforcement), how do you propose rooting out and dealing with people like this before the threat materializes? I read about the FBI's alleged mishandling of the Parkland killer, are there any new laws and systems that would cut down on negligence in this area?


----------



## AWP (Feb 24, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> Maybe we can leave the 2nd just the way it's written, but enact legislature that applies restrictions more reasonably to today's society.



So we're changing the 2nd Amendment? If we're going to alter it through legislation, then do it the right way and change/ amend the Constitution. Passing all sorts of laws undermines the document. 

The problem is that the odds of Congress and the states gathering enough votes are astronomical and that's even assuming any legislator will have the backbone to request a change.

Using laws to alter the Constitution is a dangerous path. It certainly has precedent after precendet, but it erodes the document that makes America a country.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 24, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Ummm wow.  There was a time I had wanted to see her as a Presidential candidate.  Disappointing.
> 
> Condoleezza Rice: It’s time to discuss what Second Amendment ‘means in the modern world’
> 
> ...



I absolutely HATE the military weapons argument.  Almost EVERY firearm action originated for military use, all the way back to flint lock and even the revered "Grandpa's" old lever gun.  Any AR variant is as much a military firearm as a high end hunting Browning BAR.  Machine guns existed when the 2A was written and so on.  

Everyone focuses on the scary black guns, instead of the system that has failed society on multiple levels.  No one is really owning up to their faults and redirecting blame.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 24, 2018)

RackMaster said:


> I absolutely HATE the military weapons argument.  Almost EVERY firearm action originated for military use, all the way back to flint lock and even the revered "Grandpa's" old lever gun.  Any AR variant is as much a military firearm as a high end hunting Browning BAR.  Machine guns existed when the 2A was written and so on.
> 
> Everyone focuses on the scary black guns, instead of the system that has failed society on multiple levels.  No one is really owning up to their faults and redirecting blame.



To them is the perceived quickest fix. Like slapping a bandaid on a paper cut when you have a sucking chest wound to attend to.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 24, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> The time, technology, and context of when that was written has changed. The country as we know it didn't exist when that was written- or, if you want to be real precise, the country was 11 years old. Blacks weren't technically human, women couldn't read or vote, and we were busy burning people alive for practicing magic. It was a weird time.
> 
> Before everyone gets their respective undergarments in a bunch, I think the right to bear arms is one of the fundamental principles of our way of life and I would never seek to remove it from the Constitution.
> 
> Never questioning a document written 200 years ago as if it applies unquestioningly to today's environment despite mounds of evidence to the contrary and calling that 'patriotism' isn't a great plan either. Maybe we can leave the 2nd just the way it's written, but enact legislature that applies restrictions more reasonably to today's society.



There are over 271 federal statutes on firearms, let's enforce them before we talk about new ones. That doesn't include the thousands of different State Firearms Laws.  

The Left/Democrats/Liberals often parrot the same bullshit about gunshow/internet sales which are false.  Majority of States do not regulate P2P sales.  We already have what are considered reasonable restrictions.  What California has enacted is what I would call unreasonable restrictions and I question their constitutionality.  Define reasonable restriction, pretty sure we've got reasonable regulations throughout.  Especially considering all of the misinformation being spread by liberal news outlets.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 24, 2018)

California is worse than Canuckistan wrt to gun laws, just let that sink in.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 24, 2018)

J.S. said:


> @Red Flag 1 's posts in this thread are some of the most informative things that I've read in a while. They really show why this forum is such a good resource for students like me, I'm always learning from members here.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 24, 2018)

AWP said:


> So we're changing the 2nd Amendment? If we're going to alter it through legislation, then do it the right way and change/ amend the Constitution. Passing all sorts of laws undermines the document.
> 
> ...
> 
> Using laws to alter the Constitution is a dangerous path .


So, no, we should not alter the 2nd in any way as it’s written, and I agree with the rest of your post as far as passing laws and undermining the core document.
The second anyone talks about actually examining the core document and -without undermining the intent of what the founders intended- enacting appropriate legislation because we are 2 centuries past the drafting, the usual response is something like “Nope! It’s already too regulated it should be less regulated don’t change a letter and we aren’t even talking about this, you’re not a good American/you don’t understand the constitution.”

I am firmly on the side of ‘don’t tell me what I can and can’t buy’. Now, when people start folding their tin foil hats, saying the government could become tyrannical and enslave the people so they need armor piercing rounds meant to defeat body armor that our police officers wear, silencers, bump stocks to make their weapons fully automatic, NVGs... there has to be some line where we can at least have the conversation. When you put yourself in the camp of ‘don’t restrict it at all, as a matter of fact, I want less restriction than we have neow’, you’re forced to accept certain 2nd and 3rd order effects.

 I would certainly like to restrict the ability of terror cells to train and equip themselves better than the federal agencies meant to prevent them from doing so. I’m pretty sure the founders didn’t have the vision to foresee American citizens purchasing assault weapons legally with the intent to commit the mass murder of other Americans; but that’s the world we live in now.

Re: states rights (Cali and so on)- it’s sort of a weird argument to me when a state makes their own regulations, those regulations aren’t found to be unconstitutional, and people still say the government should make them change. I feel as if the argument is saying, “I want strip this state of it’s rights granted by the constitution, and I am going to use an article in the constitution to do so.’ That’s obviously an oversimplification, but it’s because I’m not a constitutional lawyer. Or smart.

Anyway, the conversation isn’t sacrosanct and the topic of the 2nd Amendment (the constitution as a whole) shouldn’t be regarded as some holy text that’s infallible and completely immune from examination. That’s all I’m saying.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 24, 2018)

RackMaster said:


> California is worse than Canuckistan wrt to gun laws, just let that sink in.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 24, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> So, no, we should not alter the 2nd in any way as it’s written, and I agree with the rest of your post as far as passing laws and undermining the core document.
> The second anyone talks about actually examining the core document and -without undermining the intent of what the founders intended- enacting appropriate legislation because we are 2 centuries past the drafting, the usual response is something like “Nope! It’s already too regulated it should be less regulated don’t change a letter and we aren’t even talking about this, you’re not a good American/you don’t understand the constitution.”
> 
> I am firmly on the side of ‘don’t tell me what I can and can’t buy’. Now, when people start folding their tin foil hats, saying the government could become tyrannical and enslave the people so they need armor piercing rounds meant to defeat body armor that our police officers wear, silencers, bump stocks to make their weapons fully automatic, NVGs... there has to be some line where we can at least have the conversation. When you put yourself in the camp of ‘don’t restrict it at all, as a matter of fact, I want less restriction than we have neow’, you’re forced to accept certain 2nd and 3rd order effects.
> ...


So DC Vs Heller is the Law based upon Judicial review.  That means a state cannot restrict my access to firearms.  The Second Amendment is not a State's right that can be regulated at the State Level.  When I see how concealed carry permits have been issued in CA for a very long time...better have donated to the Sheriff's campaign or actually not have a reason apparently.    Then I take issue.

Machine Guns and Assault Weapons by extension have been banned since 1934.  Can you convert an AR to select fire? Yes, but the reality is that a .223 is basically a varmint gun.  It's not much bigger than most use for varminting.  Terror Cells will equip themselves without regard to laws.  Enforce the statutes that are on the books, follow your procedures, run towards the gunfire to stop the purp.  Amending the constitution was meant to be difficult for a reason.  

Do we want to live in a relatively free and open society?  Because if we do, then there are risks involved.  I'm not saying become numb to stuff.  But Terrorist Attacks and Murders are the norm, and when you put the "mass" shootings on the aggregate and compare to a similar sample size, are we really suffering attacks at a greater rate compared to our population size or are we pretty close?  At some point this new background check crap on ammunition will hit the supreme court and get overturned with the current crop of judges sitting the bench.

And the crap about a Tyrannical government isn't crap.  As you know well and good we fought a war against our former nation because the Parliament refused to grant us representation and then the King enforced his taxation with an deployment of Soldiers to Occupy Boston.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 24, 2018)

@ThunderHorse - is it a logical, real possibility (for you) that the government of the United States of America can/will disarm 300 million Americans? 

If yes; do you also believe that militias of American citizens will need to overthrow that government? 

What do you feel the likelihood of that event would be? Say, ‘very likely’? Or ‘not likely, but possible’?


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 24, 2018)




----------



## Bypass (Feb 24, 2018)

Things got a little sideways in this thread for me a couple days ago. Thanks for letting me back in.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 24, 2018)

Sums it up...


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 24, 2018)

Bypass said:


> Things got a little sideways in this thread for me a couple days ago. Thanks for letting me back in.


No worries. Press.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 24, 2018)

To think that our already over reaching, corrupt political class wouldn’t/couldn’t start to erode our rights when we give up the one that protects the rights we have is absurd. All in the name of what they think is best for us?

Complacency Is a killer.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 24, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> To think that our already over reaching, corrupt political class wouldn’t/couldn’t start to erode our rights when we give up the one that protects the rights we have is absurd. All in the name of what they think is best for us?
> 
> Complacency Is a killer.


Can you explain what you mean when you say that the right to bear arms protects the rest of the constitution? I know what you mean in theory, but what about practice?

What realistic scenario would be a trigger for you to take up arms agains the American government? 

Complacency does kill. But I don’t have an asteroid shelter- that’s not me being complacent about an asteroid strike, that’s me being reasonable about the likelihood of that event happening and living my life accordingly. 

I guess I’d ask the same question to you-do you think, in the context of today’s environment, that the 2nd amendment could ever be repealed and that the government would actually try to disarm American citizens? If yes, why?


----------



## Kraut783 (Feb 24, 2018)

just a thought....can you imagine if the federal government did repeal the 2nd admendment...I could envision some states legalizing firearms by state law....kinda like the marijuana thing.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 24, 2018)

Kraut783 said:


> just a thought....can you imagine if the federal government did repeal the 2nd admendment...I could envision some states legalizing firearms by state law....kinda like the marijuana thing.


I agree with that; I won't pretend to be super smart on that sort of thing, but that's the beauty of states rights.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 24, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> @ThunderHorse - is it a logical, real possibility (for you) that the government of the United States of America can/will disarm 300 million Americans?
> 
> If yes; do you also believe that militias of American citizens will need to overthrow that government?
> 
> What do you feel the likelihood of that event would be? Say, ‘very likely’? Or ‘not likely, but possible’?



As we get more and more divided I have no clue.  I would see the current Armed forces recalling troops to post and locking down.  Not a coup, but I don't think you could mobilize a division today to deploy and attack Americans.  

This is not the Whiskey Rebellion or Nullification Crisis or 1861.

But I'd say not likely, but possible.


----------



## Topkick (Feb 24, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> Can you explain what you mean when you say that the right to bear arms protects the rest of the constitution? I know what you mean in theory, but what about practice?
> 
> What realistic scenario would be a trigger for you to take up arms agains the American government?
> 
> ...



A civilian buddy of mine, knowing of my military career, asked me this question yesterday;

Would you or any of your fellow soldiers ever follow orders to confiscate guns from citizens or would we take up arms against or fight American citizens? Interesting...how would you respond to this?


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 24, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> As we get more and more divided I have no clue.  I would see the current Armed forces recalling troops to post and locking down.  Not a coup, but I don't think you could mobilize a division today to deploy and attack Americans.
> 
> This is not the Whiskey Rebellion or Nullification Crisis or 1861.
> 
> But I'd say not likely, but possible.


Ok, that's fair. I just can't get to a place where I can reasonably believe it's a viable concern today.

I don't think that there is any sort of scenario that would lead to the federal government mandating the repeal of the 2nd, _then _directing the Armed Forces to disarm Americans under (presumably) the threat of imprisonment or death, _and then _militias of Americans organizing to fight the government. I would actually be way more apt to hear an argument of something like, "Americans should be able to own whatever guns they want so that, in the event of a sovereign power invading American soil, every citizen can mount a response and protect our way of life."

When the 2nd was written, however, tyrannical rule and the need for well-ordered militias were primary concerns for our young nation.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 24, 2018)

Topkick said:


> A civilian buddy of mine, knowing of my military career, asked me this question yesterday;
> 
> Would you or any of your fellow soldiers ever follow orders to confiscate guns from citizens or would we take up arms against or fight American citizens? Interesting...how would you respond to this?


Crap, Top... I don't know. 

If we just fast forward to the decision point for thought experiment's sake (passing all the things leading up to the actual question)... I don't think I would be able to use military force against other American citizens here in America. 

That being said, I don't know what my actual response would be. I assume I would have plenty of company, but when I came up with my firm, "I'm not following that order" I assume I would be spending some time in a detention facility. 

Or a firing squad, depending on what kind of crazy post-apocalyptic scenario we are talking about.


----------



## BloodStripe (Feb 24, 2018)

Luckily I don't think it will ever come to this. But, if the law changed, 99% of the military would follow orders. We are still a country of laws after all.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 24, 2018)

NavyBuyer said:


> Luckily I don't think it will ever come to this. But, if the law changed, 99% of the military would follow orders. We are still a country of laws after all.


I think this specific topic is so hard to keep in reality just by it's nature- but I don't know if 99% of the military would be cool with getting into firefights in their hometowns. I would like to think we find a way to avoid that sort of thing, at all costs. 

Look at the board here, and this discussion. The overwhelming theme has been, "resisting a tyrannical government at all costs, even if it means fighting". I think a government telling the military to disarm Americans feels pretty "tyrannical" and wouldn't be met with 99% compliance.


----------



## Topkick (Feb 24, 2018)

NavyBuyer said:


> Luckily I don't think it will ever come to this. But, if the law changed, 99% of the military would follow orders. We are still a country of laws after all.



I think a majority might follow orders for self survival,  but I am not sure about 99 percent. To me, it defeats the purpose of serving to defend the people of the country and our way of life.


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 24, 2018)

Should I still be in and the Fed Gov had ordered me and my men to take up arms against citizens, I'd be with @amlove21 in that stockade.  I'm with Top- defense of the people and their way of life is what's being served, not the orders of those over me.

This would represent a major disconnect between the people of the US and it's government that I would want no part of in making worse.

$.02


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 24, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> Ok, that's fair. I just can't get to a place where I can reasonably believe it's a viable concern today.
> 
> I don't think that there is any sort of scenario that would lead to the federal government mandating the repeal of the 2nd, _then _directing the Armed Forces to disarm Americans under (presumably) the threat of imprisonment or death, _and then _militias of Americans organizing to fight the government. *I would actually be way more apt to hear an argument of something like, "Americans should be able to own whatever guns they want so that, in the event of a sovereign power invading American soil, every citizen can mount a response and protect our way of life.*"
> 
> When the 2nd was written, however, tyrannical rule and the need for well-ordered militias were primary concerns for our young nation.


No matter what people may think, there will forever be a need for the people of the US to remain armed.


----------



## Topkick (Feb 24, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> No matter what people may think, there will forever be a need for the people of the US to remain armed.


One good reason is to protect your home and family. If not from the government, there will always be bad people.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 24, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> No matter what people may think, there will forever be a need for the people of the US to remain armed.


I agree with this.


----------



## AWP (Feb 24, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> I am firmly on the side of ‘don’t tell me what I can and can’t buy’. Now, when people start folding their tin foil hats, saying the government could become tyrannical and enslave the people so they need armor piercing rounds meant to defeat body armor that our police officers wear, silencers, bump stocks to make their weapons fully automatic, NVGs... there has to be some line where we can at least have the conversation. When you put yourself in the camp of ‘don’t restrict it at all, as a matter of fact, I want less restriction than we have neow’, you’re forced to accept certain 2nd and 3rd order effects.
> 
> I would certainly like to restrict the ability of terror cells to train and equip themselves better than the federal agencies meant to prevent them from doing so. I’m pretty sure the founders didn’t have the vision to foresee American citizens purchasing assault weapons legally with the intent to commit the mass murder of other Americans; but that’s the world we live in now.



I think my best response for the above is something I typed a while ago.
United States & Gun Control discussion.


----------



## BloodStripe (Feb 24, 2018)

99% was a figure of speech. I'm willing to bet however that it would still be in the 90% though. There are a lot of tough guys behind a keyboard, too. I don't mean that as a shot at any one particular person on here,  only that until you get put into a situation like that you never know how you will react. Two weeks ago those four deputies in Florida who say by outside during the shooting all probably have a different story they would say about being involved in an active shooter situation.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 24, 2018)

NavyBuyer said:


> 99% was a figure of speech. I'm willing to bet however that it would still be in the 90% though.


9/10 of your military friends would be like, ‘Yeah man, fuck it- if the boss says round the guns up, I’m kicking doors and rounding guns up.’??


----------



## BloodStripe (Feb 24, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> 9/10 of your military friends would be like, ‘Yeah man, fuck it- if the boss says round the guns up, I’m kicking doors and rounding guns up.’??



If the Bill of Rights were amended to remove the 2A, 9/10 would follow the law and obey orders.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 24, 2018)

NavyBuyer said:


> If the Bill of Rights were amended to remove the 2A, 9/10 would follow the law and obey orders.


Interesting. Thanks for the honest response.


----------



## Topkick (Feb 24, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> 9/10 of your military friends would be like, ‘Yeah man, fuck it- if the boss says round the guns up, I’m kicking doors and rounding guns up.’??



I wonder how many civilians, despite what they say now, would hand their guns over uncontested?


----------



## BloodStripe (Feb 24, 2018)

But again, I don't think we will ever get any where near having to worry about this in our lifetime. We have more guns than people in this country. Good luck finding all of those guns in the bottom of lakes.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 24, 2018)

Topkick said:


> I wonder how many civilians, despite what they say now, would hand their guns over uncontested?


This, more than "would the military and police comply" is the one that keeps me thinking.  In my heart, I know what the answer is for me.  I can only hope/pray that I am never genuinely faced with that decision.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 24, 2018)

Topkick said:


> I wonder how many civilians, despite what they say now, would hand their guns over uncontested?


That’s another interesting angle. The philosophical question of, ‘Do you love your country so much that you’d stand against it to preserve the principles it was founded upon?’

Would one be considered a true patriot if they turned their guns over, or if one fought to the death to keep them? 

🤯


----------



## Kraut783 (Feb 24, 2018)

I can see some state governors using NG against this kind of thing....how crazy would that be?

Edit: meant to say to use against federal troops if ordered to disarm citizens.


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 24, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> That’s another interesting angle. The philosophical question of, ‘Do you love your country so much that you’d stand against it to preserve the principles it was founded upon?’
> 
> Would one be considered a true patriot if they turned their guns over, or if one fought to the death to keep them?
> 
> 🤯



If a thoughtful, critical engagement with our fundamental law arrived at the conclusion that it didn't make sense to keep a particular law in modern times, patriotism wouldn't be a part of keeping the guns, IMHO.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 24, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> 9/10 of your military friends would be like, ‘Yeah man, fuck it- if the boss says round the guns up, I’m kicking doors and rounding guns up.’??


Pretty sure the last time something like that happened we had a war that killed a lot of fucking people.  And we're getting super divided, so I think we will have a lot of problems with this whole idea.  

But we're all gonna be long dead before there is ever a constitutional convention and said amendment is ratified.   The interesting thing is that we're talking about this and not about the incompetence of the FBI, Broward Sheriff's department and the school district.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 24, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> But we're all gonna be long dead before there is ever a constitutional convention and said amendment is ratified.   The interesting thing is that we're talking about this and not about the incompetence of the FBI, Broward Sheriff's department and the school district.


Not really that interesting, we have another thread for that. School shootings are now part of our culture.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 24, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> Not really that interesting, we have another thread for that. School shootings are now part of our culture.


Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 25, 2018)

Let's fix this first.




> Department of Defense does not universally input those dishonorably discharged and others not allowed to buy guns, like Devin Patrick Kelley, the gunman in the November 5, 2017 slaying of 26 at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. He was convicted in a court martial while in the Air Force.
> Lets legal dealers to sell a gun after three days even if the FBI has not returned its background check decision, which aided Dylan Roofget the gun he used to kill nine churchgoers in Charleston, S.C. on June 17, 2015.
> Just 8 percent of those barred from buying guns are arrested after trying to get one, including convicts and illegal immigrants.
> States are not required cooperate with NICS, despite federally appropriated money to encourage them.
> ...


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 25, 2018)

I remember a survey that went around in the middle 90's asking if we would fire on Americans that did not comply with being disarmed. I did some research and found a copy of one that was used at 29 Palms. View question 46.

There are some other articles out there but nothing from a creditable source. Navy SEAL Vet Makes Shocking Claim About Military Disarming Americans | Off The Grid News


----------



## Gunz (Feb 25, 2018)

I've seen some of the "militia" guys in NC and FL..."training." 🤣

If they don't lay off the fried chicken and beer it's going to be a pretty short war.


----------



## Dame (Feb 25, 2018)

This looks like a first amendment issue. Kid gets arrested for saying it is possible to break the law. Not threatening to break it. Just saying the law is too easy to break. 

Student Arrested For Saying: ‘I Could Buy An AR-15’ | Off The Grid News


----------



## Topkick (Feb 25, 2018)

Dame said:


> This looks like a first amendment issue. Kid gets arrested for saying it is possible to break the law. Not threatening to break it. Just saying the law is too easy to break.
> 
> Student Arrested For Saying: ‘I Could Buy An AR-15’ | Off The Grid News



Kids say the darndest things. I could see questioning his intent, but arresting him...for what? Ridiculous


----------



## Dame (Feb 25, 2018)

Topkick said:


> Kids say the darndest things. I could see questioning his intent, but arresting him...for what? Ridiculous.￼


It is indeed ridiculous when you cannot even talk about how current laws are being broken.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 25, 2018)

Dame said:


> It is indeed ridiculous when you cannot even talk about how current laws are being broken.




Or when a "weapon of math destruction" is mistaken for a gun? 
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you.....Louisiana. 
Students in Louisiana thought this math symbol looked like a gun. Police were called



> A discussion among students at Oberlin High School in Oberlin, La., about a mathematical symbol led to a police investigation and a search of one of the student’s homes, according to the Allen Parish Sheriff’s Office.
> 
> On the afternoon of Feb. 20, detectives investigated a report of terroristic threats at the school, where they learned that a student had been completing a math problem that required drawing the square-root sign.
> 
> ...


----------



## Topkick (Feb 25, 2018)

I've never seen a gun that looks like that.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 26, 2018)




----------



## Frank S. (Feb 26, 2018)

Back in my day we used these to shoot paper clips and chewed up paper balls at girls.
It was fun until someone got pregnant and had to miss gym class.


----------



## CDG (Feb 28, 2018)

Dick's Sporting Goods has announced it will stop selling all 'assault-style" rifles, as well as not selling any type of gun to someone under 21.  Strong disagree with this move, and while there is a Dick's close to my house, I will be taking my business elsewhere from now on.

Dick’s, Major Gun Retailer, Will Stop Selling Assault-Style Rifles


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 28, 2018)

CDG said:


> Dick's Sporting Goods has announced it will stop selling all 'assault-style" rifles, as well as not selling any type of gneeds to go after any and all semi automatic weapons. That would include my Glock and that would be my personal “cold dead fingers”  stance.
> 
> This is a dangerous time for the Second Amendment, the NRA, and gun owners nation wide.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 28, 2018)

Red Flag 1 said:


> other side of the coin is that it could be the worse mistake the NRA ever made.



This.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 28, 2018)

Can you blame the left?  It's a great ploy, a page out of the GOP playbook:  we all know Planned Parenthood does lots of things other than abortions, but the GOP has made them out to be an abortion factory, an assembly line of butchery.  The left has demonized the NRA, ignoring all the education and otherwise 'good' it does, and defining it as the organization that places automatic assault weapons into the hands of children.

It is indeed a dangerous time for 2A, the NRA, and gun owners.  Too bad I don't have ARs any more.  At my advanced age, I have foolishly lost the ones I had; some hit the bottom of the ocean when my Carolina Skiff capsized.


----------



## Topkick (Feb 28, 2018)

I don't own Assault Rifles, but I do proudly own an Armalite Rifle.


----------



## Fl_Ag (Feb 28, 2018)

Red Flag 1 said:


> It makes one wonder if throwing the left their ever targeted assult rifle bone, and being done with it.
> 
> The other side of the coin is that it could be the worse mistake the NRA ever made. The assult rifle “victory” could simply be the green light the left needs to go after any and all semi automatic weapons.



This was my EXACT train-of-thought on the drive home from the pool yesterday evening. I've made it clear that I'm all for a collaborative, bipartisan effort because I genuinely believe there's a problem , but I'm erring on the side of "it's way too slippery a slope" for anyone to make blanket concessions.


----------



## Topkick (Feb 28, 2018)

Fl_Ag said:


> This was my EXACT train-of-thought on the drive home from the pool yesterday evening. I've made it clear that I'm all for a collaborative, bipartisan effort because I genuinely believe there's a problem , but I'm erring on the side of "it's way too slippery a slope" for anyone to make blanket concessions.


I am not sure about anything, but I don't like it that 18 yo kids, still mentally undeveloped, can buy an AR 15 or AK 47 just because they are the cool guns from TV and video games. IMO, it's not the weapon, it's just the one they choose to use.
ETA: I guess what I am trying to convey is that a step I would be ok with is raising the age for all gun purchases to 21. The NRA is not ok with it only because they will lose sales.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 28, 2018)

Topkick said:


> I am not sure about anything, but I don't like it that 18 yo kids, still mentally undeveloped, can buy an AR 15 or AK 47 just because they are the cool guns from TV and video games. IMO, it's not the weapon, it's just the one they choose to use.
> ETA: I guess what I am trying to convey is that a step I would be ok with is raising the age for all gun purchases to 21. The NRA is not ok with it only because they will lose sales.



Then raise the age you can enlist to 21. We have some odd age standards in this country.

18 to enlist however you can't drink :)
18 to drive
21 to drink
21 to smoke
21 to get into bars
17? To get a learners permit
16? To start in the workforce.


----------



## Topkick (Feb 28, 2018)

Good point. How about a military clause? If you serve in the military honorably, you can purchase a gun at 18?


----------



## CDG (Feb 28, 2018)

Age has nothing to do with it.  How old was the Vegas shooter?  The Sandy Hook shooter was under 21, but used weapons his mother had purchased.  The Aurora shooter was 24? 25? The Texas church shooter was 26.  I don't see anything wrong with an 18 year old age limit for gun purchases.  That is the accepted standard for "You're an adult now, and you own your decisions."  A knee jerk reaction isn't going to help anything here.  Talk about improving background checks, talk about improving the reporting system so the right people get barred in the system, talk about better school security, better mental health care, following up on reports of someone who is making threats of violence, etc.  Stop with the rest of the bullshit.  It's meaningless.

Those last couple sentences are not directed at members here talking about other issues.  I'm just making a generalized statement of my own personal opinion.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 28, 2018)

I have less indigestion about raising the age, but just make it consistent.  25 to get a hotel room in some hotels, 25 to rent a car....


----------



## Topkick (Feb 28, 2018)

@Florida173 I'm interested in your reason for the dislike. Its certainly cool to disagree, but I'd like to at least hear your view.


----------



## DC (Feb 28, 2018)

CDG said:


> Age has nothing to do with it.  How old was the Vegas shooter?  The Sandy Hook shooter was under 21, but used weapons his mother had purchased.  The Aurora shooter was 24? 25? The Texas church shooter was 26.  I don't see anything wrong with an 18 year old age limit for gun purchases.  That is the accepted standard for "You're an adult now, and you own your decisions."  A knee jerk reaction isn't going to help anything here.  Talk about improving background checks, talk about improving the reporting system so the right people get barred in the system, talk about better school security, better mental health care, following up on reports of someone who is making threats of violence, etc.  Stop with the rest of the bullshit.  It's meaningless.
> 
> Those last couple sentences are not directed at members here talking about other issues.  I'm just making a generalized statement of my own personal opinion.


Pretty much sums it up. Beating the dead horse isn’t productive.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 28, 2018)

There goes the "let's arm teachers" argument...

Georgia teacher in custody after reports of shots fired at high school


----------



## SaintKP (Feb 28, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> There goes the "let's arm teachers" argument...
> 
> Georgia teacher in custody after reports of shots fired at high school




That fills the WTF? meter for me today, I dont understand was it supposed to be suicide? Because it didn't appear that way in the article, more questions than answers right now.

I'm fine with teachers being armed but they should have a firearm safety course or a self defence class as an introductory to guns if they've never owned one and honestly I don't think it would hurt to take one even if they are familiar with them.


----------



## Fl_Ag (Feb 28, 2018)

SaintKP said:


> That fills the WTF? meter for me today, I dont understand was it supposed to be suicide? Because it didn't appear that way in the article, more questions than answers right now.
> 
> I'm fine with teachers being armed but they should have a firearm safety course or a self defence class as an introductory to guns if they've never owned one and honestly I don't think it would hurt to take one even if they are familiar with them.



Some folks on the radio were outlining a proposed "School Marshall Program." If I remember correctly, faculty and staff already in possession of a concealed firearm license are able to attend something like 130 additional hours of training after which they may conceal carry on campus. It sounds like an appropriate first step. Similar to the Air Force's Squadron Marshall Program that was shot down shortly after its proposal, at least by our installation commander. I'm not bitter. 

I'm with you, Saint. The story makes no sense. We'll have to wait for more details to be released.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 28, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> I have less indigestion about raising the age, but just make it consistent.  25 to get a hotel room in some hotels, 25 to rent a car....


Rented more than my share of nice hotel rooms at places when I was under 25.  Car rental age today seems to be 23...they'll rend to 21 year olds but the extra fee is uh...rough.


----------



## SaintKP (Feb 28, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> Rented more than my share of nice hotel rooms at places when I was under 25.  Car rental age today seems to be 23...they'll rend to 21 year olds but the extra fee is uh...rough.




One thing I've noticed is that in regards to Hotels, it depends on the location more than anything as well as if it's a "party town" during say spring break. I was never able to get a room until I was 18 even in seedier types of places. 

The car rental prices are indeed rough to put it lightly, paying essentially double what the car rental would be by itself for the "young renters penalty" blows seven kinds of assholes.


----------



## Blizzard (Feb 28, 2018)

Agree with all prior comments about age not being the issue.  Everyone pushing for this  needs to slow their roll a bit and think a lot more.  This is why legislation is supposed to move slowly; to remove/reduce emotion from decisions.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 28, 2018)

[QUOTE


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 28, 2018)

Topkick said:


> @Florida173 I'm interested in your reason for the dislike. Its certainly cool to disagree, but I'd like to at least hear your view.



Flying through CDG and connection crapped out on me on the tarmac.

I had written something about how having not served shouldn't be a disqualifier. Responsible gun ownership isn't based off arbitrary age either. Give some incentive path to buying through education maybe.


----------



## Topkick (Feb 28, 2018)

If you serve, you receive gun education in basic training and beyond. One reason a clause makes sense. I am not advocating an age increase but it's about to happen and i can except it. But if you can carry an AR in defense of the country at 18, you should be able to buy one.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 28, 2018)

Topkick said:


> If you serve, you receive gun education in basic training and beyond. One reason a clause makes sense. I am not advocating an age increase but it's about to happen and i can except it. But if you can carry an AR in defense of the country at 18, you should be able to buy one.


Top, I agree with this post word-for-word.


----------



## Kaldak (Feb 28, 2018)

Open ended question here...

When we talk about banning people with mental health problems from buying/owning guns, what types do we refer to? PTSD? Depression? ADHD?

I'm curious as it feels like we are tossing the phrase "mental health issues" around pretty loosely.

Apologies if this was discussed further back in this thread.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 28, 2018)

Kaldak said:


> When we talk about banning people with mental health problems from buying/owning guns, what types do we refer to? PTSD? Depression? ADHD?



That whole thing is a sticky-wicket.  My fear about those types of rules is having men and women who need help, but are afraid to ask because they are worried about losing their guns.


----------



## CDG (Feb 28, 2018)

Reference the age standards when it comes to hotels, rental cars, etc.  Those are policies that industries decided on their own to put in place based on actual data showing how high risk people under the age of 25 were/are.  I was stationed in Norfolk/Virginia Beach as hotels in that area started to increase the age limit, and for good reason.  A lot of the under 21 military personnel in the area would figure out a way to get booze, rent a room, invite 10, 20, 30 people over for a party, and wreck everything.  Bottles being smashed in parking lots, fights, loud music, shouting, etc.  With cars, there's a reason insurance costs more until you turn 25 as well.  Because data shows that younger people are more high risk for tickets/accidents.  So I actually agree with those policies.  I don't see how those anecdotes have any relation to a gun control discussion.  The data makes sense for hotels and rental car companies.  It doesn't for gun control.  Same with the age to enlist in the military.  "Oh, so you're saying we can trust an 18 year old in combat, but not with a car and a hotel room?"  You're goddamn right I am.  Is that 18 year old's PSG and PL with him when he's partying in a hotel room, or driving a rental car?  No.  They are there in the field, on the gun range, and in combat.  So the argument doesn't really hold water.


----------



## Topkick (Feb 28, 2018)

@CDG, help me understand. So, you stand for 18 year olds buying and owning guns, but not to rent a hotel room?  If you can't trust them with  a room, should we trust them with a gun? 
i don't mean to sound confrontational, but i see that as an odd way to see things. I mean, there is no current policy for an 18 year old civilian to be supervised when using a rifle.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 28, 2018)

My friends over on my favorite gun-board are losing their minds right now.  Trying to figure out how to only say positive things about their President, but fuming over the fact that el' Presidente' has gone full front on "bump stocks" and saying things like:

_ "...but take the guns first, go through due process second."_

BETRAYAL: Trump Says Government Should 'Take The Guns First, Go Through Due Process Second'

To keep myself somewhat sane, I still fall back on my mantra of, "I would have voted for anyone over Hillary", but at least I will admit that.  If she had been in office and did/said exactly what Trump did above, the tone of my fellow gun owners would be very different.


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 28, 2018)

Kaldak said:


> Open ended question here...
> 
> When we talk about banning people with mental health problems from buying/owning guns, what types do we refer to? PTSD? Depression? ADHD?
> 
> ...



You're not off base; that phrase is tossed around here very loosely.

Search my content and read the posts in this thread addressing that very issue and the associated misperception.

Bonus points if you read the literature.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 28, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> So DC Vs Heller is the Law based upon Judicial review.  That means a state cannot restrict my access to firearms.  The Second Amendment is not a State's right that can be regulated at the State Level.  When I see how concealed carry permits have been issued in CA for a very long time...better have donated to the Sheriff's campaign or actually not have a reason apparently.    Then I take issue.
> 
> Machine Guns and Assault Weapons by extension have been banned since 1934.  Can you convert an AR to select fire? Yes, but the reality is that a .223 is basically a varmint gun.  It's not much bigger than most use for varminting.  Terror Cells will equip themselves without regard to laws.  Enforce the statutes that are on the books, follow your procedures, run towards the gunfire to stop the purp.  Amending the constitution was meant to be difficult for a reason.
> 
> ...



DC v. Heller does not mean what you think it does.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 28, 2018)

policemedic said:


> DC v. Heller does not mean what you think it does.



In relation to this case?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 28, 2018)

policemedic said:


> DC v. Heller does not mean what you think it does.



When you have time, would you be willing to expand on that just a bit. (Reader's Digest version).

I see that case thrown around this board often.


----------



## Kraut783 (Feb 28, 2018)

Heh...thinking this is the issue...it purely addressed DC as a Federal district and not a state.

"Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states"


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 28, 2018)

[Q


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 28, 2018)

Walmart jumped on the "21 to buy guns and ammo" bandwagon a few hours ago.

Similar to the existence of the TSA, it's all "dog and pony."  If anything, this will bring younger shooters into legit gun stores where they will be helped by someone who actually knows a thing or two about guns.  It might actually be educational for them.


----------



## BloodStripe (Feb 28, 2018)

With stores now deciding they won't sell guns or ammo to legal age residents, are they setting themselves up for lawsuits? I'm not thinking age discrimination but if a bakery refuses to sell a cake to a gay couple, how is this any different?


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 28, 2018)

McDonald v. City of Chicago | law case


----------



## BloodStripe (Feb 28, 2018)

I'm not sure that is applicable. That case was against a law, not against a private business.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 28, 2018)

Do laws not apply to private business?


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Feb 28, 2018)

If a private business chooses not to sell firearms that is their choice. A business that decides to sell firearms but discriminate by age, who they sell to, essentially making up their own rules is an issue. Until a law is passed play by the rules.


----------



## BloodStripe (Feb 28, 2018)

Private businesses do not create public law. They influence the hell out of those creating the rules, legally and illegally, but they are not creating a law saying you must be 21. And there are lots of other places to go shopping.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 28, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> When you have time, would you be willing to expand on that just a bit. (Reader's Digest version).
> 
> I see that case thrown around this board often.



Certainly.  It’s an important case.



ThunderHorse said:


> So DC Vs Heller is the Law based upon Judicial review.  That means a state cannot restrict my access to firearms.



Here is the crux of the problem.  _Heller_ does not grant an unlimited right to possess firearms because (amongst other reasons) the Court is quite clear that no right is unlimited.

In its opinion, the Court said:

_2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons_.

While there are people who take the opposite view—as @ThunderHorse has above—that position is neither supported by _Heller_ nor legally sound.

The bare bones essence of _Heller_ is that Heller, a DC special policeman (essentially, an armed guard with very limited arrest authority), wanted to register a handgun in the District. He was denied because DC banned the registration of handguns except for those who received a discretionary one-year license from the chief of the Metropolitan Police Department. DC also had a trigger lock requirement that would prevent a gun from being kept ready for use; those lucky enough to get the one-year license would have to render their guns useless for self-defense in the home.  Heller filed suit, and the case see-sawed its way to the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS held that a ban on entire classes of firearms i.e. handguns was unconstitutional, as was the trigger lock requirement.  The Court did not have to deal with the licensing issue because Heller conceded this point (as long as licensing was done fairly) during oral arguments.

It did not establish an unfettered right pursuant to the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## CDG (Feb 28, 2018)

Topkick said:


> @CDG, help me understand. So, you stand for 18 year olds buying and owning guns, but not to rent a hotel room?  If you can't trust them with  a room, should we trust them with a gun?
> i don't mean to sound confrontational, but i see that as an odd way to see things. I mean, there is no current policy for an 18 year old civilian to be supervised when using a rifle.



This argument is a false equivalency. The two are not correlated. Yes, I do stand for it.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 28, 2018)

*- Mod Hat On - *

@ThunderHorse -

Look man, I keep telling you this; you keep blowing it off.  When you "hate" a post on an internet forum (as you did in @policemedic 's post#3164), it is no different than being in the same room with someone and saying, "_Dude!  What you just said is fucking bullshit!  I don't agree at all!_"

At a minimum you owe the person the most basic of explanation.  "Hate because....my daughter's friend's mom is a lawyer and that's not what she said."  Something.  The writer should have an opportunity to know what you 'hate' so he can choose to either respond and further his point, or simply blow it off.  It is those small courtesies that make an online community work.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 1, 2018)

policemedic said:


> Certainly.  It’s an important case.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




At which point did I attempt to say Heller applied to Felons? 

Much better than a one liner.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 1, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> At which point did I attempt to say Heller applied to Felons?
> 
> Much better than a one liner.



You didn’t, and it’s irrelevant. It’s also obfuscation. You stated, “So DC Vs Heller is the Law based upon Judicial review. That means a state cannot restrict my access to firearms.”  You’re demonstrably wrong.

States can, do and will exercise significant control over which firearms you may own, how they must be purchased, how (or if) they can be carried, what kind of ammunition and how much (magazine limits) you can carry or load.

That control extends even to those of us exempted by federal law from most state laws regarding possession and concealed carry of firearms. For example, while I can carry hollowpoints in New Jersey and carry a gun in places like DC, NYC and LA, I do have to respect their magazine size limits if I’m not on business.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 1, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> That whole thing is a sticky-wicket.  My fear about those types of rules is having men and women who need help, but are afraid to ask because they are worried about losing their guns.




Recreational shooting/hunting can be good therapy for PTSD. It was and is for me.


----------



## Muppet (Mar 1, 2018)

So, dumb question. If a ban does happen, what stops them from overall gun confiscation? I've seen this floating around the webz for a while.

M.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 1, 2018)

Muppet said:


> So, dumb question. If a ban does happen, what stops them from overall gun confiscation? I've seen


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 1, 2018)

Red Flag 1 said:


> It does leave the door open for surrender/confiscation of banned weapons. This can be a very slippery slope. Today under this administration the AR-15, & bump stocks could be banned and confiscated. The path to banning and confiscation is there, and it will make a similar move more likely for other weapons under a future administration. The 2A still stands, just not for certain weapons. The writing on the wall is for all semiautomatic weapons being banned. Bye, Bye Glocks, et al. It will happen and there will be nothing that we can do about it. We will be left with black powder ball and cap for hunting, things you do not need a permit for.


 
Yeah...it we'll be narrowly defining of arms as swords, bows, and spears...


----------



## policemedic (Mar 1, 2018)

Red Flag 1 said:


> It does leave the door open for surrender/confiscation of banned weapons. This can be a very slippery slope. Today under this administration the AR-15, & bump stocks could be banned and confiscated. The path to banning and confiscation is there, and it will make a similar move more likely for other weapons under a future administration. The 2A still stands, just not for certain weapons. The writing on the wall is for all semiautomatic weapons being banned. Bye, Bye Glocks, et al. It will happen and there will be nothing that we can do about it. We will be left with black powder ball and cap for hunting, things you do not need a permit for.



You mean .50 caliber rifles? 🤓


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 1, 2018)

policemedic said:


> You mean .50 caliber rifles? 🤓


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 1, 2018)

During the 1994 AWB, weapons already in the hands of citizens were not touched. If I recall they could not be sold or transferred and unless in a trust were to be destroyed upon the death of the owner. From what I have read the proposed 2018 AWB has similar verbiage.

I decided to sit down and read all 157 pages of D.C. v Heller. While it was very dry and sometimes confusing, it was very insightful. A ban on a particular type of weapon is considered unconstitutional, not that this fact will stop the left.

Here is what I found regarding types of weapons on page 58:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

I have attached a copy if anyone would care to read it.

I am sure there would be many lawsuits to gum up the works of a ban should it occur.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: In defense of the right to keep and bear arms


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 1, 2018)

@CDG , the only reason I think the age anecdotes relate is just to point out what you mentioned: Young men have suspect judgment.  Honestly I don't know where I stand on the age and gun ownership debate, but if it stays at 18 for a rifle, then lower the age to buy a handgun to 18, too.


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 1, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> @CDG , the only reason I think the age anecdotes relate is just to point out what you mentioned: Young men have suspect judgment.  Honestly I don't know where I stand on the age and gun ownership debate, but if it stays at 18 for a rifle, then lower the age to buy a handgun to 18, too.


IMO, the choice to restrict hotel room rentals or insurance coverage has come from verified data (thousands of data points) that verify that drivers under the age of 25 and hotel renters under the age of 21 cost those private companies more to serve than those of higher age. It's most certainly age discrimination; done for a reason that can be demonstrated. I suppose we could say, "younger people have worse judgment" and you're not wrong, but that's not the reason the companies charge younger people more or don't allow them to use the service at all- it's a proven risk to their business model. 

I agree with your stance on rifles and handguns though- don't fully understand why the age for possessing a firearm changes when the length changes.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 2, 2018)

Interesting OPED to add to the thread: The assault weapons ban didn't work. A new version won't, either


----------



## Topkick (Mar 2, 2018)

I think that the outdoor stores like Dicks Sporting Goods and the like will see more boycotting than "buycotting."  Cabelas and Bass Pro should be picking up a lot of their customers.

How consumers are 'buycotting' stores like Dick's in the aftermath of Parkland shooting


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 2, 2018)

Topkick said:


> I think that the outdoor stores like Dicks Sporting Goods and the like will see more boycotting than "buycotting."  Cabelas and Bass Pro should be picking up a lot of their customers.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 2, 2018)

The effectiveness of a boycott movement relies on the ability to draw media attention about the target's perceived wrong to the broader public over a long period; generating fear of disruption within the target concerning lost sales has rarely worked.

The Tactical Disruptiveness of Social Movements: Sources of Market and Mediated Disruption in Corporate Boycotts

Its possible that this may happen in the case of the Dick's decision but I think it would take a very organized effort.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 2, 2018)

Dicks will certainly lose customers whether by boycott or simply through supply and demand. No ARs and the age increase will send customers in another direction. Of course, you will have the hardcore 2nd Amendment boycotters as well. How much loss they can accept remains to be seen.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 2, 2018)

Well, I just found this article. Apparently, it could be partly considered a publicity stunt because Dicks hasn't been selling ARs in a lot of their stores for years.

Dick's Sporting Goods AR-15 Discontinuation Announcement Is Likely More Show than Substance


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 2, 2018)

Topkick said:


> Well, I just found this article. Apparently, it could be partly considered a publicity stunt because Dicks hasn't been selling ARs in a lot of their stores for years.
> 
> Dick's Sporting Goods AR-15 Discontinuation Announcement Is Likely More Show than Substance



Another likely reason corporate boycotts very rarely succeed - executives and marketing firms who are able to calculate risk prior to making such decisions and announcements.  X-D

And if this is, in fact, a marketing stunt - kudos to Dick's for seeing these chances.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 2, 2018)

Topkick said:


> Dicks will certainly lose customers whether by boycott or simply through supply and demand. No A


----------



## Topkick (Mar 2, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> And if this is, in fact, a marketing stunt - kudos to Dick's for seeing these chances.



Except that its deceptive if their Field and Stream stores are still selling ARs, and if Field and Stream does stop selling ARs and raises the age to 21,
I think that will hurt them significantly. I live by a Field and Stream store and they sell a lot of ARs, .223 & 5.56, and accessories.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 2, 2018)

Topkick said:


> Except that its deceptive if their Field and Stream stores are still selling ARs.



Much of marketing can involve creating a perception that's true only in the minds of a target demographic.

Further kudos if Dick's manages to keep the AR revenue stream going in this way, IMO.  They'd have a chance of pulling it off if taking advantage of another issue with boycotts - keeping the public's attention past the next news cycle.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 2, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> Much of marketing can involve creating a perception that's true only in the minds of a target demographic.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 2, 2018)

Red Flag 1 said:


> So you applaud the deception and the manipulation of the media, not so much the announcement regarding the AR-15, right?



Gosh, no - take ARs off the market, I say. 

I applaud any business that can maneuver to maintain a revenue source in such a circumstance, unless it can be argued that continuing to sell product at a subsidiary store is genuinely deceptive advertising.  

I would doubt this to be the case here, though, as Field and Stream no longer sell assault type rifles at any of their stores as of last month.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 2, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> Gosh, no - take ARs off the market, I say.
> 
> I applaud any business that can maneuver to maintain a revenue source in such a circumstance, unless it can be argued that continuing to sell product at a subsidiary store is genuinely deceptive advertising.
> 
> I would doubt this to be the case here, though, as Field and Stream no longer sell assault type rifles at any of their stores as of last month.



Why do you think the AR or any firearm for that matter should be taken off the market?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 2, 2018)

Didn't Dick's pull AR-15s off the shelf after Sandy Hook? Dick's Sporting Goods pulled assault-style rifles after Sandy Hook, too. It didn't last.

Yes, yes they did...


----------



## Topkick (Mar 2, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> Gosh, no - take ARs off the market, I say
> 
> I would doubt this to be the case here, though, as Field and Stream no longer sell assault type rifles at any of their stores as of last month.



I just read that. I think it will hurt Feld and Stream. Just my opinion.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 2, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> Why do you think the AR or any firearm for that matter should be taken off the market?



I think the AR's ballistics and overpenetration belong on the battle field.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 2, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> I think the AR's ballistics and overpenetration belong on the battle field.



Are you aware of the ballistics of the .223? Are you aware that in most states it's a varmint round not suitable for large game? Are you aware that other weapons platforms use the .223 cartridge?

You, like most seem to be uneducated about firearms. The AR has no ballistics its simply the system used to discharge the cartridge. You see something that resembles something "military" and fear it.

I would also suggest you read D.C. V Heller.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 2, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> I think the AR's ballistics and overpenetration belong on the battle field.


Cool Beans.  The .223 is all over the place in bolt form...and even larger more over-penetrating rounds as well.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 2, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> I think the AR's ballistics and overpenetration belong on the battle field.



Downtown said it before me.
I have other reasons which I am sure you have heard before


----------



## RustyShackleford (Mar 2, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> I think the AR's ballistics and overpenetration belong on the battle field.



You’re either baiting someone into something or have very little understanding of the 5.56 round. A 12 gauge slug fired from a Remington 870 with an 18” barrel will penetrate further than most 5.56 rounds.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 2, 2018)

Marine0311 said:


> Downtown said it before me.
> I have other reasons which I am sure you have heard before



Heard and argued through many, many times over, brother.  X-D


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 2, 2018)

I could be wrong but think the difference between myself and the mounting dogpile here is that I don't want to see my home country as a battlefield.  Weapons intended for the battlefield should stay there, IMHO.

My surprise that I would even need to argue that the rounds from an AR can cause horrific damage to humans doesn't motivate me to go further down this avenue, so I don't think I will.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 2, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> I could be wrong but think the difference between myself and the mounting dogpile here is that I don't want to see my home country as a battlefield



Which members exactly do you believe are looking to see America as a frontline?


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 2, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Which members exactly do you believe are looking to see America as a frontline?



Any one who believes that guns meant for the battlefield need to be used outside that environment for civilian purposes.  I should think this applies to the dogpile.  

My fault if that wasn't clear.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 2, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> Any one who believes that guns meant for the battlefield need to be used outside that environment for civilian purposes.  I should think this applies to the dogpile.
> 
> My fault if that wasn't clear.


I'm not dog piling....but just so I understand.  Are you saying that my using a .223 AR type rifle for target shooting and hunting small game means that I am in favor of a homeland battlefield?


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 2, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I'm not dog piling....but just so I understand.  Are you saying that my using a .223 AR type rifle for target shooting and hunting small game means that I am in favor of a homeland battlefield?



In favor of it?  I don't know that this was ever suggested.

Anyone who keeps a rifle meant for the battlefield when they're not in or going to one - I do question their perception of the environment they are in and why they would _need_ to have it.

Granted, the law is currently on the side of those who do believe they need one, even for purposes like hunting or targets, but I would think it likely that past and future bans on such guns included discussion about their necessity in our civilian environment.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 2, 2018)

So I guess we're here now....


----------



## CDG (Mar 2, 2018)

You don't need it, until you do.  Then it's too late.  Owning ARs is hardly unreasonable, and those who argue that they belong only on battlefields are practicing an astonishing level of ignorance.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 2, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> Any one who believes that guns meant for the battlefield need to be used outside that environment for civilian purposes.  I should think this applies to the dogpile.
> 
> My fault if that wasn't clear.



So, you'd advocate the banning of things like the M1911 pistol, which was developed specifically for the military?  I'm trying to clarify your position.


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 3, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> Anyone who keeps a rifle meant for the battlefield when they're not in or going to one - I do question their perception of the environment they are in and why they would _need_ to have



Considering my assigned m4 does semi and auto, I'm not sure if I would want my personal one, nor am I allowed anyway. 

Hunting wild boar in Florida worked really with my personal rifle. Just going to range every so often is nice. Don't get much military range time now that I'm a reservist and shooting similar enough to my assigned weapons is great. 

Me collecting guns and buying accessories for them is no different than spending money on a car.


----------



## CQB (Mar 3, 2018)

That’s a fairly reasoned outlook.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 3, 2018)

@DocIllinois How many lives do you think would be lost IF the government did impose a ban and attempt to confiscate? How many do you think would take up their now illegal weapons and fight to the death to keep them?

Edit: Wanted to ask @DocIllinois directly.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 3, 2018)

policemedic said:


> So, you'd advocate the banning of things like the M1911 pistol, which was developed specifically for the military?  I'm trying to clarify your position.



Yes.  

As an aside, I've always been in favor of the military returning to the use of .45 ACP for it's ability to create a large permanent wound channel, as well as it's extensive tissue penetration.  

I suppose it can be argued that these qualities are needed on a frequent enough basis for target shooting, home defense, or hunting with a pistol to warrant use by civilians, but again, that's not an avenue I think I'll be going down.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 3, 2018)

policemedic said:


> So, you'd advocate the banning of things like the M1911 pistol, which was developed specifically for the military?  I'm trying to clarify your position.



Just to interject, the assault weapons ban currently proposed by a Rhode Island Democrat includes semi-auto pistols with detachable magazines.

Both proposed AWBs floating around allow current owners to keep their firearms.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program...


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 3, 2018)

This is the BS reporting I cannot stand.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 3, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> Yes.
> 
> As an aside, I've always been in favor of the military returning to the use of .45 ACP for it's ability to create a large permanent wound channel, as well as it's extensive tissue penetration.
> 
> I suppose it can be argued that these qualities are needed on a frequent enough basis for target shooting, home defense, or hunting with a pistol to warrant use by civilians, but again, that's not an avenue I think I'll be going down.



Thank you for the honest answer.  Your comments about the caliber raise another question, though. 

Is your objection to the AR and 1911 based on your perception of their ballistics i.e. the caliber itself, or the military’s use of the platform?

That is to say, do you also think the Ruger Mini-14 and Glock 30 should be banned?


----------



## policemedic (Mar 3, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> Just to interject, the assault weapons ban currently proposed by a Rhode Island Democrat includes semi-auto pistols with detachable magazines.



Insanity, and unconstitutional.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 3, 2018)

To be clear, I am pro AR and will never support confiscation. However, I don't believe every NRA hat wearing, gun enthusiast who swears that the government will have to pry their guns from their cold dead fingers will actually live up to it. Some certainly will, but I think many are just blowhards.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 3, 2018)

Topkick said:


> To be clear, I am pro AR and will never support confiscation. However, I don't believe every NRA hat wearing, gun enthusiast who swears that the government will have to pry their guns from their cold dead fingers will actually live up to it. Some certainly will, but I think many are just blowhards.



Let's hope we are never taken to task...


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 3, 2018)

policemedic said:


> Thank you for the honest answer.  Your comments about the caliber raise another question, though.
> 
> Is your objection to the AR and 1911 based on your perception of their ballistics i.e. the caliber itself, or the military’s use of the platform?
> 
> That is to say, do you also think the Ruger Mini-14 and Glock 30 should be banned?



The military use aspect.

I realize that the .223 hasn't the same characteristics as the 5.56x45, for example, but why on earth would someone need a semi auto assault rifle platform to hunt?


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 3, 2018)

@DocIllinois please read this and this.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 3, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> The military use aspect.
> 
> I realize that the .223 hasn't the same characteristics as the 5.56x45, for example, but why on earth would someone need a semi auto assault rifle platform to hunt?



It seems to me you are making decisions based on aesthetics. Many (non-military) rifles are functionally identical to the AR-15 and fire the same round, but since your objection is military adoption and type classification rather than caliber, by your logic these rifles are OK. Ditto, an HK45 whose performance with the .45ACP is nearly identical to the 1911 (and can be configured so that the fire control systems are identical).

As to their utility for hunting, well...the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting. I’m sure you know that, and I won’t sway your opinion.


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 3, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> The military use aspect.
> 
> I realize that the .223 hasn't the same characteristics as the 5.56x45, for example, but why on earth would someone need a semi auto assault rifle platform to hunt?



You'd prefer full-auto to hunt?

Here's a random list of semi-auto rifles for hunting...
Five Recommended Semi-Automatic Rifles for Hunting Big Game


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 3, 2018)

Florida173 said:


> You'd prefer full-auto to hunt?



Hell yes!!!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 3, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> The military use aspect.
> 
> I realize that the .223 hasn't the same characteristics as the 5.56x45, for example, but why on earth would someone need a semi auto assault rifle platform to hunt?


There are better rounds in Civilian use right now than we're using in the Army.  A great one is the Berger 6.55 chambered in .264 WINMAG.  I chamber the same round in .260 REM and it's amazing.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 3, 2018)

So, um, I have a question @DocIllinois since you seem rather daft.

Would you rather I have 8 rounds of 30-06 through a *fought-in-a-war-and-won* M1 Garand purchased through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, or a variable magazine count of a round with significantly less ballistic energy through a rifle that is based off of, but isn't, a rifle used in combat?


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 3, 2018)

I am trying to find facts on how effective the Australian gun ban has been. While this video is dated I found it interesting.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 3, 2018)

This one was just funny.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 3, 2018)

policemedic said:


> It seems to me you are making decisions based on aesthetics. Many (non-military) rifles are functionally identical to the AR-15 and fire the same round, but since your objection is military adoption and type classification rather than caliber, by your logic these rifles are OK. Ditto, an HK45 whose performance with the .45ACP is nearly identical to the 1911 (and can be configured so that the fire control systems are identical).
> 
> As to their utility for hunting, well...the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting. I’m sure you know that, and I won’t sway your opinion.



I don't know that I'd agree with civilians possessing weapons that are identical to those for military use.  Perhaps this fleshes out what I mean by that a bit better.  

I realize that those platforms can be altered to make them something altogether different in terms of their damaging effects.  And to that I say - sounds great.  Folks who don't need to kill people effectively don't require guns that do, IMO.  Unless there really is a genuine need for such weapons to be available to civilians in the US, in which case I'm way off base here.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 3, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> I don't know that I'd agree with civilians possessing weapons that are identical to those for military use.  Perhaps this fleshes out what I mean by that a bit better.
> 
> I realize that those platforms can be altered to make them something altogether different in terms of their damaging effects.  And to that I say - sounds great.  Folks who don't need to kill people effectively don't require guns that do, IMO.  Unless there really is a genuine need for such weapons to be available to civilians in the US, in which case I'm way off base here.



Considering almost every firearm other than Fowling rifles was meant for war, this really doesn't make sense.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 3, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> The military use aspect.
> 
> I realize that the .223 hasn't the same characteristics as the 5.56x45, for example, but why on earth would someone need a semi auto assault rifle platform to hunt?




Well, when you go hog hunting--like my bros S/Sgt Seals and Captain Fitch, here--and you run into a whole herd of hogs, you can get more kills with high cap mags.



Not only that, but they are fun to shoot, as I am doing, below...





...and as my son is doing here...




You're a good man, Doc, hang in there.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 3, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> Well, when you go hog hunting--like my bros S/Sgt Seals and Captain Fitch, here--and you run into a whole herd of hogs, you can get more kills with high cap mags.
> 
> View attachment 21674
> 
> ...


They also help you not die in that situation.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 3, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> They also help you not die in that situation.




Yeah, you get a wounded 250 lb boar coming at you, you better hope you can keep pulling that trigger.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 3, 2018)

Topkick said:


> Good point. How about a military clause? If you serve in the military honorably, you can purchase a gun at 18?



I could go with that.

I find it bothersome as a grunt 19/20 years old I could drive an LAV and carry the M16A2 but could not drink (legally of course).
I think...I couldn't even rent a car until I was 25?.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 3, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> Well, when you go hog hunting--like my bros S/Sgt Seals and Captain Fitch, here--and you run into a whole herd of hogs, you can get more kills with high cap mags.
> 
> View attachment 21674
> 
> ...



Much appreciated.

For a debate that needed to be many against one and was destined to go nowhere at all, it was some good fun.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 3, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> Much appreciated.
> 
> For a debate that needed to be many against one and was destined to go nowhere at all, it was some good fun.




Shadowspear is a great place for respectful, friendly debate.


----------



## digrar (Mar 3, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> I am trying to find facts on how effective the Australian gun ban has been. While this video is dated I found it interesting.



Armed roberies in 97, may have risen, but only 24% were carried out with firearms, 0.7% of assaults were carried out with firearms, only 23% of murders and 28% of attempted murders were carried out with firearms and there were no stats for home invasions, but for burglery, most tea leafs are little indiginous kids and local drug addicts who don't enter houses that are occupied, so they don't care if the home owner is armed or not.

 The nice tight shot of a couple of houses with fences probably indicates that the rest of the street had the normal low brick wall/picket fence/border garden/etc that you see around the place, due to the general lack of crime... 

The ban hasn't been effective, because there wasn't a problem in the first place. Very little gun crime occured in the first place, and even less of that happened with registered firearms. The law abiding handed them in and then went and bought new firearms that they could legally own on their existing licences with their generous compensation pay outs. We rapidly got to the point where we had more registered firearms in the country than we had in early 1996 before the ban.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 4, 2018)

I have my semiautomatic rifle. It's a mean scary black rifle, same thing that some good units have used to good effect making canoes out of skulls in the defense of our nation. It's box mag fed. It'll kill anything on this continent with reasonable shot placement and run-of-the-mill bullet construction. It'll kill anything on the planet with specific shot placement and bullet construction considerations included in the decision.

_*That's why I have it.*_

I can go straight from plinking at the range, to a 3 gun competition, to hunting, and still be good back home if a tweaker decides to come through the door uninvited. It's simple and fun enough that my daughter can shoot it with instruction at 6 years old, and my 70 year old mother can happily embarrass her brother in the marksmanship department with it.

Worst case, I can fulfill my duties and responsibilities inherent to the very section of Title 10 US Code that references a very specific portion within the 2nd Amendment.  Anyone that doesn't know what I'm talking about should take a gander at Title 10.

The whole basis for liberty does not include the relinquishment of responsibility. Every police officer here will admit that there is an unavoidable delay between when you call for help and when help gets there. Why wouldn't I want to be able to buffer that timeframe with the same grade of equipment that they will bring? 

Anyone who thinks that banning firearms is a viable, functional, coherent and competent concept towards prevention of any events in the past 20 years is deluding themselves.

We have track records showing specifically how the government that everyone anti-gun wants to empower as the sole source provider of threat/use of lethal force flat fucking falls on their face when put to task with using that power to protect the people. 

The same government entities that you want to have that monopoly on lethal force, are the same exact entities that up until the television cameras panned right onto the next crisis not to waste, that nationwide protests and investigations were focused on. What happened to all that outcry? Why isn't there even more now, when we have solid data that from reporting a threat to reporting an ongoing incident, they failed to respond in ANY manner honestly effective?

Joe shitbird the school shooter shouldn't have been able to get a firearm. He shouldn't have been able to get a drink of fucking water without having to be hand held while doing the thorazine shuffle, yet he was. Why? Because the GOVERNMENT didn't do their job.

Functionally, gun grabbers are wanting all medicines to be prescription only, and the only place you can go to try to get help is from the VA Doctor in town that's had more malpractice suits than cases with effective treatment.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 4, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> I don't know that I'd agree with civilians possessing weapons that are identical to those for military use.  Perhaps this fleshes out what I mean by that a bit better.
> 
> I realize that those platforms can be altered to make them something altogether different in terms of their damaging effects.  And to that I say - sounds great.  Folks who don't need to kill people effectively don't require guns that do, IMO.  Unless there really is a genuine need for such weapons to be available to civilians in the US, in which case I'm way off base here.



I’m not sure I was clear in my earlier post.  When I said functionally identical (semi-automatic, .223 Remington or 5.56 NATO, magazine fed, 16” barrel) I wasn’t speaking of civilian AR-15s.  I was referring to things like the Ruger Mini-14, which has never been used by a military force that I’m aware of.  Does that change your opinion on whether it should be available to the public?

You’re incorrect when you say the M4/M16/AR-15 platform can be modified to change its damaging effects.  A .223 round fired from any 14” or 16” or 20” barrel is going to produce the same terminal ballistics regardless of whether the rifle has an NSN assigned or has a polished walnut stock.

You speak of need, which makes me wonder about how you define rights.  Rights are inalienable and exist independent of need.  Rights needn’t be justified.  This is especially true in the context of the Second Amendment, which recognizes our right to self-defense against criminals as well as our duty to defend the country against foreign invasion and internal tyranny.

To suggest the 1911 should be banned because of its military heritage but a Glock 30 or HK45 Compact should not (all of which fire the same round) goes beyond logic and exceeds what even most ardent gun control groups advocate for.  These are low-capacity guns, after all, not high capacity ‘military designed battlefield pistols’ like the Glock 17/19.  Of course, you may believe these guns should also be banned and that’s your right.  However, the SCOTUS disagrees with that view.

They have held that the interest is in prohibiting unusual and dangerous arms.  A handgun design in use for more than 100 years is neither.  The civilian AR-15 is an incredibly popular design; it is not unusual or uncommon and the design is no more dangerous than other rifles firing the same cartridge.

I’m not trying to dogpile, because I am interested in why you think the way you do despite (because?) being on the opposite end of the spectrum on this topic.  However, @Ranger Psych is right—the police are not there to protect you and it isn’t even our job.  Self-protection is your own responsibility, and every (law abiding, mentally stable) citizen deserves an efficient means of doing that.


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 4, 2018)

@Ranger Psych , good post. Which part of Title 10 USC were you referring to, specifically?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 4, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> @Ranger Psych , good post. Which part of Title 10 USC were you referring to, specifically?



*10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes*
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

While it's an absolute oh-shit scenario...  it's still law.  When you further look at when the amendments were written, private citizens had repeating rifles (while not as good as we have it today), flat out warships, field artillery, and private armies.

The latter still holds true, as basically everyone of note and high net worth has a security contingent even if they are not in public office.

Don't like me shooting where it's legal to do so (ignoring that said Jane D. Citizen moved there well after the range was made) then let me throw a can on my rifle without overbearing requirements on par with owning a gordamn beltfed party pewer.

Don't like people shooting up places? Attack the people doing the shooting.  My rifle has, and will not, commit crime. Neither have thousands of other people with similar rifles. The statistics show, and including ALL rifles, that the amount of crime committed (either assault or homicide) with rifles is barely a drop in the bucket versus pretty much any other method. Handguns dwarf them, yet people seem to want to allow the weapon that actually requires the most training, is the least accurate, and is most used in crime.... versus the evil black wargun and it's friends that our nation sends off as the best/most economical tool of force application when diplomacy fails.

I want mine because I know diplomacy fails. Some people are just that stupid, that they think they are not beholden to the social constructs we have collectively built over the years. They've been out there since day 1 of this nation and they aren't going away. 

Some of them, like a good portion of the high profile incident perpetrators recently, had people going "something is wrong with this guy". I know that Boy Scouts doesn't teach Sephamore much and/or at all anymore, but exactly what do we need to do to build the tower so the waving red flags can be seen by those that can do something about it?

I mean, my mom worked 12-14 hour shifts and my dad was a mean fucking drunk. I was bullied all the way up until my junior year in HS (at which point my size plus fuck-it switch had become flipped and I went offensive with fists like a fucking badger as soon as someone squared up and cocked back). I was flat out assaulted repeatedly as well up until that same timeframe. I had free, easy access to firearms then, as I do now.  How come I didn't shoot up the school? 

Zero tolerance environments don't equate zero defects. Back then, administrations made investigations with teachers and other students as witnesses to the event and would act accordingly... even in California where I grew up. Back then, they still did some level of instilling personal responsibility for your own safety. Get out of the area, get somewhere public, get some attention to try to get intervention... and if that didn't work, get down to business because it's your ass on the line till someone steps in.

The same applies with being an adult. I have been in non-military situations where even with all of my best efforts with regards to personal safety, having a weapon on my person and competently leveraging it when my civilian ROE (written out in law as per use of force, justifiable defense for use of force, etc) was exceeded and I was cleared hot to draw down and drop the douches. Thankfully, drawing down was all that was necessary. @medicchick also had a couple instances when I was working shift work and her carrying most likely kept her alive/intact/unsullied, as in one case the guy she drew down on who then retreated,  was picked up by Alaska Troopers as a parole violating rapist.  This was in the middle of town, just having gotten done with grocery shopping. Thankfully she had been heeding some of the thought matrixes and methods I had instilled into her, and my wedding present to her was the big fucking barrel that got aimed at his brain housing group, causing him to rethink his life choices (or choice to retain life, really) at that instant.

That's the other thing. There's also no good tracking on UOF from victims that doesn't result in a shot fired. I know my instances aren't outliers, as friends I have talked to have had similar instances where carrying saved their ass but they came home with all the ammo they left with. Concealed Nation on Facebook has pretty much daily "one time on the news and then fades" self defense uses, as do other groups. These are all referenced published by verified news sources and police releases, yet they get no attention nor weight in the discussion, it seems.

Disdain for the .223/5.56 also doesn't take into account that it's been shown to actually be safer for the public at large when it comes to home defense, as it doesn't have the common building construction penetration and lethality once through 2 exterior walls, as a shotgun, carbine in pistol caliber, or pistol. 

Ignorance of the realities while cranking the television amplifier to 11 with a solid power chord strummed on the heartstrings does not, should not, and if I have any say, will not have any effect on my individual enumerated rights and privileges as a citizen in good standing.

If someone's showing red flags, they need to get checked out. There's a 72hr psych hold to confirm/deny hazard to self or others. Following that, due diligence and proper paperwork on the DA's part can have someone's ability to keep/bear restricted.  It's already in the books. Someone who shouldn't have a gun due to prior legal precedent shouldn't be able to purchase a gun, and shouldn't have any from prior to conviction. This is already in the books.

Sad to say, both of these cases, as well as straw purchases and lying on the 4473 are rarely prosecuted by the powers we put in place to enforce these laws and uphold the at-large public safety. *Why is that?  *


----------



## Gunz (Mar 4, 2018)

Marine0311 said:


> I could go with that.
> 
> I find it bothersome as a grunt 19/20 years old I could drive an LAV and carry the M16A2 but could not drink (legally of course).
> I think...I couldn't even rent a car until I was 25?.



admitting to having drunk illegally? 😱😜🍺


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 4, 2018)

Ranger Psych said:


> *10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b)The classes of the militia are—
> (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> ...



Can I copy and paste these last 2 or 3 posts into my notepad file for future use?


Ocoka said:


> admitting to having drunk illegally? 😱😜🍺



I admit nothing.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 4, 2018)

Ranger Psych said:


> *10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b)The classes of the militia are—
> (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> ...




Legendary post.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 4, 2018)

policemedic said:


> I’m not sure I was clear in my earlier post.  When I said functionally identical (semi-automatic, .223 Remington or 5.56 NATO, magazine fed, 16” barrel) I wasn’t speaking of civilian AR-15s.  I was referring to things like the Ruger Mini-14, which has never been used by a military force that I’m aware of.  Does that change your opinion on whether it should be available to the public?
> 
> You’re incorrect when you say the M4/M16/AR-15 platform can be modified to change its damaging effects.  A .223 round fired from any 14” or 16” or 20” barrel is going to produce the same terminal ballistics regardless of whether the rifle has an NSN assigned or has a polished walnut stock.
> 
> ...



AR57 uppers or 9mm are no longer a thing?  I honestly didn't know, I appreciate that.  

I do recognize the continued efforts here, brother. I should hope we both realize, though, that this will be a back and forth about why civilians require beyond a certain level of lethality in any of their their guns for the purposes for which they're used, with a response(s) about how that doesn't matter because the citizenry is allowed to own whatever we choose within the current law but anyway here are the practical reasons, _ad nauseum._

Being a reader in this thread is the way for me to go at this point, I think.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 5, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> AR57 uppers or 9mm are no longer a thing?  I honestly didn't know, I appreciate that.
> 
> I do recognize the continued efforts here, brother. I should hope we both realize, though, that this will be a back and forth about why civilians require beyond a certain level of lethality in any of their their guns for the purposes for which they're used, with a response(s) about how that doesn't matter because the citizenry is allowed to own whatever we choose within the current law but anyway here are the practical reasons, _ad nauseum._
> 
> Being a reader in this thread is the way for me to go at this point, I think.



Putting a 9mm or 5.7 upper on a rifle doesn't modify the rifle to increase it's capacity to injure/kill. It does the inverse.

You can modify any rifle. Wildcat rounds and custom rifles are, and have been a thing since the first rifle was thought up. The whole point of Weatherby was custom. Just so happens that the AR-15 happens to generally take 2 pins pulled and you can change out stuff. It's actually only one screw to pull out the entire action on a 700 mag, and then you can do whatever the hell you want. Want a new caliber? New barrel and bolt.



Marine0311 said:


> Can I copy and paste these last 2 or 3 posts into my notepad file for future use?.



Have at it. 

Did you know you're more likely to get struck down by Thor than you are to be shot by an assault rifle? 

Check out UCR statistics for rifles, weight for 1/3 of rifle stats falling under "assault rifle" definitions as per the made up shit Cali uses, then check out NOAA lightning stats.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 5, 2018)

Ranger Psych said:


> Did you know you're more likely to get struck down by Thor than you are to be shot by an assault rifle?
> 
> Check out UCR statistics for rifles, weight for 1/3 of rifle stats falling under "assault rifle" definitions as per the made up shit Cali uses, then check out NOAA lightning stats.



Truth doesn’t matter.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 5, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> AR57 uppers or 9mm are no longer a thing?  I honestly didn't know, I appreciate that.
> 
> I do recognize the continued efforts here, brother. I should hope we both realize, though, that this will be a back and forth about why civilians require beyond a certain level of lethality in any of their their guns for the purposes for which they're used, with a response(s) about how that doesn't matter because the citizenry is allowed to own whatever we choose within the current law but anyway here are the practical reasons, _ad nauseum._
> 
> Being a reader in this thread is the way for me to go at this point, I think.



Oh, you can get an AR-15 in different calibers. Some of them are more effective than 5.56 NATO. But that wasn’t my point.

It’s also important to state that even though a 9mm AR is less potent than a 5.56, it is much easier to shoot accurately and quickly than a pistol, so its utility for killing is increased.   Therefore I’m not sure it meets your definition of modified to be less effective at killing.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 5, 2018)

policemedic said:


> Truth doesn’t matter.



That's the sad part of this entire discussion. The lack of application of reality, and actual steps that would increase survivability in the inevitable bypass of humanity's best efforts in prevention of evil. Instead, let us all place our testicles upon the block and accept the chop in the name of the children.


----------



## DC (Mar 5, 2018)

Ted Nugent jus gave out Micheal Moores phone number
1-800-NUMBNUT


----------



## DC (Mar 5, 2018)

Just traded my Armalite AR-10T for a loaded SA M1A...scary for not scary


----------



## Topkick (Mar 5, 2018)

DC said:


> Just traded my Armalite AR-10T for a loaded SA M1A...scary for not scary


Sounds like a win. I want an M1A.


----------



## DC (Mar 5, 2018)

Topkick said:


> Sounds like a win. I want an M1A.


I had a standard 22 in. Barrel and a SOCOM 16. I loved the standard. The SOCOM was a clump.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 6, 2018)

Meh, I'll keep my SCAR. Does the job without weighing as much as my SAW used to.


----------



## Bypass (Mar 6, 2018)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I have know Dicks since it had one store on Upper Court St in an Upstate NY town. Perhaps it is the roots of that strongly Democratic color bleeding through.
> 
> On the larger scale, since the Parkland, Fl shootings, the AR-15/M-16, along with the NRA, are turning into a political “third rail”. It makes one wonder if throwing the left their ever targeted assult rifle bone, and being done with it.
> 
> ...


The left has already proposed a bill to ban all semi automatic firearms including our glocks.

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 6, 2018)




----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 6, 2018)

I suppose I need to purchase some single shot pistols as of now...caliber .50 type.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 6, 2018)

Stock up now. Just purchased a boat loat of mags and 4 more lowers. Had them shipped home.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 6, 2018)

And that happened...Conservative Mother Writes Op-Ed For NYT Explaining Why She Bought A Gun. Then Leftist Shannon Watts Tweets The Worst Thing EVER.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 6, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> Stock up now. Just purchased a boat loat of mags and 4 more lowers. Had them shipped home.



Trump won’t sign it, if it even makes it to his desk.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 6, 2018)

policemedic said:


> Trump won’t sign it, if it even makes it to his desk.



This is a show. It's not going to happen as Trump's reelection and the house and Senate are at stake. They need the NRA backing.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 6, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> And that happened...Conservative Mother Writes Op-Ed For NYT Explaining Why She Bought A Gun. Then Leftist Shannon Watts Tweets The Worst Thing EVER.



I find it hilarious that Watts mentioned the CDC and following data, but cherry picks unsubstantiated arguments in her _ad hominem_ attacks...


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 6, 2018)

If he signs a bill or not it’s an excuse to buy shit.


----------



## SaintKP (Mar 6, 2018)

And so it begins...

20-year-old sues Dick’s, Walmart over new age-restrictions on rifles

As a private business doesn't Dicks and Walmart both have the legal right to decide who they want to sell to? Where I work, we have the option to ban someone from using our services if we feel they are being disruptive or not adhering to our standards (distracting to other customers, overly obnoxious, break a law, violent, etc.) Oregon law is that you can buy a rifle at 18, so can these stores still limit who they sell to? Or would they have to make a state wide concession to match the law? 

As a side note I think the request for punitive damages is a little ridiculous and quite frankly I hope he recieves none.


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 6, 2018)

Topkick said:


> This is a show. It's not going to happen as Trump's reelection and the house and Senate are at stake. They need the NRA backing.



How much does the NRA contribute, and where does that compare to other contributors?


----------



## policemedic (Mar 6, 2018)

SaintKP said:


> And so it begins...
> 
> 20-year-old sues Dick’s, Walmart over new age-restrictions on rifles
> 
> ...



If your state has a law forbidding discrimination for age in public accommodations then no, Dick’s can’t arbitrarily refuse to sell to anyone under 21.  PA has a law banning age discrimination.


----------



## SaintKP (Mar 6, 2018)

policemedic said:


> If your state has a law forbidding discrimination for age in public accommodations then no, Dick’s can’t arbitrarily refuse to sell to anyone under 21.  PA has a law banning age discrimination.



Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up for me.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 6, 2018)

Florida173 said:


> How much does the NRA contribute, and where does that compare to other contributors?



Its a lot of money but its not only how much the NRA contributes directly to Republican candidates, its also how many votes and donations coming from the NRA members and Pro- gun, Republican citizens. This population will not be happy if Trump signs it. Here is an older article about it.

Records show NRA's top political earners

ETA: Found an updated list here These are the members of Congress with the most NRA donations


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 6, 2018)

SaintKP said:


> And so it begins...
> 
> 20-year-old sues Dick’s, Walmart over new age-restrictions on rifles
> 
> ...


You see this all started because of that bakery...


----------



## AWP (Mar 6, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> You see this all started because of that bakery...



People rarely consider second and third order effects, especially when their emotions are involved.


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 6, 2018)

AWP said:


> People rarely consider second and third order effects, especially when their emotions are involved.





ThunderHorse said:


> You see this all started because of that bakery...



There’s a snarky joke in here somewhere, I’m sure of it. Something about private businesses denying service to Americans... 

Nah, lost it.


----------



## nobodythank you (Mar 7, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> There’s a snarky joke in here somewhere, I’m sure of it. Something about private businesses denying service to Americans...
> 
> Nah, lost it.


This is where it gets tricky for me. On the one hand, I can see the bakers having the right to refuse on religious grounds. On the other hand, when you look deeper into it, you have to ask, if it is ok to discriminate based on religion, why isn't it ok to discriminate on race? Where is the line and who decides what is ok and isn't? Does it have to be an all or one proposition, or can there be a middle ground? Why should a business be allowed to discriminate at all?

Personally, I am not a fan of racial discrimination, but then again, I am not a fan of religion and how it plays a role in society (tax free religion, "morality" based legislation, etc...). Obviously there is no easy or simple answer. Things that make you go hmmm....

/end threadjack


----------



## BravoMachine (Mar 7, 2018)

ke4gde said:


> This is where it gets tricky for me. On the one hand, I can see the bakers having the right to refuse on religious grounds. On the other hand, when you look deeper into it, you have to ask, if it is ok to discriminate based on religion, why isn't it ok to discriminate on race? Where is the line and who decides what is ok and isn't? Does it have to be an all or one proposition, or can there be a middle ground? Why should a business be allowed to discriminate at all?
> 
> Personally, I am not a fan of racial discrimination, but then again, I am not a fan of religion and how it plays a role in society (tax free religion, "morality" based legislation, etc...). Obviously there is no easy or simple answer. Things that make you go hmmm....
> 
> /end threadjack


The issue for many people is that if you do not allow private businesses to discriminate, you are forcing them to labor against their will. I've not seen many people who wish to be discriminatory, only people who believe involuntary servitude is wrong even for the best of reasons. You bring up a good point ('why is one okay but not the other?') On a logical basis, the principle behind anti-discrimination law is not applied broadly. The legislature stepped in regarding race because it was an issue large enough to garner support. This was a specific application of law and disregards any parallels. You could say this is finding middle ground, because it is inconsistent with other criteria where discrimination IS allowed. People who disagree with prohibiting religious discrimination most likely believe that a business's discrimination may be detestable, but the use of the legal system to punish those who do so is a subversion of the 13th amendment which bars involuntary servitude. Discriminating against customers for racial reasons is obviously reprehensible, but you won't find many people openly drawing an unbroken line in policy. What you will find is a lot of middle ground.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 7, 2018)

So, I am looking forward to the African American 20 year old female to sue for age, race and gender discrimination when she is refused her gun purchase.  I will bring the snacks.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 7, 2018)




----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 7, 2018)

Interesting. Suprised CNN reported on this.
In this American town, guns are required by law - CNN


----------



## Bypass (Mar 7, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> Interesting.
> In this American town, guns are required by law - CNN


Yep, gotta love Georgia.


----------



## Etype (Mar 7, 2018)

Concise, efficient monologue. There's nothing I could say about this that the speaker doesn't effectively convey, himself.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 7, 2018)

You wanna know why you can't have rational discussions with anti-gun people?

Connecticut governor: NRA acts like a ‘terrorist organization’


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 8, 2018)

There is a rumor floating around that AAFES as pulled all magazines over 10 rounds.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 8, 2018)




----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 8, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> There is a rumor floating around that AAFES as pulled all magazines over 10 rounds.


Saw that on ArmyWTF


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 8, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> Saw that on ArmyWTF



Went on the website and nothing over ten rounds available. Haven't checked NEX.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 8, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> Went on the website and nothing over ten rounds available. Haven't checked NEX.



Slowly shaking my head.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 8, 2018)

Would that decision have come from the DoD or the Exchange itself?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 8, 2018)

crap!


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 8, 2018)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Oh crap! Just to go on record here, I do not have half a dozen 30 shot 5.56 mags. I gave them to my Huskey as a play toy a long time ago.



Edit: I see what you did there!

I don't have any either... I think they should be banned!!


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 8, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> Brownells has Magpul on sale.



Many places have Magpuls on sale currently.  I saw on another forum a thread about panic buying, I'm like, "where??"  Nowhere I have seen.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 8, 2018)

Here's what's in the Florida gun bill - CNNPolitics

I thought this was a good fit for this thread and not the school shootings one. If the Mods disagree please move.

I am ok with some of this but the age portion really pisses me off a bit.

I thought Florida had a five day waiting period already in place.

- Mod Edit -
“Like” is for the thread placement and not the article itself.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 8, 2018)

Cool Stunt...


	
	






__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1007910832680117


----------



## Topkick (Mar 8, 2018)

Cool, Its an SBR now


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 8, 2018)

She just made an unregistered SBR!! Dumb fuck


----------



## Etype (Mar 8, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> Cool Stunt...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The BATFE needs to arrest her for illegally modifying a firearm.

ETA- You guys beat me to it.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 8, 2018)

I have a buddy that works in the NFA department. I’ll have to send him the video.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 8, 2018)

Read the comments, looks like folks beat me to it...
Friends of Karen Mallard


----------



## AWP (Mar 8, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> I thought Florida had a five day waiting period already in place.



For handguns. No waiting period for rifles or lower receivers.


----------



## DC (Mar 8, 2018)

Nice ear/eye pro. That’s a steel grinding wheel. Too bad the plastic didn’t load it up and cause a catastrophic fragmentation. She would then ban grinders🤪


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 8, 2018)

AWP said:


> For handguns. No waiting period for rifles or lower receivers.



Is that "no matter what?".  In Minnesota there is a waiting period, but those of us with a Carry Permit have no waiting period for 5 years.  Folks can also get a "Permit to Purchase" from the local sheriff which is good for 1 year.  Many MN  gun stores will not even sell to a person without one of those two permits.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 8, 2018)

DC said:


> Here in Ca. It’s 10 days for everything.



Wow.  I bitch about this state from time to time....but our gun and carry laws are actually pretty solid in compression to other states.


----------



## DC (Mar 8, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Wow.  I bitch about this state from time to time....but our gun and carry laws are actually pretty solid in compression to other states.


Oh and soon there will be a background check for ammo here along with making it a illegal to buy ammo out of state and bring it in.  This state needs a turnover.


----------



## AWP (Mar 8, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Is that "no matter what?".  In Minnesota there is a waiting period, but those of us with a Carry Permit have no waiting period for 5 years.  Folks can also get a "Permit to Purchase" from the local sheriff which is good for 1 year.  Many MN  gun stores will not even sell to a person without one of those two permits.



CCW holders can walk out same day.


----------



## DC (Mar 8, 2018)

Ca. Retired PD have to wait and CCW holders. This is why any talk of more gun control is a reflection of a rogue state (Ca) tearing up the constitution one word at a time.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 8, 2018)

No waiting period in PA, nor should there be.

I'd actually like to dig into the stats to see if I can find out how many times a previously law abiding citizen went out and bought a gun from an FFL and then immediately murdered someone with it.  I don't know the answer but I'm willing to bet the number isn't significant at all.


----------



## medicchick (Mar 9, 2018)

In Nevada the only waiting period is the hour or so it takes to get the OK from the state people on the phone.  I've actually left and gotten lunch before while waiting.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 9, 2018)

AWP said:


> For handguns. No waiting period for rifles or lower receivers.



Funny, I sent my father in law an AR lower for his birthday and he had to wait five days to pick it up.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 9, 2018)

DC said:


> Nice ear/eye pro. That’s a steel grinding wheel. Too bad the plastic didn’t load it up and cause a catastrophic fragmentation. She would then ban grinders🤪


LMAO I was thinking the same.  I was rooting for the grinder when I first saw this clip.


----------



## AWP (Mar 9, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> Funny, I sent my father in law an AR lower for his birthday and he had to wait five days to pick it up.



If it was a transfer to an FFL, that may be different. Walking into a store and buying one in person, no problem. Walk in, walk out.


----------



## Isiah6:8 (Mar 9, 2018)

AWP said:


> If it was a transfer to an FFL, that may be different. Walking into a store and buying one in person, no problem. Walk in, walk out.



Man that would be nice.  72 hours for a handgun, 24 for rifle/shotgun in IL.  Makes shooting and acquiring new guns bit of a pain here given we live in the city.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 9, 2018)




----------



## 757 (Mar 9, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> Cool Stunt...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ATF investigating after congressional candidate cut apart AR-15

Why is this person running for office in my neck of the woods...


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 9, 2018)

I'll just put this here to lighten the mood.





The hand gun numbers far outweigh the rifle numbers.
Table 12


----------



## SaintKP (Mar 9, 2018)

Devildoc said:


>



That's it, I figured it out. It's not about the age but whether someone looks batshit crazy or not!


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 9, 2018)

SaintKP said:


> That's it, I figured it out. It's not about the age but whether someone looks batshit crazy or not!



It's all in the eyes.  We've _all_ seen women with those crazy eyes...now we see men, too....


----------



## SaintKP (Mar 9, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> It's all in the eyes.  We've _all_ seen women with those crazy eyes...now we see men, too....



I have a story about learning this lesson with an ex with a lighter and a chef's knife. But that's for another time.  It's suffice to say she's an ex for a reason.


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 9, 2018)

More like, the first time a young man ignores the first warning.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 9, 2018)

Florida Governor Signs Package Of New Gun Restrictions

*Florida Governor Signs Package Of New Gun Restrictions*



> Florida Gov. Rick Scott has signed legislation tightening gun restrictions in the state. Among other things, the legislation raises the legal age for gun purchases to 21, institutes a waiting period of three days, and allows for the arming of school personnel who are not full-time teachers.
> 
> In a statement, Scott's office highlights mental health provisions in the bill:
> 
> ...


----------



## ShadowSpear (Mar 9, 2018)




----------



## CQB (Mar 9, 2018)

Chopstick said:


> Florida Governor Signs Package Of New Gun Restrictions
> 
> *Florida Governor Signs Package Of New Gun Restrictions*


Looks like s sensible package which didn’t get shredded before it became an Act.


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 9, 2018)

Crazy chicks...great for awesome sex....not good for long term relationships....


----------



## DC (Mar 10, 2018)

Kraut783 said:


> Crazy chicks...great for awesome sex....not good for long term relationships....


Strippers either🙃


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 10, 2018)

CQB said:


> Looks like s sensible package which didn’t get shredded before it became an Act.


The NRA promptly filed suit over age discrimination.


----------



## Bypass (Mar 10, 2018)

Devildoc said:


>



I'm not gonna say it but can anyone else tell me what all these assholes have in common?


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 10, 2018)

Bypass said:


> I'm not gonna say it but can anyone else tell me what all these assholes have in common?


They’re all from a country *not* on the immigration ban list?


----------



## policemedic (Mar 10, 2018)

Chopstick said:


> The NRA promptly filed suit over age discrimination.



I’m not sure they’ll win that one.  If everyone statewide is treated the same because of a state law, there is no discrimination. 

PA is a better battleground for that, as we have an age discrimination law and some retailers who raised the age to 21 in the absence of a state law like Florida just passed.


----------



## Bypass (Mar 10, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> They’re all from a country *not* on the immigration ban list?


LOL, you got me there.


----------



## CQB (Mar 10, 2018)

Chopstick said:


> The NRA promptly filed suit over age discrimination.


Well of course it did. I’m a little surprised they didn’t want to roll back the teacher training initiative.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 10, 2018)

CQB said:


> Well of course they did.



Should they not have filed suit? If 18 is the age to go off and die for your country why can you not buy a long gun? Why not any gun for that matter? Why can't an 18 year old drink? Florida and the company's that took it upon themselves to raise the age to buy a gun just chastised an age group because one douch nozzle ( don't ban me @Ooh-Rah ) that the FBI and local law enforcement let fall through the cracks did something that should have never happened.

I understand @CQB that your country has no constitutional right for its citizens to bear arms but we do and the NRA, with all its flaws is a champion for that right. The NRA is doing the right thing and I am glad that they are.

Erode the 2A what's next? As I have stated before the 2A gives teeth to our founding document and with out it "we the people" have no true power.

*Edited for lack of proper use of an emoji.


----------



## CQB (Mar 10, 2018)

Fair enough, I’ve noted the differences between our two countries above. On the arming of teachers question, I thought the measures were well thought out & personally I thought they’d not get up, thinking the NRA would water them down. The mental health aspect also remains, which is a good measure. It’s a bit toothless to quibble over age.
ETA: over here the tide has gone out on the gun debate & the Florida changes haven’t been reported. Funny thing that.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 10, 2018)

@CQB I liken it to drunk drivers. No one is screaming for a ban on cars because of drunk drivers. More people in the U.S. die from tobacco products than guns, yet no one is taking a stand against big tobacco like they are against guns. In my opinion it's the lefts side of the county's ruling class to disarm us to impose their ideas and will upon us.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 10, 2018)

I have yet to find anyone, such as an elected official to explain to me why there are age differences for certain things. The answer of "it's the law" isn't enough. Explain to me the history, the why, the rational behind it.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 10, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> Why can't an 18 year old drink? Florida and the company's that took it upon themselves to raise the age to buy a gun just chastised an age group because one douch nozzle ( don't ban me @Ooh-Rah )



Just to be clear, Mods are not able to personally ban anyone from the forum...from threads, yes.

Here's the deal, the Admins have bigger fish to fry than monitor threads and conversations all day.  @x SF med and @Red Flag 1 are seasoned mods and have done their time.  @CDG and @Marauder06 are both in roles that do not give them the freedom to be on the board at all times.  I happen to be in a job where I am pretty much sitting in front of my computer at all hours...so if I have to come across as "the heel" from time-to-time I'm okay with that.  

I'm damn proud to be part of this current staff and can assure you that all member decisions are made as a staff; not by one single individual.  

I don't want to derail this thread; so let's just leave this at that.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 10, 2018)

Marine0311 said:


> I have yet to find anyone, such as an elected official to explain to me why there are age differences for certain things. The answer of "it's the law" isn't enough. Explain to me the history, the why, the rational behind it.



You will never get a logical rational my friend. It, in my opinion is a means of control.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 10, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Just to be clear, Mods are not able to personally ban anyone from the forum...from threads, yes.
> 
> Here's the deal, the Admins have bigger fish to fry than monitor threads and conversations all day.  @x SF med and @Red Flag 1 are seasoned mods and have done their time.  @CDG and @Marauder06 are both in roles that do not give them the freedom to be on the board at all times.  I happen to be in a job where I am pretty much sitting in front of my computer at all hours...so if I have to come across as "the heel" from time-to-time I'm okay with that.
> 
> ...



Dude it was a freaking joke. Lighten up...


----------



## CQB (Mar 10, 2018)

@Downtown, the disarmament debate is for me a furphy. But the left does have a bit to answer for and it’s s bit of a grind to get the message across. (BTW I’ve voted Labor (Dem.) all my life).


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 10, 2018)

CQB said:


> @Downtown, the disarmament debate is for me a furphy. But the left does have a bit to answer for and it’s s bit of a grind to get the message across. (BTW I’ve voted Labor (Dem.) all my life).



I sent you a PM. 

I dig your input as the left uses your countries model as an example of what we should do. There are flaws in both policies.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 10, 2018)

My stance is why should the many be punished for the actions if the few?


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 10, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> My stance is why should the many be punished for the actions if the few?


 

Control

The actions of the few outweigh the needs of the many


----------



## CQB (Mar 10, 2018)

I take it economics isn’t your strong suit.  😎


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 10, 2018)

CQB said:


> I take it economics isn’t your strong suit? 😎



I admit it is not. I was being silly with the quote and revesring the original.

To be serious it is always the actions of the few who dictate the polices and laws that control the many who are doing the right thing.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 10, 2018)

Marine0311 said:


> I


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 10, 2018)

@Red Flag 1 perfect example. You have a group of people that we have elected to represent us that now see themselves as above us trying to impose their will upon us. Those in Washington consider themselves as their own class, the "political class" and they know what's best for us. This is tyranny.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 10, 2018)

Term limits for congress NOW!


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 10, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> Gosh, no - take ARs off the market, I say.
> 
> I applaud any business that can maneuver to maintain a revenue source in such a circumstance, unless it can be argued that continuing to sell product at a subsidiary store is genuinely deceptive advertising.
> 
> I would doubt this to be the case here, though, as Field and Stream no longer sell assault type rifles at any of their stores as of last month.



Where do your views about the AR come from?
Can you be persuaded to change your views?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 10, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> Dude it was a freaking joke. Lighten up...


Your response of "lighten up" is a dick comment.  I have  zero online relationship with you and have no way of guessing whether or not you are making an attempt at humor. Truth be told, I don't care if it was a joke or not.  

At the end of the day I took your comment seriously and responded in kind.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 10, 2018)

CQB said:


> Well of course it did. I’m a little surprised they didn’t want to roll back the teacher training initiative.


Im a little confused.  What do you mean?  As far as I understand it, the NRA support arming teachers.


----------



## CQB (Mar 10, 2018)

Yes they do, but it’s not wholesale, the checks & balances for a teacher to carry IMO are quite sound within in the Act.


----------



## CQB (Mar 10, 2018)

Marine0311 said:


> I admit it is not. I was being silly with the quote and revesring the original.
> 
> To be serious it is always the actions of the few who dictate the polices and laws that control the many who are doing the right thing.


There’s always losers economically, the trick is to limit that & act for the greater good. My dry comment was Aussie humour. All good.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 10, 2018)

CQB said:


> Yes they do, but it’s not wholesale, the checks & balances for a teacher to carry IMO are quite sound within in the Act.


Aaaah I got you now.  Thanks!


----------



## DC (Mar 10, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> @CQB I liken it to drunk drivers. No one is screaming for a ban on cars because of drunk drivers. More people in the U.S. die from tobacco products than guns, yet no one is taking a stand against big tobacco like they are against guns. In my opinion it's the lefts side of the county's ruling class to disarm us to impose their ideas and will upon us.


Tobacco generally hurts the user. Maniac killing randomly hurts many more( playing devils advocate)


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 10, 2018)

CQB said:


> There’s always losers economically, the trick is to limit that & act for the greater good. My dry comment was Aussie humour. All good.



Ha ha ok. I got it now.


----------



## CQB (Mar 10, 2018)

@DC, Abso farking lootly. Risk is an interesting area & this plays into it. Tobacco consumption is a personal choice, with a risk of disease. Driving a car is risky but the risk is acceptable as the driver perceives his risk is minimal, as he’s in control of the vehicle, though there’s still residual risk. The gun issue fundamentally is one of limiting risk.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 11, 2018)

DocIllinois said:


> If a thoughtful, critical engagement with our fundamental law arrived at the conclusion that it didn't make sense to keep a particular law in modern times, patriotism wouldn't be a part of keeping the guns, IMHO.



That's not the America I grew up in, nor the one I would tolerate happening.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 11, 2018)

Ranger Psych said:


> That's not the America I grew up in, nor the one I would tolerate happening.



Agree. The problem with "progressive" thinking is that it often doesn't progress anything, it just changes what has made America...America.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 11, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Your response of "lighten up" is a dick comment.  I have  zero online relationship with you and have no way of guessing whether or not you are making an attempt at humor. Truth be told, I don't care if it was a joke or not.
> 
> At the end of the day I took your comment seriously and responded in kind.



My bad for failure to execute proper usage of emojis. Post corrected...


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 11, 2018)

DC said:


> Tobacco generally hurts the user. Maniac killing randomly hurts many more( playing devils advocate)



If only that were true. Second-hand smoke, trash, and fires, not to mention the health expenses (which most tobacco addicted can’t pay on their own) affect all of us. 

I bet it also Lilla more Americans every year than gun crimes but I’d have to research that.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 11, 2018)

Liberty is ri


CQB said:


> @DC, Abso farking lootly. Risk is an interesting area & this plays into it. Tobacco consumption is a personal choice, with a risk of disease. Driving a car is risky but the risk is acceptable as the driver perceives his risk is minimal, as he’s in control of the vehicle, though there’s still residual risk. The gun issue fundamentally is one of limiting risk.



Liberty is inherently risky.   I’m sure the government could keep us completely “safe” but we’d have no freedom.


----------



## CQB (Mar 12, 2018)

There’s always residual risk, or latterly “risk appertite.” I doubt any government could keep its constituents 100% safe, but it doesn’t mean they stop trying. The freedom quotient also has to be balanced.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 12, 2018)

Illinois House Passes Bill Requiring 18-20-Year-Olds to Hand Over Certain Semi-Automatic Firearms

If this passes can it be stopped at the federal level?


----------



## CQB (Mar 12, 2018)

I’m not too sure of the US situation but I’d say off the cuff that a Federal law would outweigh a state law any day.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 12, 2018)

CQB said:


> I’m not too sure of the US situation but I’d say off the cuff that a Federal law would outweigh a state law any day.



Often, yes, but that came about from a slippery slope of degradation of state laws and overuse of federal authority.  Our constitution's 10th amendment is pretty clear about state authority.  The federal government was never supposed to be "over" the states.


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 12, 2018)

CQB said:


> I’m not too sure of the US situation but I’d say off the cuff that a Federal law would outweigh a state law any day.



Heh, marijuana is still illegal by Federal law...but many states have legalized it for recreational use, Alaska, California, Colorado, Main, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Washington DC. (as of 2017)


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 12, 2018)

Kraut783 said:


> Heh, marijuana is still illegal by Federal law...but many states have legalized it for recreational use, Alaska, California, Colorado, Main, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Washington DC. (as of 2017)



Yeah, I’ve wondered about that.  Because we are a Republic I have always been pro-State’s rights and have hated to see the way the Federal Govt strong armed states into passing laws for national consistency.  Being 21 to drink and seatbelt laws come immediately to mind.  “We cannot make you, but we’ll withhold Bilions of dollars in highway funds if you don’t”.

But somehow Denver can declare pot legal and open up head-shops?  Can they do the same thing with cocaine and prostitution? (Serious question)

Always follow the money I guess.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 12, 2018)

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

From what I have read the States can restrict access to firearms by age but during the ratification the 2A was it not implied that all military aged, able bodied males be part of the militia?

Ten Thoughts on the Second Amendment and Gun Control


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 12, 2018)

The Latest: Police say bombs caused both Austin blasts

I felt this was germane to this discussion. Evil people will do evil things regardless of the law. In light of this event, this bomb violence, will there be a cry for the ban of the common components that can be used to make a bomb?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 12, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
> 
> From what I have read the States can restrict access to firearms by age but during the ratification the 2A was it not implied that all military aged, able bodied males be part of the militia?
> 
> Ten Thoughts on the Second Amendment and Gun Control



umm, title 10 covers this...  I actually mentioned something specifically about it.


----------



## CQB (Mar 13, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Often, yes, but that came about from a slippery slope of degradation of state laws and overuse of federal authority.  Our constitution's 10th amendment is pretty clear about state authority.  The federal government was never supposed to be "over" the states.


Understood, we have a similar State/Federal split which comes from the US model. I’m unaware of the rest of the info in your post. Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## Etype (Mar 13, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> The Latest: Police say bombs caused both Austin blasts
> 
> I felt this was germane to this discussion. Evil people will do evil things regardless of the law. In light of this event, this bomb violence, will there be a cry for the ban of the common components that can be used to make a bomb?


Gun crimes couldn't do it, but with bomb crimes, maybe we'll finally get some laws on the books that outlaw murder.


----------



## DC (Mar 13, 2018)

Murder ya get 3 years. Nabbed with a pound of cocaine 30 to life.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 13, 2018)

DC said:


> Murder ya get 3 years. Nabbed with a pound of cocaine 30 to life.


----------



## DC (Mar 13, 2018)

That too. And che is the hero of the ME generation.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 13, 2018)

Tucker's face in the still!!
Their ignorance regarding firearms is laughable.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 13, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


>


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 13, 2018)

Red Flag 1 said:


> "Bumpsock Muzzleloader". The brick wall regarding firearms is the perfect foil for the border fence.



SilencerCo | Muzzleloader | Maxim 50 - SilencerCo

This is what he thinks will be the next death machine. 
I have never been interested in muzzleloaders but this would be cool.


----------



## SaintKP (Mar 13, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> SilencerCo | Muzzleloader | Maxim 50 - SilencerCo
> 
> This is what he thinks will be the next death machine.
> I have never been interested in muzzleloaders but this would be cool.




If I had a muzzleloader currently and a cool 1k laying around I'd buy that in a heart beat just for the cool factor of it.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 15, 2018)

Interesting read. 
The Democrats Will Never Confiscate Your Guns. Instead, You'll Hand them Over. - AllOutdoor.com


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 15, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> Interesting read.
> The Democrats Will Never Confiscate Your Guns. Instead, You'll Hand them Over. - AllOutdoor.com


Those comments were more interesting than the article itself.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 15, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> Those comments were more interesting than the article itself.



That they were.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 15, 2018)

This article in my local newspaper was a bit of a surprise.  @Muppet  did you every hear of these guys? I had no idea they were in PA.

Poconos gunmaker envisions an AR-15 for every American

*Poconos gunmaker envisions an AR-15 for every American*



> GREELEY — An AR-15 semiautomatic rifle sits perched on a rack, higher than all the other things that decorate Justin Moon's office in the Poconos.
> 
> He built the rifle himself, and it rests above his diplomas from Harvard and the University of Miami and shelves jammed with thick economics textbooks and business guides. Last week he sat at a desk beneath it, discussing a dead-serious plan to make that black gun even more ubiquitous in America.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 15, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> Interesting read.
> The Democrats Will Never Confiscate Your Guns. Instead, You'll Hand them Over. - AllOutdoor.com



wow...what a bunch of crap....sad that people even believe that stuff.


----------



## Muppet (Mar 15, 2018)

Chopstick said:


> This article in my local newspaper was a bit of a surprise.  @Muppet  did you every hear of these guys? I had no idea they were in PA.
> 
> Poconos gunmaker envisions an AR-15 for every American
> 
> *Poconos gunmaker envisions an AR-15 for every American*



First I saw of it......

M.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 15, 2018)

Muppet said:


> First I saw of it......
> 
> M.


You should go hang out with them.


----------



## Box (Mar 21, 2018)

I knew that Dicks sporting goods had taken the path of political activism, but I didn't think "Field and Stream" would follow that same path.

Today, I went into the new "Field and Stream" store near Ft Bragg NC in search of some ammo, pistol magazines, and some boots for my daughter.....

The aisle that used to contain AR15 parts, tools, and accessories has been stripped down and restocked with PINK plastic pepper spray canisters.
They didn't have any magazines for scary guns, the semi-auto rifles on the display wall had been replaced with bolt action lookalikes and a white sheet of paper near the register said they no longer sold guns or ammo to those under 21.  I guess young servicemembers at Fort Bragg will need to find NON-firearms related hobbies until they are 21.  

Since I don't like to mix my love for the outdoors with political activism, I went down the street to Academy Sports for the stuff I needed.   Its a shame too because I was about to buy a ladder style deer stand on clearance when I saw the "no guns under twenty wun"  sign near the register.  

So--- if you are in the Ft Bragg NC area and thinking about shopping at Field and Stream:
Legal firearms = out
PINK pepper spray canisters = in


I will no longer be visiting the Field and Stream chain of stores when I need outdoor equipment.  
...or maybe I am just being irrational


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 21, 2018)

So that happened: YouTube Bans Firearms Demo Videos, Entering the Gun Control Debate


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 22, 2018)

Field and Streams stores are a subsidiary of Dick's Sporting Goods.  We used to shop Field and Stream quite a bit and Dick's sometimes.  We were members of the rewards club and last fall I earned enough points to get my husband a nice pair of waders for his new retirement hobby of fly fishing.  Those days are over.  We have 2 nice independent gun shops to go to here.  We have an Orvis store near us but better still found an independent small fly fishing store across town.  Those are the folks that will be getting my money now.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 22, 2018)

Chopstick said:


> Field and Streams stores are a subsidiary of Dick's Sporting Goods.  We used to shop Field and Stream quite a bit and Dick's sometimes.  We were members of the rewards club and last fall I earned enough points to get my husband a nice pair of waders for his new retirement hobby of fly fishing.  Those days are over.  We have 2 nice independent gun shops to go to here.  We have an Orvis store near us but better still found an independent small fly fishing store across town.  Those are the folks that will be getting my money now.


I have a Field & Stream and a Dick's nearby and I used to shop there occasionally. I don't anymore. I have a Cabela's nearby, but I use Rural King mostly. Their outdoor stuff is always the best price. They sell all types of guns and ammo.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 22, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> So that happened: YouTube Bans Firearms Demo Videos, Entering the Gun Control Debate


Not sure what the criteria for getting banned is, but I've watched several on youtube today.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 23, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> So that happened: YouTube Bans Firearms Demo Videos, Entering the Gun Control Debate



Gonzo gun videos.... gang bang... money shot..... semiauto erotic....  

Must resist.... foolish and ill considered jokes....  

*Restricted By YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos To Pornhub*


----------



## Gunz (Mar 23, 2018)

I'm waiting for FaceBook to catch up with the gun-ban. Most of the pictures I have on there are of guns or people with guns.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 23, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> Now maybe YouTube will only show Pink Pepper Spray demo videos.
> 
> I'm waiting for FacePlant to catch up with the gun-ban. Most of the pictures I have on there are of guns or people with guns.


The YouTube ban doesn't seem to be a big deal.    I have been surfing gun videos and have still been able to find anything I am looking for. What happens later could be different. The strategy of implementing an anti gun society may be to do it gradually so it's not as noticable.


----------



## Frank S. (Mar 23, 2018)

You can still watch tutorials on making prison hooch...






Gosh this sounds ever so fun! How about "how to make meth"?


----------



## SaintKP (Mar 23, 2018)

Frank S. said:


> Gosh this sounds ever so fun! How about "how to make meth"?



Never understood why put this much work in to something when you could just go to the doctors.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 23, 2018)

With Dicks and other retail chains exploiting this school shooting as a marketing opportunity to enhance their image, all the more reason to support your LGS and internet gun sources.


----------



## AWP (Mar 23, 2018)

Topkick said:


> The strategy of implementing an anti gun society may be to do it gradually so it's not as noticable.



And that's exactly how it will play out.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 24, 2018)

I'm reminded by this march today that we have failed.


----------



## ShadowSpear (Mar 24, 2018)

Pretty much how I hear it. 


        View this content on Instagram            View this content on Instagram


----------



## DC (Mar 24, 2018)

Hogg son of a retired FBI agent...BIG SMILE...BIG SMILE,


----------



## AWP (Mar 24, 2018)

Sometimes I wonder how Americans would view their country if they spent as many years as I have overseas. The 2A debate is madness.... Celebrities who make a living from portraying gun violence or singing/ rapping about gun violence are protesting gun violence. A close friend of our President who helped him campaign, and NE Patriots owner, is a life-long Democrat who flew students in for the march. The march is categorized as student led and planned, but we all know damn good and well there is zero chance of some nationwide grass roots organizing by teenagers. The same teenagers who will say IDs and clear bags violate their Constitutional rights, but don't understand the Second. Areas with the most restrictive gun laws have murder rates that are off the charts, but where are those protests? We aren't a nation of racists, but a dozen dead white kids will spin us up while our inner cities look like 1983 Beirut?

This is gun-related. I can go on about other stuff, but maybe y'all see where I'm going. The lack of reason and logic with no shortage of emotion is deadly regardless of where you stand on ANY issue.

We've become a polarized nation of idiots. We've forgotten where we came from, don't know know where we're at, and don't seem to care where we're going. The only thing that matters anymore is your cause and screw the rest.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 24, 2018)

AWP said:


> We've become a polarized nation of idiots. We've forgotten where we came from, don't know know where we're at, and don't seem to care where we're going. The only thing that matters anymore is your cause and screw the rest.


I love every word of this. May I take and post this part in a a few places?


----------



## AWP (Mar 24, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I love every word of this. May I take and post this part in a a few places?



Pull the trigger.

(See what I did there? I'm clever.)


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 25, 2018)

There was a march in my area yesterday. I'll be hearing about it for weeks to come. Blah.

I've written all my elected officails but they support this nonsense so I'm stuck.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 25, 2018)

AWP said:


> Pull the trigger.


Thank you for my new profile signature line.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 25, 2018)

I happened to be downtown Pittsburgh towards the end of the "protest" there.  ( I was simply going to a really cool rum bar, over 200 rums available).  I was struck at the sheer moonbattery of the signage of the "protesters and the utter stupidity of them in general.  Sheeple for sure.  @AWP 's post above.  Bang on.  I saw it with my own eyes yesterday.  But the rums were fantastic.


----------



## AWP (Mar 25, 2018)

After Pearl Harbor, the gov't used fear to imprison American citizens who were of Japanese descent. The people rejoiced, the threat was contained.

Fuck the Constitution.

Lincoln suspends Habeas Corpus.

Fuck the Constitution.

2001/ 2002 - Present. Patriot Act.

Fuck the Constitution.

Now "kids" are "spontaneously" marching for your Second Amendment rights.

This is America. We can trust our fellow Americans and elected officials to do the right thing. Right?


----------



## DC (Mar 25, 2018)

I’m loading up for a desert trip next week and exercise my blood paid, life given 2nd amendment rights. I will celebrate with 762, 45 and bath in cordite and hot brass. I will warm my hands on hot barrels and cheer my resolve. Like religion you  can tell me about it BUT ram it down my throat you will be blooded. Time will kill the idea. I can wait it out.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 25, 2018)

It's funny how when educated black guys stand up for their rights they get smashed by the left.  Colion Noir sat down with Rap Producer Killer Mike, and this is pretty awesome.  NRATV

Oh well...


----------



## AWP (Mar 25, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> It's funny how when educated black guys stand up for their rights they get smashed by the left.  Colion Noir sat down with Rap Producer Killer Mike, and this is pretty awesome.  NRATV
> 
> Oh well...



Killer Mike and Run the Jewels have some pretty liberal lyrics.....and bonus points: RTJ's music featured heavily in the trailers for Black Panther. I was pleasently surprised to see the interview and wish it received airtime instead of that chinless 17YO fascist "student" activist. Killer Mike's POV doesn't fit the narrative in this case, so it will go ignored.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 25, 2018)

Change.Org keeps spamming me with Anti-2nd Amendment petitions after I've unsubbed like 5x.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 25, 2018)

21 year old douche bag. My god I wish these people would get off of my side. 

A man goes shopping with an AR-15 rifle on his shoulder, locking down nearby schools: Is he within his rights or causing a disturbance?


----------



## Gunz (Mar 25, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> 21 year old douche bag. My god I wish these people would get off of my side.
> 
> A man goes shopping with an AR-15 rifle on his shoulder, locking down nearby schools: Is he within his rights or causing a disturbance?



I think we're in for some new gun restrictions in the near future. And it seems to me that people trying to promote gun rights by parading their long guns in public are just putting gas on the flames.


----------



## Etype (Mar 25, 2018)

AWP said:


> Killer Mike and Run the Jewels have some pretty liberal lyrics.....and bonus points: RTJ's music featured heavily in the trailers for Black Panther. I was pleasently surprised to see the interview and wish it received airtime instead of that chinless 17YO fascist "student" activist. Killer Mike's POV doesn't fit the narrative in this case, so it will go ignored.


Killer Mike is definitely the better half of RTJ, it's the white guy that I cant handle.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 25, 2018)

Utah is an open carry state.  So is Arizona.  What it weird though is the reaction to folks that open carry with rifles and not pistols.  We had a group of Brown Shirts [Commies] carry on the sidewalk outside of the Capital Grounds here last year.  And I even think it's posted in this thread.  Most of them were wearing masks.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 25, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> 21 year old douche bag. My god I wish these people would get off of my side.
> 
> A man goes shopping with an AR-15 rifle on his shoulder, locking down nearby schools: Is he within his rights or causing a disturbance?



These Knuckleheads do not help the cause. They just perpetuate the idea that all pro- gun people are "crazy gun owners", which in turn could cause people to vote for more gun restrictions.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 25, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> I'm not an OC proponent. Better to be the Gray Man, IMV. Still I support the right, especially where it's legal and widely practiced.



Agreed with above 100%.

My problem is the men/women who run around with rifles strapped to their backs to make a statement.  They make a statement all right, unfortunately it's not the one they think.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 25, 2018)

I am pro- gun and own several. However, from my experiences I've learned that talking about guns is just about like politics and religion. So I keep it to myself unless I am around my own kind.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 25, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Agreed with above 100%.
> 
> My problem is the men/women who run around with rifles strapped to their backs to make a statement.  They make a statement all right, unfortunately it's not the one they think.



Just because things are legal does't necessarily mean that people should do them. Those clowns hurt their cause way more than they help it. I simply look at them like they are stupid and then go on my merry way. Their point is completely lost due to their actions....


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 25, 2018)

Agoge said:


> Just because things are legal does't necessarily mean that people should do them. Those clowns hurt their cause way more than they help it. I simply look at them like they are stupid and then go on my merry way. Their point is completely lost due to their actions....



I agree. It's "rights vs responsibilities". I don't agree with OC. I don't see the point. I don't see the tactical point of it. I'd rather be The Grey Man. I don't want The Bad Guy to know what I am or am not.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 25, 2018)

Marine0311 said:


> I agree. It's "rights vs responsibilities". I don't agree with OC. I don't see the point. I don't see the tactical point of it. I'd rather be The Grey Man. I don't want The Bad Guy to know what I am or am not.



Personally, I think OC is stupid. Like previously stated, I support the law, but I think the act in-and-of-itself is stupid, but hey...if someone wants to do it, have at it....


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 26, 2018)

It's funny to the left to talk about killing lawful gun owners...


----------



## ShadowSpear (Mar 26, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> It's funny to the left to talk about killing lawful gun owners...



What a tool.


----------



## DC (Mar 26, 2018)

Open carry is a want to be badass.  Arizona is so easy, if you pass vetting, to get a CCW either resident or nonresident. I don’t understand why anyone would want to carry around an unloaded weapon unless you’re a tool.


----------



## CDG (Mar 26, 2018)

The people that laughed at that are the kind of people that would have a 0% chance of actually winning any type of violent encounter. It's funny when you have no idea what you're really laughing at.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 26, 2018)

Something is odd here.  On this video at about 4:27, David Hogg states 





> On the day of the shooting, I got my camera and got on my bike and rode as fast as I could three miles from my house to the school to get as much video and to get as many interviews as I could because I knew that this could not be another mass shooting.



I thought he was a student at the school and in the school at the time of the shooting and lock down.  Could he have just been caught in a lie?


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 26, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> It's funny to the left to talk about killing lawful gun owners...


That’s a very troubling piece.  What’s the context?


----------



## Topkick (Mar 26, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> That’s a very troubling piece.  What’s the context?



Odd words coming from a candidate for sheriff.


----------



## AWP (Mar 26, 2018)

The Time magazine cover that's making the rounds on social media, though with captions. I love this cover!







Look at the genius of the cover! Whatever I think of this "movement", this cover is brilliant.
1. Black people? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! All of that inner city violence, but a dozen-ish white kids are shot up and this is society's rebuttal? Brilliant! You think Suzie Homemaker in the 'burbs gives a shit about a bunch of inner city kids? Nope. Black Lives Do Not Matter, not to Time and not to the anti-gun movement. Keep the violence Black and they won't take our guns back.
2. The girl with the short hair front and center. Another masterpiece in choosing your subjects. The second you call her a dude or whatever you've aliented those in the center and pissed off gays and lesbians....a surprising number of whom are pro-2A. If the topic of LGBTEIEIO bothers you, you either ignore her, force yourself to recognize that she's a girl/ woman, or accept everything (second and third order effects) that goes with calling her a dude.
3. I thought this was an Abercrombie and Fitch ad. All the diversity represented by America besides an obvious minority; not even a token one!

The pumpkin spice latte crowd should be pissed off, this cover SPEAKS to them! This is their jam!

I hate the message, but have to respect their market research. These folks are bringing their A game.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 26, 2018)

Impressive @AWP. You thought that one through. You obviously got game as well.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 26, 2018)

AWP said:


> The Time magazine cover that's making the rounds on social media, though with captions. I love this cover!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It reminds me of an album cover from a band on the Nickelodeon channel.


----------



## BloodStripe (Mar 26, 2018)

Chopstick said:


> Something is odd here.  On this video at about 4:27, David Hogg states
> 
> I thought he was a student at the school and in the school at the time of the shooting and lock down.  Could he have just been caught in a lie?



Looks as if CBS took it out of context. He rode his bike back to school at 6pm.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 27, 2018)

AWP said:


> The Time magazine cover that's making the rounds on social media, though with captions. I love this cover!


My biggest beef with these Showboaters is that they're all now verified on twitter, @Ooh-Rah and I are apparently chop liver.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 27, 2018)

NavyBuyer said:


> Looks as if CBS took it out of context. He rode his bike back to school at 6pm.


I dont have the time at the moment to re-watch the video, but why or how would he go back to the school at that time?  Would the school not be a crime scene at that point?  But then again if the norm is deputies hiding and/or sleeping and the fact the kid's dad is/was an FBI agent I suppose anything is possible and plausible at this point.


----------



## Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 (Mar 27, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> That’s a very troubling piece.  What’s the context?



An NC sheriff candidate's joke led thousands to say he's willing to kill to take guns

His context...


----------



## Etype (Mar 27, 2018)

AWP said:


> *cover*


I think it's also indicative of the times that adults now care if children are 'angry.'

Kids are now encouraged to let their emotions, whatever they are at the time, spill forth.


----------



## Box (Mar 27, 2018)

Maybe the activist class within the USA needs to create a formal organization - a league of sorts.   Perhaps a league of American worker youth would be what the left is looking for.  The left could use this youth league for ideological and political purposes to help fowrad an agenda of peace, equality, and diversity.

The greater youth movement would be great.  The left could create a junior league for the younger kids and even an all girls movement to show that they support *Grrl-Power*...

Then the left can indoctrinate them on how imprtant it is to sacrfice for the cause.  These kids can use their influence to undermine the elitist structures and priviledge of those on the right and finally put them on their place !!!

Just like Obamas recently stated desire to create a million youth in his own image, we could organize these cells at the community level !!!!
The kids that dont want to participate can sit in study hall and do essays explaining why they hate freedom.


Like Flounder said, "BOY IS THIS GREAT"


----------



## Gunz (Mar 27, 2018)

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:


> An NC sheriff candidate's joke led thousands to say he's willing to kill to take guns
> 
> His context...




It's still disturbing, even in context. Look what's happening here. It's the vilification of a very large segment of peaceful, law abiding Americans. They have taken the horrific crimes of a few homicidal cunts and completely shifted the blame from those individuals to millions of innocent gun owners.

It's like Hitler blaming the Jews for everything wrong in Germany.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 27, 2018)

After reading about the candidate for sheriff in North Carolina, not to be topped, former SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens says it's time to repeal the second amendment. 

Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’


----------



## Topkick (Mar 27, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> After reading about the candidate for sheriff in North Carolina, not to be topped, former SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens says it's time to repeal the second amendment.
> 
> Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’



He can go f#@k himself. It sounds like he wants to take guns away completely. It's a bit troubling when someone like this throws their support in.


----------



## 256 (Mar 27, 2018)

AWP said:


> The Time magazine cover that's making the rounds on social media, though with captions. I love this cover!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well played @AWP very good job indeed.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens says Second Amendment should be repealed

@Devildoc I saw the same link. They can repeal the 2nd, good luck enforcing it.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 27, 2018)

256 said:


> They can repeal the 2nd, good luck enforcing it.



Kinda what I thought.  Congratulations, it's repealed.  So now what are you going to do about the 300 million guns and billions of rounds of ammo?


----------



## Topkick (Mar 27, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Kinda what I thought.  Congratulations, it's repealed.  So now what are you going to do about the 300 million guns and billions of rounds of ammo?


I honestly think most people would turn in thier guns and ammo. Most people are talking out their ass when they say they won't. Some will stand, most won't. IMO.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 27, 2018)

Topkick said:


> I honestly think most people would turn in thier guns and ammo. Most people are talking out their ass when they say they won't. Some will stand, most won't. IMO.



Of course we are getting into hypotheticals.  But how would they find them?  How many people buy/sell/trade on local forums or gun shows and keep minimal paperwork?  How many people have Uncle Bob's WWII-era 1911 in a box in their closet that is largely unforgotten?  Sure, a massive shitload will willfully turn them in, but an equally massive shitload will not, for whatever reason, but the bigger kettle of fish would be got the government to try to account for all of those guns there's no paper on.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 27, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Of course we are getting into hypotheticals.  But how would they find them?  How many people buy/sell/trade on local forums or gun shows and keep minimal paperwork?  How many people have Uncle Bob's WWII-era 1911 in a box in their closet that is largely unforgotten?  Sure, a massive shitload will willfully turn them in, but an equally massive shitload will not, for whatever reason, but the bigger kettle of fish would be got the government to try to account for all of those guns there's no paper on.



There would no doubt be hold- outs for the reasons you mentioned. However, most people will succumb to guilt and the thought of losing their freedom altogether, ie prison, if they get caught not obeying the laws. It will come down to either you are criminal or a law abiding citizen.

Geez, I hate that we are even talking about this as as a possibility.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 27, 2018)

Topkick said:


> Geez, I hate that we are even talking about this as as a possibility.



Worry not, _mon amie_...35 states have to sign on.  It's not an issue.  If they really want to push full-scale confiscation without having the states go through due process, they'll have bigger fish to fry than illegalizing and finding 300 million guns....


----------



## 256 (Mar 27, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Worry not, _mon amie_...35 states have to sign on.  It's not an issue.  If they really want to push full-scale confiscation without having the states go through due process, they'll have bigger fish to fry than illegalizing and finding 300 million guns....



We can't even figure out if weed should be legal, I think our guns are safe.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 27, 2018)

Guns aren't going anywhere. It's like the alleged "war on drugs." It's a talking point and running platform for politicians.

Just think about it...without those "wars" going on, what would they have to do in Washington?

Bunch of freaking clowns over there....


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 27, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Worry not, _mon amie_...35 states have to sign on.  It's not an issue.  If they really want to push full-scale confiscation without having the states go through due process, they'll have bigger fish to fry than illegalizing and finding 300 million guns....


Maybe they can give jobs to the undocumented workers. Send them around to collect, 😂


----------



## Gunz (Mar 27, 2018)

I am marshaling my troops as we speak, stalwart Florida militia men, stouthearted supporters of 2A and ready to die for the cause. They will be here as soon as they fill the truck with beer.

Take that, former Justice dude.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 27, 2018)

Geee...color me shocked that no college wants any part of this kid:

David Hogg revealed on Tuesday that he has been rejected from four schools

Despite organizing a global movement against gun violence which they themselves billed as a 'revolution', some of the survivors of the Parkland school massacre have not been granted admission to their chosen colleges. 

On Tuesday, David Hogg, one of the most vocal survivors of the February 14 atrocity, revealed that he had been rejected from four of the schools he applied to; UCLA, UCSD, UCSB and UC Irvine. 

Hogg, 17, is not alone. Fellow survivor Ryan Deitsch was turned down by UCLA. 

It is not clear what either wants to study. Hogg has a 4.2 GPA and scored a 1270 on his SATs, both of which are considered above average.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 27, 2018)

I really don't think their scores are going to matter much to prospective colleges. Colleges are getting tons of applicants from students that actually want to learn and to be college students not "activists".  Students that want to change themselves, not the world. If you listen to and read the interviews they give, these kids are already legends in their own minds.  The have made themselves in short order carbon copies of Colin Kaepernick. That Gonzales chick (can I say that?) says she is going to attend New College of Florida.  It sits on the grounds of the former Ringling estate.  How appropriate because I have a feeling she is bringing the circus back to town.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 27, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> It is not clear what either wants to study. Hogg has a 4.2 GPA and scored a 1270 on his SATs, both of which are considered above average.


I too had a 4.2GPA and a 1260 SAT...and was rejected by those same schools as an in-state student.  Sorry Mr. Hogg, but you are not that level.


----------



## SaintKP (Mar 27, 2018)

Nick Koumalatsos put up a pretty solid video about the marching and touches on the fact that things like knives, obesity, cars, and heart disease kill more people on a yearly basis than firearms do. But since gun violence or more specifically mass shootings gain more attention from soccer mom Susan than say anything that you're more likely to die from, the main causes of death are largely ignored.


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 27, 2018)

Colion Noir Responds to David Hogg’s White Privilege


----------



## 256 (Mar 27, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> I am marshaling my troops as we speak, stalwart Florida militia men, stouthearted supporters of 2A and ready to die for the cause. They will be here as soon as they fill the truck with beer.
> 
> Take that, former Justice dude.



I got a buddy that sells Labatt Blue, drops some off at the house once a week. I’ll help fill the truck..what’s the uniform of the day? PT formation? I’m hoping for a bunch of “zonks”..


----------



## Topkick (Mar 28, 2018)

256 said:


> I got a buddy that sells Labatt Blue, drops some off at the house once a week



I really need to find some new buddies.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 28, 2018)

Kraut783 said:


> Colion Noir Responds to David Hogg’s White Privilege



These "kids" are trying to use every avenue. I think its so over the top that many people are already over their bullshit. They are not doing themselves any favors with this kind of rhetoric.


----------



## Box (Mar 28, 2018)

Just my opinion, but these kids aren't using any avenue... 
Its not even within my imagination to refer to these kids as pawns - they are more like checker board pieces. 

Coached, managed, handled

Their handlers are using every avenue.  Their handlers are pulling out all the stops because after all, just like Rahm Emanuel let slip -"never let a good crisis go to waste."    These kids are the gold standard for "useful idiots" as measured by the propagandists yard-stick.  (_or meter stick for those of you that cannot understand the 'Murican system of weights and measures_)
It's also probably illustrative of why some of these kids are suddenly shocked that all of their favorite Universities aren't only failing to extend invitations - but are declining their applications.   Chessboard consequences with checkerboard strategy - the problem is - too many voting age Americans these days are equally as impaired as some of these 'woke' teenagers...
...go eat some soap Hogg - adults are talking


----------



## x SF med (Mar 28, 2018)

Topkick said:


> There would no doubt be hold- outs for the reasons you mentioned. However, most people will succumb to guilt and the thought of losing their freedom altogether, ie prison, if they get caught not obeying the laws. It will come down to either you are criminal or a law abiding citizen.
> 
> Geez, I hate that we are even talking about this as as a possibility.



TOP, there were hold outs in 1920's Germany, 1890's Russia after the 2nd Revolution, and again in 1918 Russia after the Novermberist (using the Cyrillic calendar) Revolution, more holdouts in Italy, the Eastern European countries had very strong partisan action before the OSS could supply them, the Greek guerillas kept their arms....  I think a repeal of the 2A would be fruitless for the anti-gun lobby/crowd, the quiet, sane, self preservationists will retain their arms, just in case.  Although the formalized militia of the US is the NG, how many veterans believe that their oath of service has never been repealed, and will fight to defend the Constitution should anybody try to dismantle it?


----------



## Topkick (Mar 28, 2018)

x SF med said:


> the quiet, sane, self preservationists will retain their arms, just in case.


@x SF med, I Want to believe that most would take a stand, but I don't. When it comes down to breaking the law, these are the very people who usually don't. I do hope you are right, but more importantly, I hope we never go there.


----------



## SaintKP (Mar 28, 2018)

Topkick said:


> @x SF med, I Want to believe that most would take a stand, but I don't. When it comes down to breaking the law, these are the very people who usually don't. I do hope you are right, but more importantly, I hope we never go there.



To be honest, I don't think we will. All of the media coverage, all of the marches, all of the political grandstanding, is for show. I'm sure there are those out there actively trying to repeal 2A, but we have to take a step back and ask ourselves, how real is the possibility? How would the government actually manage collecting every single firearm in the US? 

I say wait 3 months and if the fervor is still as strong as it is currently or stronger then we can start worrying. 

Right now all we're hearing is the vocal minority.


----------



## DC (Mar 28, 2018)

SaintKP said:


> To be honest, I don't think we will. All of the media coverage, all of the marches, all of the political grandstanding, is for show. I'm sure there are those out there actively trying to repeal 2A, but we have to take a step back and ask ourselves, how real is the possibility? How would the government actually manage collecting every single firearm in the US?
> 
> I say wait 3 months and if the fervor is still as strong as it is currently or stronger then we can start worrying.
> 
> Right now all we're hearing is the vocal minority.



The 2nd amendment repeal diatribe has been going on forever. The fervor is like a pulse. Comes and goes and forgotten through the decades. Vote and wait it out. It will pass.


----------



## Box (Mar 28, 2018)

Sadly... most of my guns fell overboard during a deep sea fishing trip - except for the ones that I turned in at a no-questions-asked gun-buyback.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 28, 2018)

SaintKP said:


> How would the government actually manage collecting every single firearm in the US?



They would never get them all, but this is where I apparently differ  in view from others on here. Hypothetically speaking, the government will say give it up or get locked up and then many people will comply due to the fear of being locked up.  Americans are mostly law abiding citizens. Most people believe being a good person means obeying the law. Mr. Jones, next door, will not be able to sleep well at night just knowing he is committing a crime by hiding a weapon in his closet.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 28, 2018)

Topkick said:


> They would never get them all, but this is where I apparently differ  in view from others on here. Hypothetically speaking, the government will say give it up or get locked up and then many people will comply due to the fear of being locked up.  Americans are mostly law abiding citizens. Most people believe being a good person means obeying the law. Mr. Jones, next door, will not be able to sleep well at night just knowing he is committing a crime by hiding a weapon in his closet.



How could I possibly give up what no one knows that I have?  The government going to sifts through millions of 4473s, to find the few guns I bought years and years ago which have been privately sold or traded?  

If Mr. Jones wants to give _his_ up, then that's on him.  If it helps him sleep better at night.  I hope he is OK with the hypocrisy of giving up his guns but being OK by keeping that expired bottle of Mrs. Jones' Xanax or oxy or any number of other laws which he breaks on a daily basis.

I think you are right in that there is a sect of gun owners who _would _do just that, I think it is a fairly small number.  I think most gun owners are the ones who will say, even privately, "aw, hell naw....", be as inconspicuous as possible, and suffer any number of incidents in order to "lose" their arsenal in order to minimize risk.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 28, 2018)

Topkick said:


> They would never get them all, but this is where I apparently differ  in view from others on here. Hypothetically speaking, the government will say give it up or get locked up and then many people will comply due to the fear of being locked up.  Americans are mostly law abiding citizens. Most people believe being a good person means obeying the law. Mr. Jones, next door, will not be able to sleep well at night just knowing he is committing a crime by hiding a weapon in his closet.



 To add, many of us on here have proven that we are willing to go the distance for what we believe in, but we are only about 1% of the population.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 28, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> I think you are right in that there is a sect of gun owners who _would _do just that, I think it is a fairly small number.



I hope you're right, but I think there are more sheep wearing sheepdog t-shirts. They think they'll take a stand until they don't.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 28, 2018)

Topkick said:


> To add, many of us on here have proven that we are willing to go the distance for what we believe in, but we are only about 1% of the population.



See, this is where I think you're wrong.  I think there is a lot more people who think like us than that.  They just are not vocal.  Why draw undue attention in the face of such hostility?  _Those_ people are vocal and animated.  _They_ make good targets (for the media, for notoriety).  _Our_ people slide into the shadows, understand SA.  That's also the downside.  We'll never know just how many people are like us.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 28, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> That's also the downside. We'll never know just how many people are like us.



I think you summarized my doubt in this one simple statement


----------



## x SF med (Mar 28, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Why draw undue attention in the face of such hostility?



...and how many of us are on multiple 'watch lists' due to our military service, belief in the Constitution, and willingness to share cogent argument on issues we believe are the basic tenets of our society?  I gave up checking on the watch list sites because it made me understand how far into the socialist abyss society as a whole had fallen...  and most have no clue they are jumping on the bandwagon that brought the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Musolini, Mao, Tito, Allende, Pinochet, TuTu, et al. to power...  

A right surrendered is a right lost, a responsibility squandered is a crime.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 28, 2018)

x SF med said:


> ...and how many of us are on multiple 'watch lists' due to our military service, belief in the Constitution, and willingness to share cogent argument on issues we believe are the basic tenets of our society?  I gave up checking on the watch list sites because it made me understand how far into the socialist abyss society as a whole had fallen...  and most have no clue they are jumping on the bandwagon that brought the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Musolini, Mao, Tito, Allende, Pinochet, TuTu, et al. to power...
> 
> A right surrendered is a right lost, a responsibility squandered is a crime.



Heard, and I agree.  I am not about to surrender any right.  A right is a right, not something the government should be able to take away.  There's a reason, though, I don't open carry, sport "molon labe" stickers on my van, wear a NRA cap.  Just as one has the responsibility of knowing when to draw and use a CC gun, one also has the responsibility of knowing when to keep it concealed.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 28, 2018)

I'm going to guess IWF is relatively conservative since they retweeted this Fox Video: IWF -Student Marchers are Well-Intentioned, But Misguided • Fox & Friends


----------



## AWP (Mar 28, 2018)

Everyone's a gangsta' until The Man's in front of them. A lot of "patriots" won't know a word of Greek the day they are asked to turn in their guns.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 28, 2018)

Yeah, we'll see.  But we won't because we'll be decaying in the ground following the nuclear war we're going to get into with John Bolton as NSA...


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Mar 29, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> Yeah, we'll see.  But we won't because we'll be decaying in the ground following the nuclear war we're going to get into with John Bolton as NSA...


I for one am looking forward to power armor and the invasion of china in the near future. Wonder if I should start hoarding stimpacks and ammo?

Anyways, I get the feeling that the American populace is going to be on the defensive in reacting to attacks on the second amendment for a while. Until we figure out a way to expose the globalists and communists who prop the 'useful idiots' up, I don't see us on the attack anytime soon.


----------



## AWP (Mar 29, 2018)

R.Caerbannog said:


> I for one am looking forward to power armor and the invasion of china in the near future. Wonder if I should start hoarding stimpacks and ammo?



War, war never changes.

Ad victoriam!


----------



## SaintKP (Mar 31, 2018)

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Merriam-Webster Changes Definition Of 'Assault Rifle' After Parkland

As someone who has always believed language and words hold more power than bullets and bombs, it's disconcerting that the definition (which was already a loose one to begin with) has been changed to an even more vague and all encompassing one. What this allows is a platform and and increases misinformation in regards to the debate around gun control. 

Not to mention that since the 2000's the Supreme Court and judicial system at large have started to rely more and more on dictionaries to set statutes and precedent. What this means is that, if one justice wanted to look at Merriam-Webster as the singular definition of what an Assault Rifle is. They could set the legal precedent for an all encompassing ban on any "Assault style" weapons which according to MW now would be the following.

*Definition of assault rifle*
*noun*
_"any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as theAK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also *: *a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire"_

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but this is the type of stuff that concerns me the most.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 31, 2018)

"A rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but...."

Yeah, that's concerning.  Those evil-looking rifles that aren't assault rifles but look evil.....


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 31, 2018)

So...an M-1 Garand would not fall under the definition?


----------



## Topkick (Mar 31, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Yeah, that's concerning. Those evil-looking rifles that aren't assault rifles but look evil.....


I have talked to a lot of unknowing people who believed that AR-15 actually stands for Assault Rifle 15. Words do matter. I guess after so many AKs and ARs have been used as the weapon of choice by modern school shooters and mass murderers, its only natural for average people to associate these guns with evil.


----------



## SaintKP (Mar 31, 2018)

ThunderHorse said:


> So...an M-1 Garand would not fall under the definition?



Apparently. Same with being able to own an M1A as long as you choose wood over "scary and black".





Topkick said:


> I have talked to a lot of unknowing people who believed that AR-15 actually stands for Assault Rifle 15. Words do matter. I guess after so many AKs and ARs have been used as the weapon of choice by modern school shooters and mass murderers, its only natural for average people to associate these guns with evil.



Words and language by themselves are harmless, however we give them power by how we react to, and treat them.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 31, 2018)

SaintKP said:


> Words and language by themselves are harmless, however we give them power by how we react to, and treat them.



At this point, it doesn't really matter to the left what an "Assault Rifle" is. They just want guns banned.


----------



## AWP (Mar 31, 2018)

SaintKP said:


> *Definition of assault rifle*
> *noun*
> _"any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as theAK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also *: *a rifle that resembles a military *assault rifle* but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire"_



Did they just use a "theorem to prove a theorem?" An assault rifle is a device that resembles an assault rifle? WTF?


----------



## ShadowSpear (Apr 1, 2018)

Well, who would have thought?

London murder rate beats New York for month as stabbings surge


----------



## DC (Apr 1, 2018)

ShadowSpear said:


> Well, who would have thought?
> 
> London murder rate beats New York for month as stabbings surge


Let em in...they kill you...


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 1, 2018)

NYC has perhaps the lowest per-capita homicide rate of any major US metropolitan area.  That article really isn't saying much.


----------



## Box (Apr 1, 2018)

It isn't about gun control - or knife control - or anything remotely similar - its simply about the leftist academia seeking control of ALL aspects of your life - one small item at a time.
Control of what you can own, control of what you smoke and where you smoke it, control of what you eat, control of the size of your sugary drink. Leftist academia just wants to redefine your life because they care.   The left has weaponized Overtons Window.
It's NOT about gun control; it's just about control. 

So, if you allow the academics to "define you" - they will drink YOUR milkshake...
...drink it up


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Apr 2, 2018)

Box said:


> It isn't about gun control - or knife control - or anything remotely similar - its simply about the leftist academia seeking control of ALL aspects of your life - one small item at a time.
> Control of what you can own, control of what you smoke and where you smoke it, control of what you eat, control of the size of your sugary drink. Leftist academia just wants to redefine your life because they care.   The left has weaponized Overtons Window.
> It's NOT about gun control; it's just about control.
> 
> ...





x SF med said:


> Okay...  my less than intelligent self thought a posting of this little piece of literature might be some reading that could inspire some discussion in this thread - The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.  Does anybody else see any parallels to Mr. Salcido's rant, and the link posted by @Topkick from this little treatise?


What's sad is that while the loudest idiots in academia are spreading communist ideals like it's cool, others have their nose to the grindstone doing actual meaningful research.

When I get a chance I'll upload a copy of my school paper (nevermind, figured it out). The shit that some of these people publish and push boils my blood. Fearmongering and social conditioning, under the guise of 'safety' and 'informing the public', is the agenda being pushed on local level by these halfwits. Below is a link and image of the headline story in my local university paper.

The way that academics use and condition/traumatize kids to push their agendas is pretty fucked up.

Link to article


----------



## AWP (Apr 2, 2018)

Box said:


> So, if you allow the academics to "define you" - they will drink YOUR milkshake...
> ...drink it up



I love this reference. Very true in my opinion.

For those of you who don't understand...


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 2, 2018)

Vermont 

Vermont Legislature Passes Sweeping Gun Restrictions

I am surprised.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Apr 2, 2018)

Marine0311 said:


> Vermont
> 
> Vermont Legislature Passes Sweeping Gun Restrictions
> 
> I am surprised.


Not sure if it's been said here, but gun control legislation has turned into death by a thousand cuts. Not sure how the hell we as a public are going to reverse laws like this, short of mobs with torches and pitchforks.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 2, 2018)

From the left academia POV, fear drives change. They promote fear of guns, fear of climate change, fear of anything to gain political support and funding. And in fairness, the NRA does the same thing.

But I also agree with @Box that ultimately it's about control. Trust us, we'll make you safe...you only have to give up a few constitutional rights.


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 2, 2018)

I'm not a member of the NRA. Nor have I ever donated them money, short of visiting the National Firearms Museum. That being said, I intend to change that very soon.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 2, 2018)

NavyBuyer said:


> I'm not a member of the NRA. Nor have I ever donated them money, short of visiting the National Firearms Museum. That being said, I intend to change that very soon.



A life membership is around $1000?


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 2, 2018)

Most likely I'll just be doing a yearly membership, or up to five years.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 2, 2018)

Marine0311 said:


> A life membership is around $1000?


I am often surprised at the number of times I see deals for significantly less.


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 2, 2018)

Marine0311 said:


> A life membership is around $1000?



Looks like $1500. I just joined NRA!


----------



## Topkick (Apr 2, 2018)

I just renewed my NRA membership for the first time in a while. I figure it's worth the small donation to help somebody stand up for our rights.


----------



## DC (Apr 2, 2018)

I did a year and then was offered 5 years at a discount(125$) so did that as well.


----------



## Topkick (Apr 2, 2018)

Yeah, I paid 40.00 for a year and then I received an offer in the mail to get an additional year for 19.99


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 3, 2018)

Ummm....I try to take this stuff in stride, but this seems like as much of an”Holy Shit” moment as any...

Deerfield Village Board unanimously votes to ban some semi-automatic weapons

The new ordinance goes into effect on June 13. Residents who do not remove the banned weapons from their homes by that date face a fine of $1,000 per day.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 3, 2018)

You really think you can fine me for something you don't know I have?


----------



## ShadowSpear (Apr 3, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Ummm....I try to take this stuff in stride, but this seems like as much of an”Holy Shit” moment as any...
> 
> Deerfield Village Board unanimously votes to ban some semi-automatic weapons
> 
> The new ordinance goes into effect on June 13. Residents who do not remove the banned weapons from their homes by that date face a fine of $1,000 per day.



Can we overthrow the town and appoint a pro-2A dictator? 🤔


----------



## Gunz (Apr 3, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Ummm....I try to take this stuff in stride, but this seems like as much of an”Holy Shit” moment as any...
> 
> Deerfield Village Board unanimously votes to ban some semi-automatic weapons
> 
> The new ordinance goes into effect on June 13. Residents who do not remove the banned weapons from their homes by that date face a fine of $1,000 per day.



And how is this enforced? Unwarranted search and seizure?


----------



## Gunz (Apr 3, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> You really think you can fine me for something you don't know I have?



Maybe your neighbors, family or friends know...and would rat on you for a reward. If we're gonna go "1984" let's go full Nazi.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 3, 2018)

There will always be spies in the camp. That's why my tribe consists of less than 10 people.


----------



## DC (Apr 3, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Ummm....I try to take this stuff in stride, but this seems like as much of an”Holy Shit” moment as any...
> 
> Deerfield Village Board unanimously votes to ban some semi-automatic weapons
> 
> The new ordinance goes into effect on June 13. Residents who do not remove the banned weapons from their homes by that date face a fine of $1,000 per day.


Here’s a loophole. AR is Armalite Rifle trademarked by Armalite. All others technically not an “AR”. The are just...well...scary rifles.


----------



## DC (Apr 3, 2018)

And why divulging with pics what’s in your safe on a public board or in public for that matter ain’t too smart.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 3, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> Maybe your neighbors, family or friends know...and would rat on you for a reward. If we're gonna go "1984" let's go full Nazi.



Shoot, man, I sold that AR.  Threw away the receipt.  Sorry.  Or did I lend it to a family member in another state?

Fuck that.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 3, 2018)

All I can say is..."GOOD LUCK" with that....


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 4, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Ummm....I try to take this stuff in stride, but this seems like as much of an”Holy Shit” moment as any...
> 
> Deerfield Village Board unanimously votes to ban some semi-automatic weapons
> 
> The new ordinance goes into effect on June 13. Residents who do not remove the banned weapons from their homes by that date face a fine of $1,000 per day.



Previously I have said on here that when this time comes the Government won't have to take them from cold dead hands. Obviously this law will get overturned, but before then, 99.9% will voluntarily turn them in.


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 4, 2018)

Mine all self identify as trans-pistols. Also, if they are illegal and live in a sanctuary city they can't come round them up.


----------



## Topkick (Apr 4, 2018)

NavyBuyer said:


> Previously I have said on here that when this time comes the Government won't have to take them from cold dead hands. Obviously this law will get overturned, but before then, 99.9% will voluntarily turn them in.



I agree that most will cave and turn them in voluntarily if the day does indeed come. Not 99 percent, but a majority. Sheep wearing sheepdog morale patches.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 5, 2018)

Just thought I'd leave this here: 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981592747948863489


----------



## Gunz (Apr 5, 2018)

So did Elmer Fudd.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 5, 2018)

And Yosemite Sam

And sometimes Bugs too


----------



## DC (Apr 5, 2018)

Looney Tunes cartoons an American staple . Beepbeep Roadrunner and 5150 Coyote


----------



## AWP (Apr 6, 2018)

Um, I don't think the judge understands the concept of bearing arms. Moreover, this is a dangerous precedent other activist judges can emulate.

Massachusetts' ban on assault weapons doesn't violate 2nd Amendment, judge rules



> That notion was ruled out, however, as the judge pointed out that the design of semi-automatic AR-15's is based on guns "that were first manufactured for military purposes" and that the AR-15 is "common and well-known in the military."
> 
> "The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to 'bear arms,'" Young said.


----------



## policemedic (Apr 7, 2018)

AWP said:


> Um, I don't think the judge understands the concept of bearing arms. Moreover, this is a dangerous precedent other activist judges can emulate.
> 
> Massachusetts' ban on assault weapons doesn't violate 2nd Amendment, judge rules



This ruling won't survive the appeals process.  The SCOTUS has been clear that weapons in common use are protected, and the AR-15 is probably the most popular and prevalent rifle in America.

That, combined with the fact that the framers meant specifically to protect those arms in common usage by the militia, pretty much dooms this silly ruling to the scrap heap once the appeals process goes forward.


----------



## AWP (Apr 7, 2018)

policemedic said:


> This ruling won't survive the appeals process.  The SCOTUS has been clear that weapons in common use are protected, and the AR-15 is probably the most popular and prevalent rifle in America.
> 
> That, combined with the fact that the framers meant specifically to protect those arms in common usage by the militia, pretty much dooms this silly ruling to the scrap heap once the appeals process goes forward.



 I agree with you to a point, but lack any faith in the system. Think of the discussions we have today that weren't even thought of 20 years ago. This line of thought will return over and over and our only hope lies in judges who aren't activists?


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 7, 2018)

AWP said:


> Um, I don't think the judge understands the concept of bearing arms. Moreover, this is a dangerous precedent other activist judges can emulate.
> 
> Massachusetts' ban on assault weapons doesn't violate 2nd Amendment, judge rules



Color me surprised...an activist judge interpreting the 2A based on his own bias and lack of knowledge of history....


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 8, 2018)

I point back specifically with this fuckhead of a judge..... at the specific wording of the 2nd amendment... and my previous statements regarding that very subject... and fucking title 10.

But hey, the 2nd amendment is just for hunting.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 8, 2018)

Ranger Psych said:


> I point back specifically with this fuckhead of a judge..... at the specific wording of the 2nd amendment... and my previous statements regarding that very subject... and fucking title 10.
> 
> But hey, the 2nd amendment is just for hunting.



Just for hunting...but specifies weapons of war (e.g., for militia).  Judge is so far out in left field....


----------



## 256 (Apr 8, 2018)

I’m all about rallying to stop nonsense gun bans, but I’m not sure what throwing on your “bullet resistant” vest (I think he forgot his plates and maybe cardio day) does to help. It plays to the “these crazy gun people have bulletproof vests and assault rifles” idea, doesn’t it? Same goes to the idiots taking ARs into Starbucks, those actions make gun owners look the part the media tries to depict.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 8, 2018)

I never agreed with that approach.

After Newtown,  I think a year later a group went to the local Starbucks, around the area Sandy Hook was to stage a sit down open carry protest. It made the papers. It doesn't help, angers people and pushes people away.

Teaching people through education is the way to go IMO.


----------



## 256 (Apr 8, 2018)

Marine0311 said:


> I never agreed with that approach.
> 
> After Newtown,  I think a year later a group went to the local Starbucks, around the area Sandy Hook was to stage a sit down open carry protest. It made the papers. It doesn't help, angers people and pushes people away.
> 
> Teaching people through education is the way to go IMO.



My sniper partner went to his church’s “security” meeting which involved the church’s insurance agengy. They are trying to use CCW holders has armed security. Cool plan but if you read the Ohio Revised Code closely it’s pretty illegal. Anyway, the point about what weapon/ammo each person in the church is carrying comes to the front of discussion (generally speaking). My LE/sniper buddy goes, “you’ll never know exactly what ammo or weapon a person is going to carry because they might forget or might just carry something else that day. Maybe one day I bring a hollow-point and one day I forget after going to the range and bring FMJs.” 

The insurance lady says, “yeah, you don’t want to bring hollow-point bullets, people blow up when they’re hit with those.” My partner said his mouth dropped wide open in disbelief and asked her if she was joking. “No, that’s what happens in the movies,” she said. I told him that this is the exact audience we are working against.


----------



## Topkick (Apr 8, 2018)

256 said:


> Cool plan but if you read the Ohio Revised Code closely it’s pretty illegal.



Is this illegal because they don't have state security credentials? OPOTA? I do know a lot of churches are doing this. But, is it only illegal if you make it official? I mean what if church-goers with a CCW just happen to be there? Wink, Wink.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 8, 2018)

Topkick said:


> Is this illegal because they don't have state security credentials? OPOTA? I do know a lot of churches are doing this. But, is it only illegal if you make it official? I mean what if church-goers with a CCW just happen to be there? Wink, Wink.



Many insurers of church facilities do not support CCW in any way - in fact, many are openly against it. At least that is from my experience of leading security for two major churches. Insurers don't want anything that they may have to "defend" against.


----------



## ShadowSpear (Apr 8, 2018)

In other news, London's mayor is implementing knife control measures: London's Mayor Declares Intense New 'Knife Control' Policies To Stop Epidemic Of Stabbings 

Banning is always the answer!


----------



## 256 (Apr 8, 2018)

Topkick said:


> Is this illegal because they don't have state security credentials? OPOTA? I do know a lot of churches are doing this. But, is it only illegal if you make it official? I mean what if church-goers with a CCW just happen to be there? Wink, Wink.



Yeah there’s nothing wrong with a church goer packing. The problem arises when you’re saying that Joe Smith is armed security and backing it with “security meetings.”


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 8, 2018)

256 said:


> My sniper partner went to his church’s “security” meeting which involved the church’s insurance agengy. They are trying to use CCW holders has armed security. Cool plan but if you read the Ohio Revised Code closely it’s pretty illegal. Anyway, the point about what weapon/ammo each person in the church is carrying comes to the front of discussion (generally speaking). My LE/sniper buddy goes, “you’ll never know exactly what ammo or weapon a person is going to carry because they might forget or might just carry something else that day. Maybe one day I bring a hollow-point and one day I forget after going to the range and bring FMJs.”
> 
> The insurance lady says, “yeah, you don’t want to bring hollow-point bullets, people blow up when they’re hit with those.” My partner said his mouth dropped wide open in disbelief and asked her if she was joking. “No, that’s what happens in the movies,” she said. I told him that this is the exact audience we are working against.



Ignorance is another thing we are fighting against.

Stop wearing body armor and walking around loaded up. Yes you have a Right but one also has a moral responsibility.


----------



## racing_kitty (Apr 8, 2018)

ShadowSpear said:


> In other news, London's mayor is implementing knife control measures: London's Mayor Declares Intense New 'Knife Control' Policies To Stop Epidemic Of Stabbings
> 
> Banning is always the answer!


----------



## Chopstick (Apr 9, 2018)

"Ok for me but not for thee".  Taking bets on how quickly De Blasio sweeps this under the carpet.

https://nypost.com/2018/04/08/direc...medium=site buttons&utm_campaign=site buttons



> This de Blasio administration official set one heckuva bad example for the teens she was hired to keep out of jail.
> 
> Reagan Stevens, a deputy director in the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice, and two young men were arrested for illegal weapons possession while sitting in a double-parked car near the scene of a Saturday night shooting in Queens, cops said.
> 
> ...


----------



## AWP (Apr 9, 2018)

ShadowSpear said:


> Banning is always the answer!



That's been my motto since I was a Mod.


----------



## Topkick (Apr 9, 2018)

Here's what comes after gun control is implemented.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan targets knives as murder rate spikes: 'There is never a reason to carry a knife'


----------



## DC (Apr 9, 2018)

problem solved.


----------



## Box (Apr 9, 2018)

If London subscribes to the concept of "policing by consent" how are they going to enforce a knife ban ??

If the effectiveness of the police is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime - is it safe to assume that the bobbies are ineffective ??

If the people of London wish to live under the dominion of a monarch, then they need to stop complaining and turn in their zombie knives before Sadiq Khan begins to taunt them a second time........................
....blah blah blah London, blah blah so cosmopolitan blah blah, zombie knives.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 9, 2018)

Never a reason to carry a knife?  What about for cutting cheesecake?  Whittling?

And what about a multi-tool?  Or that an assault knife?


----------



## Etype (Apr 9, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Never a reason to carry a knife?  What about for cutting cheesecake?  Whittling?


The knife is the third oldest tool, behind the rock and the stick.


----------



## Box (Apr 9, 2018)

You don't need a knife to stir tea
You don't need a knife to eat fish and chips
You don't need a zombie knife to defend against criminals - the Bobbies are the ones that deal with criminals.
...now box up your knives and turn them shits in before the Mayor is forced to taunt you a second time


----------



## runninrunninrunnin (Apr 9, 2018)

Meanwhile in SJW land.....


----------



## AWP (Apr 10, 2018)

A very liberal friend of mine hit me up the other day. She's very anti-2A, "ban assault rifles, ban high cap magazines, etc."  Her dad passed and she's cleaning out his gun cabinet. 

"What's the difference between a rifle and a shotgun?"

I had to ask her if she's serious or if that was the lead in to a joke. Despite the absolute hilarity (and tragedy) of the moment, I'm taking the high road and trying to explain the hardware aspects of firearms.

The pro-2A crowd doesn't lack for idiots, but remember the woman above is an active voter.


----------



## Box (Apr 10, 2018)

The useful idiots are so much more dangerous than the community organizers.  The leaders of the movement have a plan.  The leaders of a movement have vision.  The leaders of the movement are moving towards a goal.  Useful idiots are little more than blunt objects floating around the cabin during a plane crash...
...no plan, no goal, no trajectory, no purpose; just unrestrained energy waiting to collide with something.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 10, 2018)

From the London knife ban article:

_"...Strangely enough, Khan is responsible for decreasing the number of stop-and-searches, having previously declared the tactic racist and potentially Islamophobic..."_


----------



## Chopstick (Apr 14, 2018)

Will just leave this right here.  Just in case I had any thoughts of caving on my self imposed boycott of Dick's (no comments please) and Field and Stream.  

Dick’s will destroy remaining inventory of ‘assault rifles’



> After announcing policies that most gun owners saw as alienating, Dick’s Sporting Goods said it will go one step further and destroy its remaining inventory of firearms dubbed “assault weapons.”
> 
> A spokeswoman told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that the remaining inventory at the retailer’s Field & Streams stores will be destroyed and then recycled.
> 
> “We are in the process of destroying all firearms and accessories that are no longer for sale as a result of our February 28th policy change,” she said. “We are destroying the firearms in accordance with federal guidelines and regulations.”


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 14, 2018)

Passed by a gun store in Indiana while truckin.

"We sell AR's because we're not Dicks" on a big fuckin sign out front.

I *Had* to call them and inform them that their sign was awesome.


----------



## Chopstick (Apr 14, 2018)

@Ranger Psych I am sad that Shadowspear doesn't let me like and love the above post.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 14, 2018)

I always found the big box one-size-fits-none stores like Dick's to be overpriced and underwhelming.  To hell with them.


----------



## Topkick (Apr 14, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> I always found the big box one-size-fits-none stores like Dick's to be overpriced and underwhelming.  To hell with them.



They carry mediocre stuff anyway.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 14, 2018)

Topkick said:


> They carry mediocre stuff anyway.



Primarily overpriced surplus Nagant's, at least that was standard Big 5 fare growing up.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 14, 2018)

Ranger Psych said:


> Primarily overpriced surplus Nagant's, at least that was standard Big 5 fare growing up.


Over-priced?  I remember seeing ads every week for $65 Nagants...wish my parents were into guns then.


----------



## Topkick (Apr 14, 2018)

Ranger Psych said:


> Primarily overpriced surplus Nagant's, at least that was standard Big 5 fare growing up.


Yep. Do like Cabela's gun library but same thing. Overpriced Nagants and Yugo SKS's.


----------



## Kaldak (Apr 14, 2018)

Story for you all. Back to edit tomorrow with the story. Suffice to say, people be crazy.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 15, 2018)

This sucks IMO it is a micro eroding of our rights. My concern will be if other stores follow suit.


----------



## Topkick (Apr 15, 2018)

Marine0311 said:


> This sucks IMO it is a micro eroding of our rights. My concern will be if other stores follow suit.



I look at the bright side. Successful small business returns to America. There are plenty of one off, local gun shops in my area and they usually carry better quality and more interesting stuff. The only downside is the LGS may be a little more expensive because they don't purchase in bulk.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 15, 2018)

Dan's Gun Room, Inverness FL. My one-stop shop for all my gunning needs.


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 16, 2018)

Here's a fantastic link to end all discussions about what our 2nd Amendment means to some reallyold people. 

Bear Arms


----------



## Muppet (Apr 17, 2018)

An open letter to American Citizens | Breach Bang Clear

Good write up.....


----------



## Centermass (Apr 18, 2018)

Ranger Psych said:


> Passed by a gun store in Indiana while truckin.
> 
> "We sell AR's because we're not Dicks" on a big fuckin sign out front.
> 
> I *Had* to call them and inform them that their sign was awesome.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 20, 2018)

Illinois county becomes a sanctuary county for gun owners....

'We're Taking a Stand': Illinois County Declares Itself a Sanctuary for Gun Owners


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 29, 2018)

Anyone hear/read the Lance Armstrong podcast with Tim Kennedy?  (does everyone have a podcast now?)

In a nutshell he said that he is pro gun control and does not believe that a 19 year old "kid" should be able to buy and AR.  He is being absolutely slaughtered on the gun forum I read.  I guess I need to watch the whole interview, but when there are very wealthy and very powerful folks out there who have dedicated their lives to removing guns from the common man, giving one inch is a chink in the armor that offers the anti-folks hope. I am disappointed with his response.

Here the video of the interview. The remark was made at around the 11:55 mark. They start discussing guns at 5:18.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 29, 2018)

That's something weird out of Tim Kennedy's mouth...but...Lance Armstrong interview Mia Khalifa?  Hell yeah!


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 29, 2018)

I saw it. I've heard Tim clarify his/those comments several times but I'm not sure what he means or what his stance is.


----------



## Stretcher Jockey (Apr 29, 2018)

So I just want to touch on one comment that Mr. Kennedy made. He said that kid who had a violent history never should have had access to buying a gun, which is true. But the local police and the FBI failed to do their due diligence to prevent it. So his answer is to give MORE power to the same people and the same system that failed in the first place? If everyone had done their job correctly the first time we wouldnt be here having this discussion. Talk about the definition of insanity


----------



## AWP (May 3, 2018)

In what I can only describe as a parental failure on my part...my daughter is a Liberal. With that said, she wanted me to take her to the range so she could shoot our pistols. She wants to buy a gun and she'd like to get a feel for them. She's never fired a pistol before in her life (she's 23), never shown an interest in guns...nada.

An hour later she declared she wants a Glock 43 and is considering a concealed carry permit. 

Little victories. "Think globally, act locally" and all that.


----------



## Grunt (May 3, 2018)

No worries, AWP...I know several "liberals" that have no issues with weapons. I know "conservatives" that don't think you should be able to have any type of AR unless you are LE or military. After all, why should someone need that...they aren't for hunting or sport...only killin.....


----------



## Topkick (May 3, 2018)

AWP said:


> In what I can only describe as a parental failure on my part...my daughter is a Liberal. With that said, she wanted me to take her to the range so she could shoot our pistols. She wants to buy a gun and she'd like to get a feel for them. She's never fired a pistol before in her life (she's 23), never shown an interest in guns...nada.
> 
> An hour later she declared she wants a Glock 43 and is considering a concealed carry permit.
> 
> Little victories. "Think globally, act locally" and all that.



I don't think it's your failure, it's society. Many young people are liberal because they believe in rainbows and unicorns, and that they will help change the world. but then life happens and reality sets in.


----------



## 256 (May 3, 2018)

@AWP You’ll like this one, my wife took this the other day.


----------



## Marine0311 (May 6, 2018)

What is the history of the AR 15?
Did the AR 15 come first or did the M16? I think the AR came first.


----------



## AWP (May 6, 2018)

Marine0311 said:


> What is the history of the AR 15?
> Did the AR 15 come first or did the M16? I think the AR came first.



www.google.com


----------



## Gunz (May 6, 2018)

There was an M15 rifle for a while, a variant of the M14 with a heavier barrel, that was designed to replace the BAR. But modifying the M14 for full auto or semi did the job anyway so the M15 was scrapped.



Marine0311 said:


> What is the history of the AR 15?
> Did the AR 15 come first or did the M16? I think the AR came first.




I know the answer but I'm not going to tell you.


----------



## 256 (May 6, 2018)

Marine0311 said:


> What is the history of the AR 15?
> Did the AR 15 come first or did the M16? I think the AR came first.



The chicken came first, everyone knows that..


----------



## Marine0311 (May 6, 2018)

Alright you jokers I wanted to know if anyone has a clear version of that history so I can use it to argue back.


----------



## Kraut783 (May 6, 2018)

Here is a good article from 2016.

Gunmakers Have Sold AR-15s to Civilians for More Than 50 Years


----------



## Marauder06 (May 6, 2018)

Interesting that the article referred to the weapon's caliber as .22.


----------



## CDG (May 6, 2018)

.223 and .22 are the same thing. Duh. Just like all 7.62 rounds are the same.  Whatever comes after the "x" is meaningless.


----------



## Devildoc (May 17, 2018)

Has anyone seen this group, "Hunters Against the NRA"?  https://www.facebook.com/HuntersAgainstNRA/

These cats are koo koo for cocoa puffs....they have a video detailing a plan for "census workers" "scouring" homes looking for and counting guns, plan to have it implemented in two years, then says their "lawyer" says you cannot share the video with any pro-gun or pro-NRA site or people.  

My legal disclaimer:  I am not sharing the video.  I am advertising their site.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 17, 2018)

That's got to be a troll site.

I hope.


----------



## Gunz (May 17, 2018)

I know a few gun owners who aren't crazy about the NRA, but none of them would ever side with the gun-ban crowd.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 17, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> That's got to be a troll site.
> 
> I hope.


I agree....and it's actually pretty good if you look at it from that point-of-view.


----------



## Topkick (May 17, 2018)

There is significant group of people who believe guns are for hunting and sport only, and this crowd will side with left on "assault rifles" and other semi- autos. They seperate themselves from the tactical, self-defense, prepper crowd.


----------



## AWP (May 17, 2018)

I have to wonder how many would join the NRA just to say they are NRA members for gun control.


----------



## Devildoc (May 17, 2018)

Topkick said:


> There is significant group of people who believe guns are for hunting and sport only, and this crowd will side with left on "assault rifles" and other semi- autos. They seperate themselves from the tactical, self-defense, prepper crowd.



And that whole thought process is utterly nonsensical to me.

An analogy to me is the 13th amendment, regarding slavery.  It's like saying it only applies to black people; people of other skin color can be enslaved.


----------



## Topkick (May 17, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> And that whole thought process is utterly nonsensical to me.
> 
> An analogy to me is the 13th amendment, regarding slavery.  It's like saying it only applies to black people; people of other skin color can be enslaved.


They are the Fudd's 
The Fudd: why they are toxic to gun owning communities - Paratus


----------



## Gunz (May 17, 2018)

Topkick said:


> There is significant group of people who believe guns are for hunting and sport only, and this crowd will side with left on "assault rifles" and other semi- autos. They seperate themselves from the tactical, self-defense, prepper crowd.




Ran into a few, mostly upper-crust sporting clay crowd, non-mil rich cats with fancy Benelli shotguns.


----------



## Devildoc (May 17, 2018)

Topkick said:


> They are the Fudd's
> The Fudd: why they are toxic to gun owning communities - Paratus



Oh, yeah, I know who they are.  I work with a couple docs who own $4,000 shottys for pheasant and ducks and want to ban just about everything else.  They hate arguing with me on this topic because I am always right.  Logic and facts confuse them and they just shut down and mutter "...but the children" or some stupid shit.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 17, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Has anyone seen this group, "Hunters Against the NRA"?  https://www.facebook.com/HuntersAgainstNRA/
> 
> These cats are koo koo for cocoa puffs....they have a video detailing a plan for "census workers" "scouring" homes looking for and counting guns, plan to have it implemented in two years, then says their "lawyer" says you cannot share the video with any pro-gun or pro-NRA site or people.
> 
> My legal disclaimer:  I am not sharing the video.  I am advertising their site.


It's being shared all over the place.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 3, 2018)

Good ol' California - 

July 1 Deadline for Cali Gun Owners - Creating Criminals - Uncle Sam's Misguided Children


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 4, 2018)

I don't understand this part:

California law states that every weapon must have a unique serial number. So as of July 1, if a person is making their weapon out of parts rather than purchasing a new gun, they must apply to the California Justice Department for a “serial number or other mark.” 

Unless I'm milling out my own 80% lower, wouldn't this be completely meaningless?  I'm OK with requiring everyone's gun to have a serial # on it.  Even if I'm putting a gun together out of parts, the receiver will have a serial # on it already in most cases.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 4, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Good ol' California -
> 
> July 1 Deadline for Cali Gun Owners - Creating Criminals - Uncle Sam's Misguided Children


Commiefornia strike again! Fuck em, in for a penny in for a pound.  It's already a 3rd world shithole, why not add to the ambiance Saddam style?


----------



## policemedic (Jul 4, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> I don't understand this part:
> 
> California law states that every weapon must have a unique serial number. So as of July 1, if a person is making their weapon out of parts rather than purchasing a new gun, they must apply to the California Justice Department for a “serial number or other mark.”
> 
> Unless I'm milling out my own 80% lower, wouldn't this be completely meaningless?  I'm OK with requiring everyone's gun to have a serial # on it.  Even if I'm putting a gun together out of parts, the receiver will have a serial # on it already in most cases.



Yeah, I'm with you.  I'm going to have to pull the law up and read the details.  Some manufacturers do place matching serial numbers on frames, barrels, and slides, but most don't.  Legally, the gun is the frame or lower (with the SIG P320 being a notable exception).  The only impact I can see is that people will be required to obtain a serial number from the CA DOJ for their 80% builds, which kind of negates their perceived benefit.


----------



## AWP (Jul 4, 2018)

policemedic said:


> The only impact I can see is that people will be required to obtain a serial number from the CA DOJ for their 80% builds, which kind of negates their perceived benefit.



Which is probably the only motivating factor behind the law. You apply for a SN, the state "forgets" to delete the records, and now they know who has what type of weapon.


----------



## policemedic (Jul 4, 2018)

AWP said:


> Which is probably the only motivating factor behind the law. You apply for a SN, the state "forgets" to delete the records, and now they know who has what type of weapon.



Exactly.  It's another step towards building capacity for confiscation.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 4, 2018)

I live in Hawaii now.  In order to stay legal, when my guns get here I have to skip work and physically take them to the Honolulu PD to register them.

W.

T.

F.


----------



## policemedic (Jul 4, 2018)

I was thinking of taking a holiday there pre-volcanic death and molten destruction.  It seems the Hawaiian government wants you to register any guns that will be in the state for more than 5 days.  Fuck that.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Jul 4, 2018)

AWP said:


> Which is probably the only motivating factor behind the law. You apply for a SN, the state "forgets" to delete the records, and now they know who has what type of weapon.





policemedic said:


> Exactly.  It's another step towards building capacity for confiscation.



I value both of your opinions but I can't see this or any other measure that can be interpreted as a precursor to confiscation as _anything _but a muse to support a political theme. Honestly, the closest we will get to confiscation will be through legislation. At this rate, it will be such a pain in the ass to own a firearm - many if not all will outright abandon the privilege to do so.


----------



## AWP (Jul 4, 2018)

The Hate Ape said:


> I value both of your opinions but I can't see this or any other measure that can be interpreted as a precursor to confiscation as _anything _but a muse to support a political theme. Honestly, the closest we will get to confiscation will be through legislation. At this rate, it will be such a pain in the ass to own a firearm - many if not all will outright abandon the privilege to do so.



Fair enough, but if there's no end state then why require registration? What benefit to society does it provide?


----------



## The Hate Ape (Jul 4, 2018)

It provides no benefit to anyone but the legislator who made it happen. It becomes a track record... 

"I made the streets safer through enacted firearms registrations (blah blah blah) now vote for me for another 30+ years."


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 4, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> I live in Hawaii now.  In order to stay legal, when my guns get here I have to skip work and physically take them to the Honolulu PD to register them.
> 
> W.
> 
> ...


I’m sure you have already considered this, but just in case.  

Have you double checked to ensure that everything you own can be posessed in Hawaii?  Would hate to see your police station visit hang an unexpected LEFT turn.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 4, 2018)

Counterfeit guns are being fabricated out of raw metal and assembled in small, clandestine metal working shops in the Philippines, then smuggled into California. These are replicas of commercially made 9mm and 45cal weapons but have no serial numbers. They are in high demand because they are untraceable. What relevance this may have to the CA law, I don't know...but there must be thousands of them on the black market.


----------



## Kaldak (Jul 4, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> Counterfeit guns are being fabricated out of raw metal and assembled in small, clandestine metal working shops in the Philippines, then smuggled into California. These are replicas of commercially made 9mm and 45cal weapons but have no serial numbers. They are in high demand because they are untraceable. What relevance this may have to the CA law, I don't know...but there must be thousands of them on the black market.



I don't recall the episode number off the top of my head, but _Vice _did an episode on that exact topic. It was fascinating.


----------



## AWP (Jul 4, 2018)

Time to ban the Philippines and open up the gov't to lawsuits for allowing the manufacturing of these weapons of mass destruction.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Jul 4, 2018)

"Family man who kills home invaders with unregistered Glock 19 is charged, tried before the court, and convicted to a bajillion years in prison"
- Said no news source, ever.


----------



## policemedic (Jul 5, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> Counterfeit guns are being fabricated out of raw metal and assembled in small, clandestine metal working shops in the Philippines, then smuggled into California. These are replicas of commercially made 9mm and 45cal weapons but have no serial numbers. They are in high demand because they are untraceable. What relevance this may have to the CA law, I don't know...but there must be thousands of them on the black market.



I'm sure the gangbangers and other crims in CA have complied with the registration/serializing law now that it's a legal requirement...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 5, 2018)

Thousands of firearms, with serial numbers, manufactured legally, on the black market.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 5, 2018)

Texas mom shoots man trying to take car with her kids inside at gas station: 'I hope that woke him up'

Damn Right!


----------



## CQB (Jul 18, 2018)

Bear with me here. In Oz, a guy in Sydney managed to get a pistol license despite warnings from police and gun clubs that he was never to get access, but was eventually issued a permit to acquire. He killed his two estranged teen children with legally acquired pistols. The Firearms Registry IMO fucked up. (No matter, another arguement). What has eventuated in the past two weeks is that the clubs are talking to each other. I'm relatively new to the competitive shooting scene, about five years, but in that time this has not occurred. In the past week I've received emails to beware of certain people who are looking to acquire training or to acquire. This is such a positive move and the beauty is there's no legislation behind it, the clubs have picked up the ball. In the US context, the only example I can think of is that if Chris Kyle and his partner had some kind of mental health pow wow with others their deaths may have been avoided. It's so positive and should be embraced.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 20, 2018)

Glad I was sitting down when I read this.  9th circuit court delivers (narrow) pro-2A decision:

Ninth Circuit California Gun-Law Ruling: Good News for Second Amendment Rights | National Review


----------



## Grunt (Jul 20, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Glad I was sitting down when I read this.  9th circuit court delivers (narrow) pro-2A decision:
> 
> Ninth Circuit California Gun-Law Ruling: Good News for Second Amendment Rights | National Review



Well, Brother...you know the old "broken watch theory"!

But, I will take every victory that I can...especially from that jurisdiction....


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 20, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Glad I was sitting down when I read this.  9th circuit court delivers (narrow) pro-2A decision:
> 
> Ninth Circuit California Gun-Law Ruling: Good News for Second Amendment Rights | National Review



That is very surprising from the 9th, but yep, I'll take it.


----------



## Board and Seize (Jul 20, 2018)

Other fun news in the world of gun control:

Defense Distributed has settled with the DOJ.  Gun model files (for 3D printing, etc.) will no longer be restricted under ITAR.  You probably remember to Liberator pistol - the "world's first 3d printed gun".  It's files were online for (I think) less than a week before they got shut down using ITAR as the pistol was being 'exported' via the internet.

Here's an article from Wired that isn't quite hysterical, but definitely against Cody Wilson's vision of the inevitable death of gun control
Here's an article from Reason that is in strong support.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 27, 2018)

Interesting article on the Toronto shooting.  I am putting this here because there's lots of comparisons to and context with the US.

In wake of shooting, gun ownership under debate in Toronto


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 27, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Interesting article on the Toronto shooting.  I am putting this here because there's lots of comparisons to and context with the US.
> 
> In wake of shooting, gun ownership under debate in Toronto



They've been looking for an excuse to ban semi auto everything and handguns.  Apparently the federal government had been considering banning handguns even before this shooting.  Meanwhile, the gun was illegally acquired anyway.  The Liberal's thought the long gun registry woke up a sleeping giant, they have no idea what this just did.  I've heard from previously quiet individuals in the past couple days about becoming very outspoken against any laws penalizing legal gun owners for criminal's.  They haven't said anything that will actually help reduce the gang violence or illegal gun trade that is behind it all.


----------



## Centermass (Aug 27, 2018)

Hell has officially frozen over.

The American Civil Liberties Union moved to file a brief on Friday *opposing the state’s motion* to dismiss the National Rifle Association’s lawsuit against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state’s top financial regulator.

In the ACLU’s view, targeting a nonprofit advocacy group and seeking to deny it financial services because it promotes a lawful activity (the use of guns) violates the First Amendment. Because we believe the governor’s actions, as alleged, threaten the First Amendment rights of all advocacy organizations, the ACLU on Friday filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the NRA’s right to have its day in court.

Link


----------



## AWP (Aug 27, 2018)

Centermass said:


> Hell has officially frozen over.
> 
> The American Civil Liberties Union moved to file a brief on Friday *opposing the state’s motion* to dismiss the National Rifle Association’s lawsuit against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state’s top financial regulator.
> 
> ...



The world no longer makes any sense.


----------



## Cookie_ (Aug 27, 2018)

Centermass said:


> Hell has officially frozen over.



As weird as it seems, the ACLU actually supports a good number of cases that would be considered "right-leaning" positions; the media just prefers to report on when the ACLU fights religion in public institutions or gay rights instead.


----------



## Blizzard (Aug 27, 2018)

Cookie_101st said:


> As weird as it seems, the ACLU actually supports a good number of cases that would be considered "right-leaning" positions; the media just prefers to report on when the ACLU fights religion in public institutions or gay rights instead.


Agreed.  As a whole, they're generally consistent in their mission.  Equal opportunity offenders, if you will.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 28, 2018)

It seems as if the democrats are drawing a line in the sand and making gun control their pet issue:

The Democratic Party’s New Litmus Test: Gun Control


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 28, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> It seems as if the democrats are drawing a line in the sand and making gun control their pet issue:
> 
> The Democratic Party’s New Litmus Test: Gun Control



The former congress woman apparently does not understand the district she's running for at all.  The Southeast corner of Arizona is full of pretty isolated towns where drug runners and smugglers push through often.  A lot of BP operations are continuous in that area.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 23, 2018)

Color me shocked....

Once the story ends and the free press and money dries up, so too does the resolve. 

Parkland PAC formed to take on the NRA scales back

_The group spent roughly half of its money on consulting services, with the biggest chunk going to Empire Global Ventures, a New York based firm primarily focused on corporate clients but whose founders boast political campaign experience._


----------



## Centermass (Nov 14, 2018)

Good grief........

*On 2 November 2018, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held the Second Amendment effectively does not apply outside the home. *

This case involves a constitutional challenge to the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute, as implemented in the communities of Boston and Brookline. All of the individual plaintiffs sought and received licenses from one of those two communities to carry firearms in public. The licenses, though, were restricted: they allowed the plaintiffs to carry firearms only in relation to certain specified activities but denied them the right to carry firearms more generally.  

In the last analysis, the plaintiffs simply do not have the right” to carry arms for any sort of confrontation” or “for whatever purpose” they may choose. Id. at 595, 626 (emphasis omitted).  

Link


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 14, 2018)

Fuck


----------



## Grunt (Nov 14, 2018)

I must have skipped the "only in my house clause" from the 2nd Amendment. I always felt I was missing something....

People are stupid!


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 15, 2018)

Centermass said:


> Good grief........
> 
> *On 2 November 2018, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held the Second Amendment effectively does not apply outside the home. *
> 
> ...



This isn't a bad thing yet, as long as it gets kicked up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has been ruling in favor of CCW for the past decade, I don't see why they would change now. They overturn this ruling and that becomes law of the land, CCW permits for every body, in every state.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 17, 2018)

Meanwhile,  in Ohio.....
‘Stand your ground’ gun bill passes Ohio House



> The House-approved “stand your ground” bill removes a “duty to retreat” for armed Ohioans facing a threat or perceived threat. It also shifts the burden of proof in self-defense cases to the prosecution, which would align Ohio with a vast majority of states.
> Rep. Terry Johnson, R-McDermott, a primary sponsor, said the bill brings Ohio up-to-date with federal law and extends the castle doctrine to a person’s vehicle and anywhere they have a legal right to be.
> “This bill is not going to grant any new place to carry a firearm nor is this bill designed to allow vigilantes to walk the streets and dispense their own justice,” McDermott said.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 16, 2019)

A bit lengthy and goofy at points,  but a damn good video on the break down of the 2A.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jan 16, 2019)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> A bit lengthy and goofy at points,  but a damn good video on the break down of the 2A.



Jumped around the video a bit. Seems pretty well researched and put together as to the history of the 2nd ammendment.

I didn't see it mentioned while I was jumping around, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he doesn't mention Scalia himself was of the opinion that the 2nd amendment could be regulated?

Edit: I mention Scalia because of the number of comments saying things like "all gun laws are illegal" or "we should sue California for violating the Constitution".

Those don't seem like people who would get nuance.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 16, 2019)

Cookie_101st said:


> Jumped around the video a bit. Seems pretty well researched and put together as to the history of the 2nd ammendment.
> 
> I didn't see it mentioned while I was jumping around, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he doesn't mention Scalia himself was of the opinion that the 2nd amendment could be regulated?
> 
> ...



No it did not specifically mention that, but to be clear, I have never read where Scalia stated that the 2A could be regulated. I have read that the act of carrying of unusual and dangerous weapons could be restricted (I.e. lil Mohamad can't strap a pressure cooker bomb to his back and go walking around in public). I don't think anyone extreme right to extreme left would disagree, that people shouldn't be allowed to walk around with bombs strapped to their bodies.

But to be clear, I personally do not believe any government has the proper athourity to say what I can use or carry for self-defense.

I'd much rather crack a dude with a set of knuckles than use a knife or pistol (less likely to kill someone, be sued, deal with LE, etc). Yet in my state, knuckles are illegal, yet I can openly carry a knife or pistol. To someone like me, that makes absolutely no sense, I'm forced to use deadly force on someone who probably just needs a couple lumps, because I am restricted by law on what I can and cannot carry/use for self-defense. What ends up happening, I break the law,  or carry a improvised or modified version of knuckles. The law itself, is meaningless, something that was engineered to be a added consequence for the common thug, became a restriction for the general public, resulting in less assholes with headaches and more holes in assholes... <~~~~see what I did there.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 16, 2019)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> No it did not specifically mention that, but to be clear, I have never read where Scalia stated that the 2A could be regulated. I have read that the act of carrying of unusual and dangerous weapons could be restricted (I.e. lil Mohamad can't strap a pressure cooker bomb to his back and go walking around in public). I don't think anyone extreme right to extreme left would disagree, that people shouldn't be allowed to walk around with bombs strapped to their bodies.
> 
> But to be clear, I personally do not believe any government has the proper athourity to say what I can use or carry for self-defense.
> 
> *I'd much rather crack a dude with a set of knuckles than use a knife or pistol (less likely to kill someone, be sued, deal with LE, etc). Yet in my state, knuckles are illegal, yet I can openly carry a knife or pistol*. To someone like me, that makes absolutely no sense, I'm forced to use deadly force on someone who probably just needs a couple lumps, because I am restricted by law on what I can and cannot carry/use for self-defense. What ends up happening, I break the law,  or carry a improvised or modified version of knuckles. The law itself, is meaningless, something that was engineered to be a added consequence for the common thug, became a restriction for the general public, resulting in less assholes with headaches and more holes in assholes... <~~~~see what I did there.



Maybe not for much longer.  The door has been cracked:

https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...es-new-york-ban-on-nunchucks-unconstitutional


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 16, 2019)

Fuck you, Ralph Northam. 

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...hams-anti-gun-bills-to-be-heard-in-committees


----------



## “The Old Man” (Jan 16, 2019)

Lefty375 said:


> I think a lot of what you are calling for is going to cost a lot of money we (schools and/or government) don't have. I don't feel the need for the big wonderful federal government to "free" me from things like this either.


Yeah, the nine dreaded words" I'm from the government and, I'm here to help.
With all the crap that congress is doing now. When their primary purpose is to pass a budget. Should be the loudest wake up call to everyone here in our society. What really torques my shorts though. Is the inactivity while the entire congress was republican controlled Spent 2 years focusing on drama in D.C. Democrats take control of the house and, within 4 days. They're shitting out gun control bills left and right.
The forces of good an evil are in a constant struggle. Know it sounds corny but, that's the way history tells it. I stay prepared, more with my mindset than anything else. Jefferson in federalist #? speaks about this specific topic of gun control. I will attach a few quotes from him. This is not the end all be all to the situation we face as a society that is slowly sliding into the shitter. I do what I can by studying current affairs and, passing on accurate information to others.


----------



## “The Old Man” (Jan 16, 2019)

Rampart said:


> I would like to offer a different perspective. For those who do not know, I an not an American and do not live in the USA. I am a Kiwi and have spent my life in military service and subsequently in Africa in the private military area.
> 
> Ever since going private and working in Africa (longer than I like to admit now) one common factor emerges. Those without the tools to realistically defend themselves (Usually subsistence farmers) get subjugated by anyone who so wishes. . Be it bandits, rogue government, militant or cultural groups. The horrors they are subjected to beggar belief. The things that done reduce the hardest men to tears with ease.
> 
> ...


You hit it right on the head for me!


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 16, 2019)

Cookie_101st said:


> Jumped around the video a bit. Seems pretty well researched and put together as to the history of the 2nd ammendment.
> 
> I didn't see it mentioned while I was jumping around, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he doesn't mention Scalia himself was of the opinion that the 2nd amendment could be regulated?
> 
> ...



Scalia brought up at 18:50...then brings up several Justice opinions.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 3, 2019)

House Passes Sweeping Gun Bill

This just passed the House.


----------



## Kaldak (Mar 3, 2019)

Marine0311 said:


> House Passes Sweeping Gun Bill
> 
> This just passed the House.



My bet is on a Trump veto, but I'm not placing any bets on the Senate.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 3, 2019)

Kaldak said:


> My bet is on a Trump veto, but I'm not placing any bets on the Senate.


He'd better veto both of them if he wants my vote.


----------



## Kaldak (Mar 4, 2019)

DA SWO said:


> He'd better veto both of them if he wants my vote.



I meant that I'm not placing any bets on if the Senate will pass the house bills or not. Trump will veto if they make it to his desk.


----------



## “The Old Man” (Mar 7, 2019)

This needs to be disseminated far and wide people. The radicals want to take a right that they did not give. How many times do people need to be informed of one simple truth. The 2nd amendment merely affirms in writing our right to individual sel-protection. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED GODDAMNIT!!!


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 7, 2019)

Tinman6 said:


> This needs to be disseminated far and wide people. The radicals want to take a right that they did not give. How many times do people need to be informed of one simple truth. The 2nd amendment merely affirms in writing our right to individual sel-protection. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED GODDAMNIT!!!



That's a publicity stunt.  They know it.  It's like a local jurisdiction who put out a resolution that they were against genocide.


----------



## Box (Mar 7, 2019)

Testing the waters...   listening for outrage.
I dont believe it is as much of a publicity stunt as it is a recon by fire.  

in vino veritas - and those folks are drunk with power right now


----------



## Jaknight (Mar 14, 2019)

Sandy Hook families can sue AR-15 gunmaker Remington, court rules


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 14, 2019)

Jaknight said:


> Sandy Hook families can sue AR-15 gunmaker Remington, court rules


Straight out of a John Grisham novel.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 14, 2019)

Jaknight said:


> Sandy Hook families can sue AR-15 gunmaker Remington, court rules



Another bad precedent set....


----------



## Jaknight (Mar 14, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> Straight out of a John Grisham novel.


 Didn’t John Cusack star in that one with Gene Hackman?


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 14, 2019)

I think it's the case of a judge who wants to be reelected or reappointed, so he just passed the buck.  SCOTUS will fix it.


----------



## Box (Mar 14, 2019)

Sweet - start queuing up lawsuits against Ford, Chrysler, and Chevy for all those vehicular homicide deaths
Then we can finally sue all the tobacco companies for giving people lung cancer

I am going to start lawyer shopping for someone that will help me sue Levi-Strauss for making my ass look fat
Budweiser is next for making my belly look like a flotation device
Last but not least, I'm going to start a class action lawsuit against Ross Perot for giving us the Clintons


----------



## Grunt (Mar 14, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> I think it's the case of a judge who wants to be reelected or reappointed, so he just passed the buck.  SCOTUS will fix it.



Maybe...but that could take years and there can be more damage done in the interim. Like I said, it's bad precedent to start....


----------



## Box (Mar 14, 2019)

so - as an add-on
In eight years of Obama - I dont remember ANY groundbreaking legislation that deteriorated my gun rights.

Now - suppressor restrictions have failed under Trump - bump stocks are bad - red flag laws are popping up - and soon - we can sue corporations when people misuse their products
Democrats should be campaigning for Trump - not trying to impeach him

Meanwhile - every republican in congress should be put in the street for standing by with their collective thumbs stuck in their asses


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 14, 2019)

Jaknight said:


> Sandy Hook families can sue AR-15 gunmaker Remington, court rules


Will be thrown out n Federal Court.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 14, 2019)

Box said:


> so - as an add-on
> In eight years of Obama - I dont remember ANY groundbreaking legislation that deteriorated my gun rights.
> 
> Now - suppressor restrictions have failed under Trump - bump stocks are bad - red flag laws are popping up - and soon - we can sue corporations when people misuse their products
> ...


Democrats used mass shootings (with help from a Republican Senate) to stop the suppressor bill that a Republican House passed.

Bump stock edict is being challenged, and probably will end up at SCOTUS, which gives Trump the ability to say "I tried".

Red Flag laws are State level, and concern me very much.  I see another SCOTUS ruling in the future.  One I am concerned about.


----------



## Brill (Mar 14, 2019)

Jaknight said:


> Sandy Hook families can sue AR-15 gunmaker Remington, court rules



Fuck that: go directly to suing the bank who financed Remington...didn’t they already file chapter 11?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 14, 2019)

Jaknight said:


> Didn’t John Cusack star in that one with Gene Hackman?


Yeah, Runaway Jury, definitely played well to my anti-gunner emotions of the time.


----------



## “The Old Man” (Mar 15, 2019)

And another brick in the foundations of this country. Spalls under the strain of ill thought decisions.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 20, 2019)

New Zealand bans AR-15s (with detachable magazines)...https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2019/mar/21/new-zealand-shooting-jacinda-ardern-to-make-policy-announcement-live-updates

For the Kiwis, what were your gun laws prior to this.  This is a very irrational and emotional response.  

Sounds like they're moving to California style laws.  If the shooter was Australian, wouldn't that mean his possession of the firearms was illegal?


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 20, 2019)

We have two category of semi-auto ownership. A Cat (normal licence, can own some semis, shotguns, bolts, etc) and E Cat which covers "Military Style Assault Rifles" which have more than 7 rounds in a mag and a bunch of features like folding stocks and free standing pistol grips and things. They're definitely banning them for A Cat but E Cat noone is sure about. The press release is as clear as mud. 

The E Cat holders need improved security and higher levels of vetting than A Cat so all the E Cat holders aren't sure right now if they're able to keep them after April or not. 

I *think* the government has to do a buy back which will cost a fortune. 

By the sounds of it the police possibly dropped the ball in the vetting stages for the A Cat licence- but they won't take responsibility.


----------



## Box (Mar 21, 2019)

wait - are you saying the government is failing to take responsibility and punishing citizens as a result?

uhm... believable


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 21, 2019)

SpitfireV said:


> We have two category of semi-auto ownership. A Cat (normal licence, can own some semis, shotguns, bolts, etc) and E Cat which covers "Military Style Assault Rifles" which have more than 7 rounds in a mag and a bunch of features like folding stocks and free standing pistol grips and things. They're definitely banning them for A Cat but E Cat noone is sure about. The press release is as clear as mud.
> 
> The E Cat holders need improved security and higher levels of vetting than A Cat so all the E Cat holders aren't sure right now if they're able to keep them after April or not.
> 
> ...



And now our idiots are trying to rush to ban handguns and semi-autos before the election in the fall.  Something they've wanted to do for a while.
Liberal gun review to include type of semi-auto rifles NZ shooter used: Blair - iPolitics

They'll be lucky to be re-elected after PM Shiny Pony and his puppeteers were caught trying to interfere with the a major fraud case against SNC Lavalin because they are heavily connected to the Liberal party and Trudeau personally.


----------



## Brill (Mar 21, 2019)

@SpitfireV , does the forced “buyback” include pistols as well as black rifles?  Do the people support it?


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 21, 2019)

lindy said:


> @SpitfireV , does the forced “buyback” include pistols as well as black rifles?  Do the people support it?



No. Pistols are very tightly regulated. The people do seem to support it but it's hard to tell what the split is.


----------



## Topkick (Apr 7, 2019)

I'm not sure why I didn't know until now that Levi Strauss was anti gun. Sigh.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...ienate-some-consumers/?utm_term=.770703afd2c2

Levi Strauss's Three-Pronged Anti-Gun Attack - AllOutdoor.com


----------



## Gunz (Apr 7, 2019)

Topkick said:


> I'm not sure why I didn't know until now that Levi Strauss was anti gun. Sigh.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...ienate-some-consumers/?utm_term=.770703afd2c2
> 
> Levi Strauss's Three-Pronged Anti-Gun Attack - AllOutdoor.com



I wear Wranglers.


----------



## Topkick (Apr 7, 2019)

Ocoka said:


> I wear Wranglers.


I bet a few more people will be wearing Wranglers now. I just wish these companies would stay out of politics and stick to what made them famous.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 7, 2019)




----------



## Blizzard (Apr 7, 2019)

Topkick said:


> I bet a few more people will be wearing Wranglers now. I just wish these companies would stay out of politics and stick to what made them famous.


I can't buy less than the zero number of Levi's that I've currently bought.  I also don't own Dockers or their other product. They were never really my style but maybe I'm just a real good judge of products and character. 😁


----------



## Topkick (Apr 7, 2019)

Blizzard said:


> I can't buy less than the zero number of Levi's that I've currently bought.  I also don't own Dockers or their other product. They were never really my style but maybe I'm just a real good judge of products and character. 😁



I get ya, but like them or not, Levis have been a mainstay for blue collar middle America for a long time. This may hurt their bottom line, but apparently they are willing to take the hit. On the other hand, it could secure a new breed of customers.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 7, 2019)

I wear Wranglers these days anyway.


----------



## Blizzard (Apr 7, 2019)

Topkick said:


> I get ya, but like them or not, Levis have been a mainstay for blue collar middle America for a long time. This may hurt their bottom line, but apparently they are willing to take the hit. On the other hand, it could secure a new breed of customers.


Well, they won't earn my dollar; sounds like we're both OK with that.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Apr 7, 2019)

Funny how a bunch of multi-national companies, who rely heavily on child and quasi-slave labor, lecture normal people on the morality of self defense and firearm ownership. It's like these CEO's and their families live behind the protection of high walls and affluence. Why should the freedoms of filthy peasants bother them?


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 8, 2019)

I'm OK with both strong 2A protection and with some aspects of sweatshop labor.

Two Cheers for Sweatshops


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 8, 2019)

I bet if we put kids back to work (doing something)  they would quit worrying about who said what and stop shooting up schools...


----------



## Gunz (Apr 8, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> I'm OK with both strong 2A protection and with some aspects of sweatshop labor.
> 
> Two Cheers for Sweatshops




You can get a decent meal for a buck at a street market in Phenom Penh. You won't get fat on it, but it's nourishment.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Apr 8, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> I'm OK with both strong 2A protection and with some aspects of sweatshop labor.
> 
> Two Cheers for Sweatshops


Agree with a strong 2A, but I wouldn't trust a multinational that's using child labor to sell products to the US. At the end of the day, multi-nationals who take advantage of cheap labor just care about their bottom line. People being brought out of poverty due to foreign investment is a happy side effect.

I dunno. I'd like to have companies invest in the US and their workers, instead of draining the wealth from our pockets.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 9, 2019)

Outsourcing low skill manual labor to developing countries helps keep prices for those good lower here in the US, allows our workforce to concentrate on higher value labor, and provides economic opportunities that otherwise never would have existed in those countries.

A corporation's job is to be concerned about the bottom line.  The positive externality of being able to afford to eat, or send your kids to school, or to be able to buy a mosquito net so your family doesn't die of malaria (example from the article) seem a lot better than the alternatives.

I'm happy my shirt costs $19.99 instead of $40.  The workers in Bangladesh (or wherever) are happy that they're getting paid something past the poverty level in their country.  And Wal-Mart is happy because they can make a bazillion dollars putting the two of us together.  Seems like a lot of win-win.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Apr 9, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> Outsourcing low skill manual labor to developing countries helps keep prices for those good lower here in the US, allows our workforce to concentrate on higher value labor, and provides economic opportunities that otherwise never would have existed in those countries.
> 
> A corporation's job is to be concerned about the bottom line.  The positive externality of being able to afford to eat, or send your kids to school, or to be able to buy a mosquito net so your family doesn't die of malaria (example from the article) seem a lot better than the alternatives.
> 
> I'm happy my shirt costs $19.99 instead of $40.  The workers in Bangladesh (or wherever) are happy that they're getting paid something past the poverty level in their country.  And Wal-Mart is happy because they can make a bazillion dollars putting the two of us together.  Seems like a lot of win-win.


The problem with cheap labor is that we are/have basically propped up totalitarian gov's that created the poverty that kept their populations in thrall. A perfect example of this is China. We can get all sorts of cheap chinesium junk delivered to our doorstep, but we've also essentially funded the military build up of a totalitarian police state. The people in China and the surrounding Asian countries are now pretty much boned, all cause multi-nationals wanted to squeeze a few more dollars out of the US consumer.

The products that multi-nationals produce could also easily be made at home (albeit w/heavy mechanization) or across the border for a few dollars more. That 19.99 shirt probably cost that multi-national under 2.00 to make and ship, maybe even cheaper. You're not really getting a deal just cause labor is dirt cheap, if anything you're getting ripped off more.

Going back to my original post though, not a fan of multi-nationals preaching morality when they're literally taking advantage of people with no better recourses. All the while these corp's cozy up to totalitarian/despotic governments who deny their citizens the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Box (Apr 9, 2019)

I had a long discussion with '_Little Cletus' - he's just a regular kid and he wants us all to know the real truth about child labor laws, ok? 
They're silly and outdated !!!
Why, back in the 30s, children as young as five could work as they pleased; from textile factories to iron smelts. 
Yippee! 
Hurray!_ 
Little Cletus thinks there should be more guns for Americans!


----------



## Board and Seize (May 9, 2019)

Governor Inslee just signed a raft of 7 bills that touch on gun control.

Here's an article that describes each of the 7 and links out to the text of the bills.

Here's a reddit comment that points out some ways in which one of the 7 bills (which focusses on 3D printed / homemade guns) is bad - probably both more broad and more narrow than intended.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (May 10, 2019)

Board and Seize said:


> Governor Inslee just signed a raft of 7 bills that touch on gun control.
> 
> Here's an article that describes each of the 7 and links out to the text of the bills.
> 
> Here's a reddit comment that points out some ways in which one of the 7 bills (which focusses on 3D printed / homemade guns) is bad - probably both more broad and more narrow than intended.


To call Inslee a retard would be an affront to people with valid intellectual disabilities. Sadly, Washington State is pretty much run by the coastal socialist shitbirds that dominate the election cycle in WA (Hooray Seattle!). The people outside of Seattle, in Eastern Washington, pretty much got boned by the purple haired SJW LGTBQIOUBBQ citiots.

Honestly, I'm not sure what rural counties are going to do to change the balance of power. As long as the major cities and their voting blocks are held hostage by nutjobs like Inslee, not sure what can be done to remedy the situation.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 10, 2019)

Board and Seize said:


> Governor Inslee just signed a raft of 7 bills that touch on gun control.
> 
> Here's an article that describes each of the 7 and links out to the text of the bills.
> 
> Here's a reddit comment that points out some ways in which one of the 7 bills (which focusses on 3D printed / homemade guns) is bad - probably both more broad and more narrow than intended.


Outside of Oympia and Seattle most of the Sheriffs in Washington are not abiding.  Vice of course did an episode on them painting them with a horrible brush.  The idea of county nullification is spreading in places like Illinois as well.


----------



## Devildoc (May 10, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> Outside of Oympia and Seattle most of the Sheriffs in Washington are not abiding.  Vice of course did an episode on them painting them with a horrible brush.  The idea of county nullification is spreading in places like Illinois as well.



Many traditionally anti-gun states are seeing this, also Maryland.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (May 10, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> Outside of Oympia and Seattle most of the Sheriffs in Washington are not abiding.  Vice of course did an episode on them painting them with a horrible brush.  The idea of county nullification is spreading in places like Illinois as well.


It's awesome that Sheriffs and counties are standing up to the lunacy of Seattle's leftists, but I still don't trust the state itself. Washington state still has control over the roads, national (state parks... doh! my bad) parks, and courts, which makes non compliance a tenuous affair. There are just so many ways to get jammed up and turned into felon. Honestly, I try to avoid Washington like the plague.


Devildoc said:


> Many traditionally anti-gun states are seeing this, also Maryland.


Have the States out East retaliated against the counties and Sheriffs pushing for non compliance?


----------



## RackMaster (May 10, 2019)

Looks like Trudeau is heading to the election in October by burning everything down around him.  It's just rumours but looks like Trudeau is going to follow NZ's path and ban "assault rifles" and hand guns by Cabinet order.  Skipping debate in government and straight to confiscation. 

Trudeau to Ban AR-15 Next Month, CSSA Says, Citing Govt Sources - TheGunBlog.ca


----------



## Brill (May 10, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> Many traditionally anti-gun states are seeing this, also Maryland.



Shit, there is HUGE support for giving state gov power to decide who can defend themselves. The list is small an We the People ain’t on it.



> *Maryland’s judiciary fielded 302 requests to remove firearms from individuals over the first three months* of the state’s “red flag” gun safety law — including five cases involving threats against schools.
> 
> “These orders are not only being issued appropriately; they are saving lives,” Montgomery County Sheriff Darren Popkin, a leader in the Maryland Sheriffs’ Association who helped develop the law, testified Tuesday before the House of Delegates’ Judiciary Committee.
> 
> “It’s averaging a little over 100 a month,” Popkin said. “*This is by far more orders than has been seen in any other state*. … We are one of the only states that allows for this to be issued 24 hours a day.”



Sheriff: Maryland's 'red flag' law prompted gun seizures after four 'significant threats' against schools


----------



## RackMaster (May 15, 2019)

Crazy Uncle Joe is at it again. 

Joe Biden pitches fingerprint-locked firearms to reduce gun violence


----------



## Grunt (May 15, 2019)

Well...if he can't take our guns, he will do his best to make them inoperative when needed. I give him an A+ for effort and perseverance -- along with the rest of the anti-gun clowns....


----------



## chickenrappa (May 15, 2019)

But remember friends, "Buy a shotgun", but with that logic there, his wife wouldn't be able to fire two blasts off the back porch because they'd be fingerprint locked to him so hm.... Curious concept there Joe Biden.


----------



## Brill (May 15, 2019)

Grunt said:


> Well...if he can't take our guns, he will do his best to make them inoperative when needed.



SCOTUS has ruled via Heller that is a violation of our enumerated rights.

SUMMARY OF D.C. V. HELLER


----------



## Grunt (May 15, 2019)

lindy said:


> SCOTUS has ruled via Heller that is a violation of our enumerated rights.
> 
> SUMMARY OF D.C. V. HELLER



No doubt...for now! However, the grabbers are relentless and will continue their fight until many of our rights are continuously eroded until they are gone.


----------



## Gunz (May 15, 2019)

RackMaster said:


> Crazy Uncle Joe is at it again.
> 
> Joe Biden pitches fingerprint-locked firearms to reduce gun violence



If one candidate comes up with an idea for gun control, all the other candidates have to come up with their own ideas...and most of them are fucking stupid. The candidates...and the ideas. They'll all try to top each other with their Larry Lightbulb gun control ideas, and if by chance one of these morons gets elected, the idea will never become legislation. It's all just bull pizzle, I tell you...Bull pizzle.


----------



## Box (May 15, 2019)

SCOTUS...........
............ pfft  - Kamalamala Harris will fix that shit with an executive order that over rides existing laws.


----------



## RackMaster (May 15, 2019)

The NZ Prime Minister doesn't understand why it's so hard for the US to just take away all American citizens rights overnight.  Since she did it...

‘I don’t understand’: Jacinda Ardern mystified by lack of US gun control


----------



## Marine0311 (May 15, 2019)

I fear we on the pro side are either at a stalemate or losing ground. There have been some laws passed recently that cause me to shake my head and fear what is next.


----------



## Kraut783 (May 15, 2019)

Hard Agree....these fucknuts that keep doing these high profile shootings are not helping at all.


----------



## Cookie_ (May 15, 2019)

While the high profile stuff keeps the issue in the news, I actually don't believe that's what is going to make more neutral people support control; it'll be stories like that guy in Flordia who shot the teens over "loud music". The victim's mom recently Flipped a GOP seat on a gun control platform.


----------



## Grunt (May 15, 2019)

RackMaster said:


> The NZ Prime Minister doesn't understand why it's so hard for the US to just take away all American citizens rights overnight.  Since she did it...
> 
> ‘I don’t understand’: Jacinda Ardern mystified by lack of US gun control



I remain mystified by the fact that a politician in another country actually thinks their pathetic opinions matter to the meat and potatoes of America. I really don't care what rights she takes from her people as they choose to pick her, but she would do fine by me to keep her stupidity to herself.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 15, 2019)

RackMaster said:


> The NZ Prime Minister doesn't understand why it's so hard for the US to just take away all American citizens rights overnight.  Since she did it...
> 
> ‘I don’t understand’: Jacinda Ardern mystified by lack of US gun control


Well Jacinda, since you're a socialist.  I don't think we can have any real conversation.  But it's something called a constitution, and keeping your queen or any tyrant who somehow got elected at bay from stealing our liberty.


----------



## AWP (May 15, 2019)

Anyone who has had a CAC card and gone through the fingerprint process will know a fingerprint reader on a firearm renders it useless.


----------



## Box (May 15, 2019)

Fingerprint scanner or not - at least 63 million American voters will trade in all of their liberties, firearms, free speech, air travel, hamburgers, large sugary drinks from the bodega - you name it - if it means getting OrangeManBad out of office they'll sell themselves into bondage for life or longer.
They'll trade their liberties, your liberties, my liberties straight down the river just to say they helped vote Trump out of office.

Some of you jokers better enjoy Trump while you have him because once the current crop of radical leftists gains control of our government -there is going to be hell to pay - then those sophomoric twitter posts won't seem so bad anymore.
...and besides, what good is the Trump Tweet thread going to be when the Kamalas and Biens and Omars and Warrens have full control of our destiny.

Cant you just hear Kent Dorfman's voice in your head already..............


----------



## SpitfireV (May 15, 2019)

RackMaster said:


> The NZ Prime Minister doesn't understand why it's so hard for the US to just take away all American citizens rights overnight.  Since she did it...
> 
> ‘I don’t understand’: Jacinda Ardern mystified by lack of US gun control



She's being incredibly arrogant with that statement and needs to keep her nose out of other country's internal matters.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (May 16, 2019)

AWP said:


> Anyone who has had a CAC card and gone through the fingerprint process will know a fingerprint reader on a firearm renders it useless.



Certificate revoked, please see an administrator.....


----------



## Brill (May 16, 2019)

AWP said:


> Anyone who has had a CAC card *been arrested* and gone through the fingerprint process will know a fingerprint reader on a firearm renders it useless.



Am I right @Ranger Psych ?


----------



## R.Caerbannog (May 16, 2019)

Box said:


> Fingerprint scanner or not - at least 63 million American voters will trade in all of their liberties, firearms, free speech, air travel, hamburgers, large sugary drinks from the bodega - you name it - if it means getting OrangeManBad out of office they'll sell themselves into bondage for life or longer.
> They'll trade their liberties, your liberties, my liberties straight down the river just to say they helped vote Trump out of office.
> 
> Some of you jokers better enjoy Trump while you have him because once the current crop of radical leftists gains control of our government -there is going to be hell to pay - then those sophomoric twitter posts won't seem so bad anymore.
> ...


Don't know about anyone else, but I don't think the other half of Americans are going to willingly let themselves be tossed into ovens by a bunch of degenerate socialists. You are right that a good chunk the population is willing to give up their rights as free citizens and live in thrall, if only to punish the rest of us.

The USSR may have lost the Cold War, but the fires they set to feed the culture war have yet to be extinguished. Enemies within & enemies without.


----------



## Devildoc (May 16, 2019)

Of course, there are a lot of people who think just about any gun law is immoral, they keep buying stuff and carrying whatever and wherever they please....


----------



## Brill (May 16, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> Of course, there are a lot of people who think just about any gun law is immoral, they keep buying stuff and carrying whatever and wherever they please....



I would feel more comfortable wearing a red MAGA hat than open carry outside of AK.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (May 16, 2019)

Marine0311 said:


> I fear we on the pro side are either at a stalemate or losing ground. There have been some laws passed recently that cause me to shake my head and fear what is next.


Honestly, as 2nd Amendment proponents one of our biggest weaknesses is our inability to counter disinformation. When it come to PR and media/social engineering, anti-gun groups have been dominating on the field of public opinion. In other words, our opponents are really good at spreading fear via disinformation.


Kraut783 said:


> Hard Agree....these fucknuts that keep doing these high profile shootings are not helping at all.


It doesn't matter that the 'fucknuts & crazies' have gotten their firearms illegally, anti-gunners will obfuscate facts and spin the truth to make themselves look like the 'voices of reason' in the public arena. What's crazy, is that the Chicoms used this same strategy to erase China's cultural and archaeological history. For anti-gunners, it's all about spin.


Grunt said:


> I remain mystified by the fact that a politician in another country actually thinks their pathetic opinions matter to the meat and potatoes of America. I really don't care what rights she takes from her people as they choose to pick her, but she would do fine by me to keep her stupidity to herself.


She's virtue signaling, when Australia passed their gun control laws they did the same. Everything these politicians do is done for a reason. Every statement and every press release, given to the public, is disseminated with an underlying motive. While we may not understand whats going on, there is always a mechanism behind almost every human action and interaction.


----------



## Gunz (May 16, 2019)

Dear Mrs NZ Prime Minister,

Here's a bottle of Kentucky bourbon, a ten inch black dildo and two tickets to my new movie. 

Sincerely,

John Wick


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 17, 2019)

lindy said:


> Am I right @Ranger Psych ?



FBI had a hard enough time scanning mine on their immaculate equipment.


----------



## medicchick (May 17, 2019)

Ranger Psych said:


> FBI had a hard enough time scanning mine on their immaculate equipment.


Took 4 tries to get mine at the airport.


----------



## “The Old Man” (May 17, 2019)

RackMaster said:


> The NZ Prime Minister doesn't understand why it's so hard for the US to just take away all American citizens rights overnight.  Since she did it...
> 
> ‘I don’t understand’: Jacinda Ardern mystified by lack of US gun control


Maybe because she is fucking stoopid


----------



## Marauder06 (May 17, 2019)

Is China planning to take Taiwan by force in 2020? 




> According to the report, the new era refers to a period from now until the middle of this century. By 2050, China is to achieve the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” and become a modern socialist power.
> 
> 
> A list of 14 items describe this new era, and one of them involves reunification with Taiwan. This means Beijing must take control of Taiwan by 2050 at the latest.


----------



## AWP (May 17, 2019)

Uh, we have a thread on China...


----------



## Devildoc (May 17, 2019)

AWP said:


> Uh, we have a thread on China...



If only we had a moderator....


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 20, 2019)

Wasn't really sure where to put this.  But I hadn't read about this one at all: Emanuel Samson wanted to kill 'a minimum of 10 white churchgoers,' prosecutor says at trial


----------



## 11Bull (May 20, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> Wasn't really sure where to put this.  But I hadn't read about this one at all: Emanuel Samson wanted to kill 'a minimum of 10 white churchgoers,' prosecutor says at trial



You hadn't read it at all because it doesn't fit the mainstream narrative that only conservative white people conduct mass shootings


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 30, 2019)

Not the United States.  But very few people have turned in their arms in New Zealand so far: Only 530 semi-automatic guns handed over, police say


----------



## BlackSmokeRisinG (May 30, 2019)

This NZ has it right! Who needs an assault rifle or semi auto anyway? I mean come on!








From the article^: "We are effectively being punished for the acts of a foreign terrorist, and we want to make sure that our personal and private property is adequately compensated when it is confiscated."

Waiting until they figure out proper compensation huh? I wonder how many are holding out to see if they're going to start arresting 250,000 people.


----------



## Kraut783 (May 30, 2019)

I'm sure China will enjoy the no gun policies of AUS and NZ in the near future....


----------



## Grunt (May 30, 2019)

You have to love a country that makes victims of its people....


----------



## Kaldak (Jun 24, 2019)

Florida woman charged after giving husband's guns to police

Per the law, the guns needed to be turned into the police. However, I'd say it was incredibly dumb of her to break into his place to get them and take them to the police.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 24, 2019)

The ends don't justify the means...


----------



## Kaldak (Jun 24, 2019)

I agree 100%. In this case at least.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 25, 2019)

The police had a plan in place to ban a lot of these rifles, which explains why they could bring it in so quickly. They've now just banned a whole lot of ammunition types too like tracers. I mean, really. 

Initially they banned any centrefire which had a detachable magazine...like the Tikka with its 3rd mag. After some outcry from the hunting community they reversed it. Serves them right for throwing semi-auto owners under the bus.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 13, 2019)

I'm pretty sure Beto doesn't really understand what he's talking about here.  This was a really dumb as fuck soundbite last night...and now he's turned it into a shirt.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1172342680178716672
Beto's AR-15 flip-flop: O'Rourke once vowed 'nobody' wants to seize guns

AR-15 First Civilian use- 1957ish
AR-15 Semi-Automatic Civilian use- 1963
M-16 adoption by the US Army- 1964


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 13, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> I'm pretty sure Beto doesn't really understand what he's talking about here.  This was a really dumb as fuck soundbite last night...and now he's turned it into a shirt.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1172342680178716672
> ...


Not that many years ago, what he did last night would’ve been a Saturday night live bit, and people would have belly laughed because it was unimaginable that anybody would be that overt in their intentions while running for office.

What a world.


----------



## Box (Sep 13, 2019)

There isnt much difference left between SNL and modern politics.

How many million Americans thought Tine Fey's SNL character was McCain's running mate?
I can't be the only one that thinks Larry David is a better Bernie than the actual Bernie.
Americans have been getting their news from loudmouthed comedians for over a decade - politicians may as well embrace the crazy.
It worked for Donald Trump - it might just work for the group of Marxists that the democratic party has offered up this year.

The new normal - comin' at you live.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 13, 2019)

Box said:


> Americans have been getting their news from loudmouthed comedians for over a decade -


I believe 100% that if John Stewart have remained on the air, Trump never would’ve made it as far as he did in the initial race,


----------



## Raptor (Sep 13, 2019)

I can't help but feel like part of it is that he knows he was falling a bit further away from the front runners and has decided to go all in on gun control in an attempt to raise his popularity. I'm sure he (and the other candidates) would love for us to not have any guns, but the aggressiveness from him feels a little off to me.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 13, 2019)

What Candidate O’Rourke is proposing is a pretty egregious infringement on our rights.


----------



## BloodStripe (Sep 13, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> What Candidate O’Rourke is proposing is a pretty egregious infringement on our rights.


And yet he doesn't care.


----------



## Box (Sep 13, 2019)

I agree - Jon Stewart would have done a good job at convincing everyone that this was just a publicity stunt - and lots of Americans would have accepted that as fact.


----------



## Brill (Sep 13, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> What Candidate O’Rourke is proposing is a pretty egregious infringement on our rights.



The government...and Google...allows you to think you have rights.


----------



## DasBoot (Sep 13, 2019)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I believe 100% that if John Stewart have remained on the air, Trump never would’ve made it as far as he did in the initial race,


I miss Jon.


----------



## Muppet (Sep 13, 2019)

No comment. Those that know me personally, know my feelings......


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 14, 2019)

Well now.... lol,  I guess I'll just say "come and get it" !!!


----------



## Raptor (Sep 14, 2019)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Well now.... lol,  I guess I'll just say "come and get it" !!!


Careful, he might report you to the FBI.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 14, 2019)

Admittedly my knowledge of NASCAR is limited to knowing they drive fast cars around a track, but isn’t the typical NASCAR fan also a gun fan?

I spose the other major sports have long gone this direction, but I have to wonder if there will be any fallout from this. 

NASCAR denies ads for AR-15 and AK-47 as a 'gradual shift on guns'

NASCAR has rejected advertisements from several firearm companies which were pitched for their raceway programs during the summer, in a move branded a 'colossal mistake' by firearm companies.

It comes amid heightened public concern over assault-style rifles after they were used in a string of mass shootings - but is especially controversial in a sport that is so closely associated with gun culture.


----------



## Brill (Sep 14, 2019)

DasBoot said:


> I miss Jon.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 14, 2019)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Admittedly my knowledge of NASCAR is limited to knowing they drive fast cars around a track, but isn’t the typical NASCAR fan also a gun fan?



Not really. Back in the 70s, 80s, yeah, Richard Petty, Cale Yarborough etc. Since then they've been steadily trying to shed the redneck image in order to appeal to a wider audience. It's like watered-down whiskey. You don't get more whiskey, you just get more water.


----------



## Brill (Sep 14, 2019)

Ocoka said:


> Since then they've been steadily trying to shed the redneck image in order to appeal to a wider audience.



Only commies hate fast cars, guns, and titties.

Top 10 Hottest Female NASCAR Drivers 2019


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 14, 2019)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Admittedly my knowledge of NASCAR is limited to knowing they drive fast cars around a track, but isn’t the typical NASCAR fan also a gun fan?
> 
> I spose the other major sports have long gone this direction, but I have to wonder if there will be any fallout from this.
> 
> ...


That tells me they want to make a political statement even though 90% of their fan base likely owns guns.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 14, 2019)

lindy said:


> Only commies hate fast cars, guns, and titties.
> 
> Top 10 Hottest Female NASCAR Drivers 2019




Hell yeah. Here's to Fireball Roberts and Awesome Bill from Dawsonville.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 14, 2019)

Solid stuff from Colion:


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 16, 2019)

I'm going to write an article speculating whether the US could pass a universal background check if it were a person.

Given its history of violence, pattern of domestic abuse. and its Democrat/Republican schizophrenia, I'm going to have to go with "no." 

What do you think?


----------



## Brill (Sep 16, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> I'm going to write an article speculating whether the US could pass a universal background check if it were a person.
> 
> Given its history of violence, pattern of domestic abuse. and its Democrat/Republican schizophrenia, I'm going to have to go with "no."
> 
> What do you think?



11e may be a bridge too far.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 16, 2019)

Angry veteran takes on anti-2A veterans:


----------



## Box (Sep 16, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> I'm going to write an article speculating whether the US could pass a universal background check if it were a person...



ha - and the democrats want to MAKE citizens to sell guns to that same person.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 16, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> I'm going to write an article speculating whether the US could pass a universal background check if it were a person.
> 
> Given its history of violence, pattern of domestic abuse. and its Democrat/Republican schizophrenia, I'm going to have to go with "no."
> 
> What do you think?



Would America fail the background check?


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 16, 2019)




----------



## Box (Sep 16, 2019)

...it only costs 395 dollars to kill ???

Fuck - that is dirt cheap.  Who knew you could just pay for it.  
Think of all those prison sentences that could have been avoided if criminals had just ponied up 395 dollars for a lifetime of killing.


----------



## Brill (Sep 16, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> Angry veteran takes on anti-2A veterans:



I would prefer the USG would disarm criminals before law abiding citizens.


----------



## Brill (Sep 16, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> View attachment 29461



What if there was a guy with the AR was on an eastbound train left Chicago at 0900 but there was a guy with a Glock on a westbound that left Baltimore at 1400, which one would be charged with a felony first?


----------



## Kaldak (Sep 16, 2019)

Trick question. Both are most likely fucked.


----------



## policemedic (Sep 16, 2019)

Given the crime rates in those cities, neither of those guys would give a fuck; getting charged with a felony would be just another Tuesday.


----------



## Kraut783 (Sep 16, 2019)

Box said:


> ...it only costs 395 dollars to kill ???
> 
> Fuck - that is dirt cheap.  Who knew you could just pay for it.
> Think of all those prison sentences that could have been avoided if criminals had just ponied up 395 dollars for a lifetime of killing.



Apparently he hasn't spent much time looking at crime cases.....Me, like other cops on this forum, has seen people kill for a can of cheap beer...or just for spite. Get off you high horse Beto.


----------



## Brill (Sep 17, 2019)

Kraut783 said:


> Apparently he hasn't spent much time looking at crime cases.....Me, like other cops on this forum, has seen *people kill for a can of cheap beer...or just for spite.* Get off you high horse Beto.



Sprite sucks. 7-up is “the un-cola”.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 17, 2019)




----------



## Devildoc (Sep 20, 2019)




----------



## Brill (Sep 20, 2019)

@Devildoc , Beto reads that as “must get”.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 20, 2019)

Well if the Liberal's are re-elected, they're going full on anti gun nut...



> Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau says a re-elected Liberal government would ban semi-automatic assault weapons and enable municipalities to restrict or prohibit handguns.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-gun-control-trudeau-2019-1.5290950


----------



## policemedic (Sep 20, 2019)

Tabarnak.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Sep 21, 2019)

RackMaster said:


> Well if the Liberal's are re-elected, they're going full on anti gun nut...
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-gun-control-trudeau-2019-1.5290950


I'm praying for you guys.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 21, 2019)

Beto’s security detail to use only NERF guns from now on


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 21, 2019)

From the assholes mouth.   This is the former police chief of Toronto and now Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction.  They have a list of 8 guns right now, mostly AR variants but I know that Trudeau has expressed interest in pushing for a full blown Australian style ban on semi-auto's.  Add in the centralized storage for handguns and "red flag" laws.  If the Liberal's are re-elected, even with a minority government, gun owners in Canada are fucked.  The Green Party and NDP's have stated they would support the Liberal's in a minority situation and possibly agree to a coalition.  They both support radical anti-gun laws and this would essentially give them all the power to do it.  






Here is the response from our most prominent gun organization and only registered gun lobby.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 21, 2019)

@RackMaster Straight from his twatter account 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1175387570664026112


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 21, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> @RackMaster Straight from his twatter account
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1175387570664026112



I don't follow the Douchebag.  

A good sign is the Police Chief's won't back it.  

Canadian police chiefs won’t back handgun ban, say it wouldn’t stop flow of guns into the country


----------



## policemedic (Sep 21, 2019)

You can always exfil... We'll pull strings for you if you bring poutine.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 21, 2019)

policemedic said:


> You can always exfil... We'll pull strings for you if you bring poutine.
> 
> View attachment 29578



And some of those Maple cookie things....


----------



## AWP (Sep 21, 2019)

Americans provided you with options in 1775/76 and you refused...

Either take the invasion or take the crown.


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 22, 2019)

policemedic said:


> You can always exfil... We'll pull strings for you if you bring poutine.
> 
> View attachment 29578


You’re missing the arrow for “hot redheads.”


----------



## Brill (Sep 22, 2019)

Ya can’t use guns to fight global warming.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Sep 22, 2019)

lindy said:


> Ya can’t use guns to fight global warming.


Sure you can! It just requires very loose ROE's on communists and useful idiots. 

For legal purposes this is a joke.


----------



## Brill (Oct 9, 2019)

Anyone here bought anything via CMP?  Considering a Garrand...cuz ‘merica.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 9, 2019)

I con


lindy said:


> Anyone here bought anything via CMP?  Considering a Garrand...cuz ‘merica.




I considered it but for the prices they’re asking for some GI’s ragged-out WWII rifle I’d rather build my own AR and put some nice glass on it.  Or like a half-dozen SKSs.


----------



## Brill (Oct 9, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> I considered it but for the prices they’re asking for some GI’s ragged-out WWII rifle I’d rather build my own AR and put some nice glass on it.  Or like a half-dozen SKSs.



History is priceless. I’m going to wait until I get a CCW from GA but I’ll do it.

oh, ARs (and hammers) kill people Sir.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 9, 2019)

Their 1911 prices are rape.


----------



## pardus (Oct 9, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> Their 1911 prices are rape.



I read that they were not taking any more orders for 1911's now. Bummer.


----------



## pardus (Oct 9, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> I considered it but for the prices they’re asking for some GI’s ragged-out WWII rifle I’d rather build my own AR and put some nice glass on it.  Or like a half-dozen SKSs.



The M1 is a cool rifle, but it's not a great rifle IMHO, the caliber is all messed up, due to inflexible, stuck in the past leaders back in the day. It along with the British EM-2, FN FAL and the M1 were all supposed to be intermediate cartridges, but dickheads in the US Army screwed it up and put us 20 years behind the commies (and Nazis).
The best M1 I've ever used was a 7.62x51mm. Super accurate and fun to shoot.


----------



## Brill (Oct 9, 2019)

pardus said:


> The M1 is a cool rifle, but it's not a great rifle IMHO, the caliber is all messed up, due to inflexible, stuck in the past leaders back in the day. It along with the British EM-2, FN FAL and the M1 were all supposed to be intermediate cartridges, but dickheads in the US Army screwed it up and put us 20 years behind the commies (and Nazis).
> The best M1 I've ever used was a 7.62x51mm. Super accurate and fun to shoot.



new phone...who dis?


----------



## pardus (Oct 9, 2019)

lindy said:


> new phone...who dis?



Hey, screw you guy!


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 9, 2019)

pardus said:


> The M1 is a cool rifle, but it's not a great rifle IMHO, the caliber is all messed up, due to inflexible, stuck in the past leaders back in the day. It along with the British EM-2, FN FAL and the M1 were all supposed to be intermediate cartridges, but dickheads in the US Army screwed it up and put us 20 years behind the commies (and Nazis).
> The best M1 I've ever used was a 7.62x51mm. Super accurate and fun to shoot.



The only M1 I've ever fired was yours. I like it for the history, its heft, and its hitting power. I also like it because it takes a clip not a detachable mag, which makes it legal in most of the ultra-liberal states I find myself living in.

That pricetag tho...


----------



## Box (Oct 10, 2019)

Gun control-wise, I dont think the M1-Garand it is any safer than the blackest-most-plasticy AR15 once the liberals get control of the government.  It is a semiautomatic with a bayonet lug.  That 8-round en-bloc clip may as well be a 100 round belt because it will get lumped in as a military assault rifle and blacklisted along with everything else.

The M1 is a fun rifle to shoot when you are just dabbling in local level CMP style match and want to make new friends but they will take a big bite out of your gun budget if you are looking for a match grade M1.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 10, 2019)

Nice to see that prices have only increased since the Korean  inventory was released back to the US...


----------



## Brill (Oct 17, 2019)

Warning...potential song bomb.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184305593047289858


----------



## AWP (Oct 30, 2019)

Dave Chappelle off the top rope.

Dave Chappelle accepts the Twain Prize: ‘I love my art form. It saved my life.’



> “This is the truth and you are obstructing it. I’m not talking about the content. I’m talking about the art form. Do you understand?” he said. “The First Amendment is first for a reason. The Second is just in case the first one doesn’t work out.


----------



## Brill (Nov 2, 2019)

Pelosi just filed a claim via DC’s “red flag laws” in federal court to remove all guns within the White House, to include USSS, because the House believes this to be an official WH photo, which clearly demonstrates a threat.



(sarcasm)


----------



## Centermass (Nov 17, 2019)

*Supreme Court Rules Newtown Shooting Victims Can Sue Remington*

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court rejected a Hail Mary appeal from Remington Arms, which was founded over 200 years ago and claims to be the oldest gun manufacturer in the U.S. The gunmaker had asked the high court to hear its case after the Connecticut Supreme Court greenlit a lawsuit to hold the company accountable for the massacre that left 20 young children and six adults dead in Newtown, Connecticut. 


Well, this just opened up a whole new can of worms. A nasty, funky crappy can of worms. I was always under the impression that there were some on the bench with a modicum of common sense and intelligence, who would stay true to the constitution. As it stands now, I'm sure everyone in the gun industry, including Remington, are wondering how soon before they're out of business. 


This sucks


----------



## AWP (Nov 17, 2019)

Lefty375 said:


> It's enlightening how people who have spent very long times interpreting the law (please read this as a rejection of the notion of "one true constitutional interpretation) lack intelligence when they don't end up with the same legal analysis as non-lawyers.
> 
> The legal question is: The Connecticut Supreme Court below held that the PLCAA’s predicate exception encompasses all general statutes merely capable of being applied to firearms sales or marketing. In contrast, both the Second and Ninth Circuits have rejected this broad interpretation of the predicate exception, which would swallow the PLCAA’s immunity rule. City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 524 F.3d 384, 402-403 (2d Cir. 2008); Ileto, 565 F.3d at 1134, 1136. And the Ninth Circuit interpreted the predicate exception even more narrowly than the Second Circuit. See ibid.
> The question presented is whether the PLCAA’s predicate exception encompasses alleged violations of broad, generally applicable state statutes, such as the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which forbids “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a).
> ...



Minus the opening jab at barracks lawyers, I've read this four times and still don't understand your post.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Nov 18, 2019)

Feels like we're living in a clown world, the useful idiots have co-opted the judicial system against us and common sense. Meanwhile, the kids in HK are literally using bows and arrows to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 18, 2019)

Thanks ^^^ 

SCOTUS has tossed the hot potato back to CT where emotions still run high, as you'd expect, even years after the horrific event. Adam Lanza robbed people of their chance for revenge so retribution has to take another form, even if it's based on various technicalities. I have a feeling they will get  their pound of flesh from Remington in the end.

Considering Lanza's reported obsession with _Call of Duty_ and other violent video games, I'm surprised they haven't gone after Activision and others. Maybe that's the next step.


----------



## Box (Nov 18, 2019)

Going after the video game manufacturer only concedes what some folks have said all along - so dont expect anti-gun activists to put their efforts into going after violent video games - because anti-gunners have already said video games dont cause violence
-guns cause violence

This is the left we are dealing with - the science is settled


----------



## Brill (Nov 18, 2019)

As our esteemed colleague from 3/75 has noted, this appears to be about emotions and there is all kinds a spin related to SCOTUS‘ denial to review. That’s it. The Court simply indicated the issue is either “not ripe yet” or there isn’t a national issue (yet).

I had to go through two pages of Google to find a conservative viewpoint (that in itself is...interesting).



> The lawsuit against Remington alleges that the company’s marketing practices contributed to the Sandy Hook massacre. “Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they had been courting him for years,” a lawyer for the plaintiffs said. But it is not clear that Remington courted Lanza at all — and it is quite clear that the company never courted him successfully, inasmuch as he stole the Bushmaster rifle he used in the crimes from his mother, whom he murdered. Connecticut has a law against “unfair trade practices,” which is a very odd way of looking at a mass murder.



From the State ruling:



> The gravamen of the plaintiffs’ complaint was that *the defendants negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an assault rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42–110a et seq.) through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle.* The plaintiffs’ first theory of liability was that *the rifle is a military grade weapon that is grossly ill-suited for legitimate civilian purposes such as self-defense or recreation, that the rifle and other similar semiautomatic weapons have become the weapon of choice for mass shootings and, therefore, that the risks associated with selling the rifle to the civilian market far outweigh any potential benefits,* that the defendants continued to sell the rifle despite their knowledge of these facts, and that it therefore was negligent and an unfair trade practice under CUTPA for the defendants to sell the weapon, knowing that it eventually would be purchased by a civilian customer who might share it with other civilian users.



The Bogus Lawsuit against Remington | National Review

Personally, I think Thomas and Kavanaugh are eager to solidify Heller precedent of “in common use“ as well as what limits are placed on the right of self defense (inside the home has been resolved but anywhere else?). The case against Remington seems to target SEMIAUTOMATIC weapons vice a company and Remington is merely the target because they made the weapon used by psycho. If psycho highjacked a bus full of elementary students and drove it off a cliff, I doubt they would sue Blue Bird.


----------



## Brill (Nov 18, 2019)

Lefty375 said:


> Speaking to your thoughts about Thomas and Kav. wanting to solidify Heller, I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. I wonder if this case, as you said isn't as "ripe" as they would like the case to be. Although, some ripe cases are still ruled on by SCOTUS very narrowly.
> 
> Even though SCof CT. voted that Rem. can be sued I think Cox has an uphill battle even in a more liberal sided court.



Regarding ripeness, I think they wait until until a case has been adjudicated before accepting it. Here, it seems the question has been procedural vice substantive.  Agree the arguments will be interesting especially linking the killings specifically to Remington vice any other manufacturer.

I believe the 2nd amendment was trying prohibit exactly what CT is trying to do: allow a government to have a class of weapons out of reach of a citizen.


----------



## Brill (Nov 18, 2019)

Article written by a real lawyer, who believes this is politics via court room. Lawfare is real.

SHAPIRO: It’s Legal Nonsense To Sue Gun Manufacturers For Crimes Committed By Criminals


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 7, 2019)

So the Liberal's in Canada are moving into dictatorship land and are going to just start banning guns.  First it was "assault weapons", then they changed it to "military style" and now it's slipped that they are going after all semi-autos.  No debate, nothing; just a rarely used power to ban them all. Their own caucus is split on this, so it's the only way to get it done.  And of course they waited to use a 30 year old tragedy to bring it all out.  

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-montreal-massacre-speeches-1.5386610


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 7, 2019)

RackMaster said:


> So the Liberal's in Canada are moving into dictatorship land and are going to just start banning guns.  First it was "assault weapons", then they changed it to "military style" and now it's slipped that they are going after all semi-autos.  No debate, nothing; just a rarely used power to ban them all. Their own caucus is split on this, so it's the only way to get it done.  And of course they waited to use a 30 year old tragedy to bring it all out.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-montreal-massacre-speeches-1.5386610


Sorry to hear that.


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 7, 2019)

DA SWO said:


> Sorry to hear that.



I'm about to lose all my guns in a horrible boating accident.  😉😉


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 7, 2019)

Average gun value $1500?  If that’s what they’re doing in buybacks, I might have to move to Canada for a couple of years.  ;)


----------



## policemedic (Dec 7, 2019)

RackMaster said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-montreal-massacre-speeches-1.5386610



I was already at Fort Ord at that point, but I remember the incident.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Dec 8, 2019)

RackMaster said:


> So the Liberal's in Canada are moving into dictatorship land and are going to just start banning guns.  First it was "assault weapons", then they changed it to "military style" and now it's slipped that they are going after all semi-autos.  No debate, nothing; just a rarely used power to ban them all. Their own caucus is split on this, so it's the only way to get it done.  And of course they waited to use a 30 year old tragedy to bring it all out.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-montreal-massacre-speeches-1.5386610


I'm so sorry dude. I hope you guys crucify the Marxist idiots pushing that shit forward.


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 8, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> Average gun value $1500?  If that’s what they’re doing in buybacks, I might have to move to Canada for a couple of years.  ;)



Sadly because of previous gun control BS, firearm prices are high and the average AR is at least $1500 as a base price.


----------



## Brill (Dec 8, 2019)

policemedic said:


> I was already at Fort Ord at that point, but I remember the incident.



Wasn‘t it around JUST CAUSE?


----------



## Gunz (Dec 8, 2019)

RackMaster said:


> I'm about to lose all my guns in a horrible boating accident.  😉😉




Does Canada have a database of gun owners? I'm assuming with all the extant restrictions they know where every legally-purchased firearm is?

PS--When they ban revolvers, 22's and shotguns, you'll know it's time to unass the AO.


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 8, 2019)

Gunz said:


> Does Canada have a database of gun owners? I'm assuming with all the extant restrictions they know where every legally-purchased firearm is?
> 
> PS--When they ban revolvers, 22's and shotguns, you'll know it's time to unass the AO.



They do for certain classifications.  Restricted, which is basically all handguns and certain semi-autos, like any AR variant or scary black gun.  It's almost random, how they pick and choose.  But most long guns are no longer registere, they were supposed to have deleted it BUT we have our doubts.  I have a Restricted license but don't currently own any.  So all mine that were lost in the boating accident weren't registered. 😉


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 8, 2019)

RackMaster said:


> They do for certain classifications.  Restricted, which is basically all handguns and certain semi-autos, like any AR variant or scary black gun.  It's almost random, how they pick and choose.  But most long guns are no longer registere, they were supposed to have deleted it BUT we have our doubts.  I have a Restricted license but don't currently own any.  So all mine that were lost in the boating accident weren't registered. 😉



Move your canuckistanian ass to Texas. We got guns, cheap beer and barbeque. And you won't have to tell everyone "sorry" all the damn time!


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 8, 2019)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Move your canuckistanian ass to Texas. We got guns, cheap beer and barbeque. And you won't have to tell everyone "sorry" all the damn time!



Oh it's definitely on my mind.  We're limited to  a 5 month stay.  It's hard for a Canadian to move to the US permanently, unless we have high demand credentials; if my wife does her Masters, it could be a possibility.  But they don't accept broken Veteran's.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 8, 2019)

RackMaster said:


> Oh it's definitely on my mind.  We're limited to  a 5 month stay.  It's hard for a Canadian to move to the US permanently, unless we have high demand credentials; if my wife does her Masters, it could be a possibility.  But they don't accept broken Veteran's.



Fuck that stupid shit, we got more illegals running around here than we know what to do with... they ain't gonna be looking for a white boy saying "eh" all the damn time. 

But yeah I gotcha, it's odd to me the way our two countries interact on immigration. Y'all are pretty much America "light" any damn way.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 8, 2019)

Virginia is going to have a tough time in the future is these new laws pass.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 8, 2019)

lindy said:


> Wasn‘t it around JUST CAUSE?



Yes.


----------



## 757 (Dec 9, 2019)

When WaPo says VA's gun confiscation plan is insane...perhaps VA's reps should listen. Lots of extremely restless gun-owners in Hampton Roads atm.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 9, 2019)

RackMaster said:


> Oh it's definitely on my mind.  We're limited to  a 5 month stay.  It's hard for a Canadian to move to the US permanently, unless we have high demand credentials; if my wife does her Masters, it could be a possibility.  But they don't accept broken Veteran's.



Just go to nursing school.  We have more Canadian nurses in exile who will never go back unless they want to it's crazy.  One, a good friend of mine, is from Newfoundland, so you know he's about as fucked up as a football bat....


----------



## Gunz (Dec 9, 2019)

757 said:


> When WaPo says VA's gun confiscation plan is insane...perhaps VA's reps should listen. Lots of extremely restless gun-owners in Hampton Roads atm.



This is just the proposed handgun clause of SB16:



> _3. A semi-automatic center-fire pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds;_





> _4. A semi-automatic center-fire pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one of the following characteristics: (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a thumbhole stock; (iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (iv) the capacity to accept a magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (v) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the pistol with the non-trigger hand without being burned; (vi) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; (vii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting (a) a silencer, (b) a flash suppressor, (c) a barrel extender, or (d) a forward handgrip; or (viii) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (vii);_


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Dec 9, 2019)

Food for thought. Bloomberg and the DNC pumped millions into VA's elections. Those Marxist fucks also pumped millions into CO's and other states political machines as well. There is a reason why the richest men in the world want to disarm the populace. We are nothing but peasants to them and they aim to rule us.


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 9, 2019)

@R.Caerbannog I haven't heard anything from our most recent election but the previous one had the Democrat's send a couple of Obama's election advisors to help Trudeau.  It wouldn't surprise me if the found ways to send money.  

This is the response from the leader among Canadian firearms rights organizations, the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights (CCFR).  It points out our options but also the sad reality that if they want to go through with it, it can be done overnight and we have little we can do about it.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Dec 10, 2019)

RackMaster said:


> @R.Caerbannog I haven't heard anything from our most recent election but the previous one had the Democrat's send a couple of Obama's election advisors to help Trudeau.  It wouldn't surprise me if the found ways to send money.
> 
> This is the response from the leader among Canadian firearms rights organizations, the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights (CCFR).  It points out our options but also the sad reality that if they want to go through with it, it can be done overnight and we have little we can do about it.


That is terrifying bro. It's insane how much power Ontario and Quebec have over the rest of Canada. Especially when those cities would freeze and starve without the resources coming in from inner Canada. I'm sorry you guys have to deal with that shit, though I get the feeling that the freedom loving people of the US and Canada are in the same boat when it comes to dealing with liberal despots.

I sincerely wish you guys the best.


----------



## 757 (Dec 10, 2019)

@Gunz Ya it's absolute insanity. I figured this kind of stuff could happen in NY or Cali but never in my home state of VA.

Council member Robert Ike has introduced a bill to make Chesapeake (where I live) a 2nd-A sanctuary. The meeting for that is tonight at, I believe, 4:45 and I am hoping that at least 5000 people show up. Around 1,500 showed up at the VA Beach city council meeting, far less than many of us had hoped for and probably too few to move the needle much.


----------



## Jaknight (Dec 10, 2019)

757 said:


> @Gunz Ya it's absolute insanity. I figured this kind of stuff could happen in NY or Cali but never in my home state of VA.
> 
> Council member Robert Ike has introduced a bill to make Chesapeake (where I live) a 2nd-A sanctuary. The meeting for that is tonight at, I believe, 4:45 and I am hoping that at least 5000 people show up. Around 1,500 showed up at the VA Beach city council meeting, far less than many of us had hoped for and probably too few to move the needle much.


 Didn’t one of the Sheriffs there say he would deputize people if they pass those laws?


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 10, 2019)

R.Caerbannog said:


> That is terrifying bro. It's insane how much power Ontario and Quebec have over the rest of Canada. Especially when those cities would freeze and starve without the resources coming in from inner Canada. I'm sorry you guys have to deal with that shit, though I get the feeling that the freedom loving people of the US and Canada are in the same boat when it comes to dealing with liberal despots.
> 
> I sincerely wish you guys the best.



Thanks Brother.  It's funny how liberal's on both sides of the border are so much alike.  When Killary lost, here they went on and on about the "popular vote".  This last election, the Conservatives had the "popular vote" but not enough seats because of distribution favours Toronto, Ottawa, Montréal and Vancouver.  Same shit, different country and the urban elites that think every thing they consume or use just magically appears out of thin air.


----------



## 757 (Dec 10, 2019)

@Jaknight Ya, but he is in Culpeper County which is in NoVA. Sadly, I am from SoVA and we do not, currently, have anyone willing to stand up and publicly do the same.



^This is from VA's AG. Ironic how he invokes the Civil War in his letter.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 10, 2019)

757 said:


> @Jaknight Ya, but he is in Culpeper County which is in NoVA. Sadly, I am from SoVA and we do not, currently, have anyone willing to stand up and publicly do the same.
> 
> View attachment 30718
> 
> ^This is from VA's AG. Ironic how he invokes the Civil War in his letter.




A bit ironic that he mentions gun violence disproportionately effecting "communities of color" in a letter about gun control...given that most of the guns used in violence in communities of color are stolen, black market or otherwise illegally obtained and therefore uncontrollable.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Dec 11, 2019)

RackMaster said:


> Thanks Brother.  It's funny how liberal's on both sides of the border are so much alike.  When Killary lost, here they went on and on about the "popular vote".  This last election, the Conservatives had the "popular vote" but not enough seats because of distribution favours Toronto, Ottawa, Montréal and Vancouver.  Same shit, different country and the urban elites that think every thing they consume or use just magically appears out of thin air.


Honestly, it's frightening how interconnected in methods and ideologies the urban liberal elite are. When it comes to criminalizing firearms and citizens ability to defend themselves against tyranny, the liberal left sure doesn't seem to recognize borders or countries. 

England, Australia, Mexico, and New Zealand have all fallen when it comes to citizens gun rights. The mass disarmament that occurred in Mexico and the resulting chaos is a portend of what's to come if Canada and the US give in to the Marxists.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Dec 11, 2019)

757 said:


> @Jaknight Ya, but he is in Culpeper County which is in NoVA. Sadly, I am from SoVA and we do not, currently, have anyone willing to stand up and publicly do the same.
> 
> View attachment 30718
> 
> ^This is from VA's AG. Ironic how he invokes the Civil War in his letter.


Wonder what he was promised.


> A *Judas goat* is a trained goat used in general animal herding. The Judas goat is trained to associate with sheep or cattle, leading them to a specific destination. In stockyards, a Judas goat will lead sheep to slaughter, while its own life is spared. Judas goats are also used to lead other animals to specific pens and onto trucks.


----------



## Jaknight (Dec 12, 2019)

So the Democrats want to use the Guard to deal with the sheriffs who refuse to comply with the gun laws now? 'The law is the law': Virginia Democrats float prosecution and National Guard for police who fail to enforce gun control legislation


----------



## chickenrappa (Dec 12, 2019)

Jaknight said:


> So the Democrats want to use the Guard to deal with the sheriffs who refuse to comply with the gun laws now? 'The law is the law': Virginia Democrats float prosecution and National Guard for police who fail to enforce gun control legislation


That would set a very dangerous precedent, scary to think that lawmakers are willing to do something like that to achieve their goal.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Dec 12, 2019)

Jaknight said:


> So the Democrats want to use the Guard to deal with the sheriffs who refuse to comply with the gun laws now? 'The law is the law': Virginia Democrats float prosecution and National Guard for police who fail to enforce gun control legislation





chickenrappa said:


> That would set a very dangerous precedent, scary to think that lawmakers are willing to do something like that to achieve their goal.


Not sure about you guys, but I'm seeing bureaucrats intimidating law enforcement, threatening Virginian's with violence, and attempting to steal the tax monies and property from the same communities they threatened.

Also, are any of you familiar with Holodomor genocide? Instead of grain, the Democrats in Virginia are looking at confiscating firearms and personal property with the threat of force.

Highlights from the article:


> - *Democratic lawmakers* on Capitol Hill *say local police who do not enforce gun control measures* likely to pass in Virginia *should face prosecution and even threats of the National Guard*.
> 
> - *Virginia Democratic officials*, however, already *say local law enforcement supporting these resolutions will face consequences* if they do not carry out any law the state Legislature passes.
> 
> ...



Article:


> Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill say local police who do not enforce gun control measures likely to pass in Virginia should face prosecution and even threats of the National Guard.
> 
> After November's Virginia Legislature elections that led to Democrats taking control of both chambers, the gun control legislation proposed by some Democrats moved forward, including universal background checks, an “assault weapons” ban, and a red flag law.
> 
> ...


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Dec 12, 2019)

Gunz said:


> There is historical precedent for governors calling out the NG to enforce state law...or even to resist federal mandates, like school desegregation. In the latter case (see the Little Rock Nine), the President deployed federal troops to counter the NG call-up.
> 
> But this VA gun law situation is just another indication of how fractured this country is and how serious this is getting.


The divides in the country are definitely growing more apparent, though with a bit of deprogramming it's fixable. Starting to think the threats made by the Democratic elite in Virginia are a sign of desperation on their part. People in control don't harass their citizens and peacekeeprs with the threat of violence, I think they're scared.


----------



## Box (Dec 12, 2019)

"Free and Fair elections" are what got Virginia to this point.  Its the same election process that has consumed Cowlifornya, the Same election process that has consumed New York, the same election process that consumed Michigan, and Illinois, and Maryland, and Massachusetts, and it is the same process that made Roy Cooper the gov'na of North Kakalaki.  
Maybe we need to take a look at why people keep selecting this type of governance.

...the optimists like to say the hype about givernment and rights is just a harmless pendulum, swinging left then right, left the right - nothing to see here - remain clam - move along

The realists understand that optimism is a worthy trait - but not the basis for a strategic plan.

Turn in your guns people - its for the children.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 12, 2019)

I've been reading a couple of pieces on the "gun sanctuary" situation and wondering at the unfathomable hypocrisy of the party who advocates for "sanctuary cities" that flout Federal law, but are up in arms (see what I did there?) about something very similar happening within their states, but with Constitutionally- protected citizen-owned legal property instead of non-citizen illegal immigrants.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 12, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> I've been reading a couple of pieces on the "gun sanctuary" situation and wondering at the unfathomable hypocrisy of the party who advocates for "sanctuary cities" that flout Federal law, but are up in arms (see what I did there?) about something very similar happening within their states, but with Constitutionally- protected citizen-owned legal property instead of non-citizen illegal immigrants.



This is why I think if it goes far enough, courts will have to finally decide for-real the legitimacy or not of "sanctuary anything".  And until they do, Mr. Attorney General, suck it.

As for the national guard.....yeahhhh, talk about a legal, political, and PR nightmare for the AG and governor.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Dec 12, 2019)

Box said:


> "Free and Fair elections" are what got Virginia to this point.  Its the same election process that has consumed Cowlifornya, the Same election process that has consumed New York, the same election process that consumed Michigan, and Illinois, and Maryland, and Massachusetts, and it is the same process that made Roy Cooper the gov'na of North Kakalaki.
> Maybe we need to take a look at why people keep selecting this type of governance.
> 
> ...the optimists like to say the hype about givernment and rights is just a harmless pendulum, swinging left then right, left the right - nothing to see here - remain clam - move along
> ...


Social engineering, cradle to grave misinformation campaigns, and a deluge of outsider money, have definitely tainted the legitimacy of "Free and Fair" elections. You're right, when it comes to thinking strategically it seems the public is always reacting or on the back foot.

To make an ugly "it's for the children" observation. Even with our guns, the pedophiles abducted American children and ferried them away to an island to be abused and exploited. For the optimists, imagine a world where only the pedophiles and their friends are armed.


----------



## Box (Dec 12, 2019)

Its the same world where criminals and illegal aliens are offered sanctuary while law abiding tax paying American citizens have their private protery rights threatened with the armed-force of the State.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Dec 12, 2019)

Box said:


> Its the same world where criminals and illegal aliens are offered sanctuary while law abiding tax paying American citizens have their private protery rights threatened with the armed-force of the State.


At the end of the day, we're all just lowly peasants in the eyes of the 'elite'.


----------



## Brill (Dec 12, 2019)

Box said:


> Its the same world where criminals and illegal aliens are offered sanctuary while law abiding tax paying American citizens have their private protery rights threatened with the armed-force of the State.



#BlueState


----------



## Centermass (Dec 12, 2019)

Jaknight said:


> So the Democrats want to use the Guard to deal with the sheriffs who refuse to comply with the gun laws now? 'The law is the law': Virginia Democrats float prosecution and National Guard for police who fail to enforce gun control legislation



Posse Comitatus


----------



## Brill (Dec 12, 2019)

Centermass said:


> Posse Comitatus



Latin for orgy?


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 12, 2019)

lindy said:


> Latin for orgy?



Comitatus, not coitus. ;)


----------



## AWP (Dec 12, 2019)

Just remember that some NG and police officers confiscated weapons after Katrina. If VA or any other state wants the Guard to do this, it will. The state will find units that will blindly carry out it's orders with respect to gun confiscation. When it is over, soldiers will state they were "just following orders" as if that absolves them of any wrongdoing.

If it comes down to using the NG to enforce these state laws, the above is how it will go down. We've already seen it happen here in the US albeit on a small scale.

All of the "Molon Labe" crowd, how willing are you to kill uniformed soldiers and police officers?


----------



## Jaknight (Dec 12, 2019)

AWP said:


> Just remember that some NG and police officers confiscated weapons after Katrina. If VA or any other state wants the Guard to do this, it will. The state will find units that will blindly carry out it's orders with respect to gun confiscation. When it is over, soldiers will state they were "just following orders" as if that absolves them of any wrongdoing.
> 
> If it comes down to using the NG to enforce these state laws, the above is how it will go down. We've already seen it happen here in the US albeit on a small scale.
> 
> All of the "Molon Labe" crowd, how willing are you to kill uniformed soldiers and police officers?


If that crowd was willing to what would happen?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 12, 2019)

AWP said:


> Just remember that some NG and police officers confiscated weapons after Katrina. If VA or any other state wants the Guard to do this, it will. The state will find units that will blindly carry out it's orders with respect to gun confiscation. When it is over, soldiers will state they were "just following orders" as if that absolves them of any wrongdoing.
> 
> If it comes down to using the NG to enforce these state laws, the above is how it will go down. We've already seen it happen here in the US albeit on a small scale.
> 
> All of the "Molon Labe" crowd, how willing are you to kill uniformed soldiers and police officers?


In Virginia?  Not so sure.  But 76 of 95 Counties have declared themselves 2nd Amendment sanctuary cities.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 13, 2019)

AWP said:


> All of the "Molon Labe" crowd, how willing are you to kill uniformed soldiers and police officers?



You don't. You drop the ones giving orders, preferably during their governor grade PR lookseeloo bullshit.


----------



## Arf (Dec 13, 2019)

This is my worst fear if I go National Guard and my entire reason for avoiding law enforcement. I want get the bad guys over seas, but I have no interest in fighting Americans.


----------



## Brill (Dec 13, 2019)

AWP said:


> All of the "Molon Labe" crowd, how willing are you to kill uniformed soldiers and police officers?



I plan on distracting them with beer, BBQ, and doughnut. Plus, I KNOW the Guard guys will tire quickly digging holes all over my...neighbors’?...backyard.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 13, 2019)

The President can federalize the VA National Guard and order them to stand down. (US code 12406) I'd guess there's enough interpretive wiggle room there for a competent lawyer to apply it in this kind of circumstance.


----------



## 757 (Dec 13, 2019)

Ralph Northam after surviving his black face scandal and thinking he can pull this stunt off...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 15, 2019)

Well this is a way: Virginia: County Board of Supervisors Forms an Active Militia


----------



## Brill (Dec 15, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> Well this is a way: Virginia: County Board of Supervisors Forms an Active Militia



The area for this battle MUST be the courtroom and inside the ballot box instead of on a field. The consequences for everyone are much too great.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Dec 15, 2019)

lindy said:


> The area for this battle MUST be the courtroom and inside the ballot box instead of on a field. The consequences for everyone are much too great.


I don't believe the Marxists have any intention of letting the people do that. People tried undoing the democratic BS enacted in Colorado and it's gone nowhere. What Democrats are proposing in Virginia is worse and they don't give a shit about the law or will of the people.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 15, 2019)

Arf said:


> This is my worst fear if I go National Guard and my entire reason for avoiding law enforcement. I want get the bad guys over seas, but I have no interest in fighting Americans.



What you just said makes no sense.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 15, 2019)

lindy said:


> The area for this battle MUST be the courtroom and inside the ballot box instead of on a field. The consequences for everyone are much too great.


This is precisely the reason for the second amendment.  To protect against a tyrannical government, so the venue is actually the village green.

The whole point of the Electoral College and having equal representation in the Senate is to stop places like the City of New York being the dominant body politic and creating policy the has primacy over places like Nebraska.

In this case, it is now 77 counties in Virgnina [of 95] telling Northam to fuck off.


----------



## Box (Dec 16, 2019)

In a cosmic twist - ole' Virginny was the most crowded state in the Union during the first US census - the founding fathers created the electoral college so states like VIRGINIA and Pennsylvania would not be the ones setting the tone for the rest of the nation...

The more things change, the more they something something same........... - and all that jazz


----------



## AWP (Dec 16, 2019)

You idiots using logic and history to explain your actions. How dare you steal or ruin my adulthood?! How dare you!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Brill (Dec 16, 2019)

AWP said:


> You idiots using logic and history to explain your actions. How dare you steal or ruin my adulthood?! How dare you!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Not sure who the indirect object here is: the cheerleaders or the board???


----------



## Gunz (Dec 16, 2019)

Ban guns.
Ban the electoral college.
Ban fingers that make the circle game.


----------



## Brill (Dec 16, 2019)

Gunz said:


> Ban guns.
> Ban the electoral college.
> Ban fingers that make the circle game.



Support for 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 16, 2019)

AWP said:


> You idiots using logic and history to explain your actions. How dare you steal or ruin my adulthood?! How dare you!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Get back on your boat!!


----------



## 757 (Dec 17, 2019)




----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 15, 2020)

Things are getting a might prickly in 'ol Virginny

Virginia Declares State of Emergency After Armed Militias Threaten to Storm the Capitol


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 15, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> Things are getting a might prickly in 'ol Virginny
> 
> Virginia Declares State of Emergency After Armed Militias Threaten to Storm the Capitol


Fuck our POS Governor. This state of emergency is the definition of fraud, waste, and abuse.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 15, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> Things are getting a might prickly in 'ol Virginny
> 
> Virginia Declares State of Emergency After Armed Militias Threaten to Storm the Capitol



George Washington was just heard to have said, "Virginia, THAT'S why we put in the second amendment, you dipshits..."


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 15, 2020)

Re: Virginia 

I’m late to the party but would someone be willing to give me the Reader’s Digest version of what is going on and what the concerned outcome is?


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 15, 2020)

Virginia was bought out by Mike Blomberg. Democrats have big gun control plans and they own the Senate, Congress, and Governor spot.

Originally they were going to try and ban basically any fire arm that took a magazine, to include shotguns but I think they have scaled that back some. Still looking at banning magazines over 5 rounds.


----------



## compforce (Jan 15, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Re: Virginia
> 
> I’m late to the party but would someone be willing to give me the Reader’s Digest version of what is going on and what the concerned outcome is?



Cliff Notes version:

Virginia state government has decided to enact laws banning all "assault weapons"  which they define as anything with larger than a 5 round magazine, including handguns and shotguns.  The bill has not become law yet, but it's almost a given with the makeup of the state legislature.

90+ % of the counties in VA have declared themselves 2d amendment sanctuary counties.  The Sheriffs of those counties declared they would NOT enforce the new laws.

The Governor has threatened to call in the National Guard to help enforce the law if the Sheriffs won't. They also have a bill to remove the Sheriffs and any other government employee that refuses to enforce the law.  The NG CG made a non-committal statement deferring a choice.

The Sheriffs have established county militias and a large pro-gun group has emerged to help "protect the rights of the citizens".

Everything is up in the air with the latest development being the above.


----------



## compforce (Jan 15, 2020)

BloodStripe said:


> Originally they were going to try and ban basically any fire arm that took a magazine, to include shotguns but I think they have scaled that back some. Still looking at banning magazines over 5 rounds.



It hasn't been scaled back that I know of.  If they have, it hasn't been reported.  They offered to scale it back in return for gun registration.   Oh, BTW, there is NO GRANDFATHER CLAUSE.  Everyone that owns or possesses a legal gun becomes a felon the minute the governor signs it into law.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 15, 2020)

Jesus.

Thank you guys, I’ll get up to speed and really appreciate your offering of the basics.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 15, 2020)

compforce said:


> It hasn't been scaled back that I know of.  If they have, it hasn't been reported.  They offered to scale it back in return for gun registration.   Oh, BTW, there is NO GRANDFATHER CLAUSE.  Everyone that owns or possesses a legal gun becomes a felon the minute the governor signs it into law.



Va. Senate committee strikes 'assault weapons' bill, advances other proposed gun laws

What will pass right now is one handgun purchase a month, a background check on all gun sales, red flag law, and municipalities may ban guns at events.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 15, 2020)

Just because it was passed for now doesn't mean it's dead. It just means they didnt have the votes as of today.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 15, 2020)

I have to believe that anti-‘s everywhere are watching this as a major test case.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 15, 2020)

compforce said:


> Cliff Notes version:
> 
> Virginia state government has decided to enact laws banning all "assault weapons"  which they define as anything with larger than a 5 round magazine, including handguns and shotguns.  The bill has not become law yet, but it's almost a given with the makeup of the state legislature.
> 
> ...



He would activate the Guard to enforce the law because they don't trust LEAs to do it...nevermind that almostt he entire NCO Corps of VANG is made up of LEOs...


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 15, 2020)

The Va AG thinks its okay to refuse state law when its him who does it. More do as I say not as I do.

Refusing to defend state law a rarity, Herring says

Virginia attorney general says habitual drunkard law should not be enforced


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 16, 2020)

I might know some people in NC close to the Virginia border who have offered to buy guns for Virginians, or ammo, or magazines; or hold any of theirs for them if they want to make quick cross-border runs.  If I did know these people, they may have also communicated with the AG's office and governor's office that they are going to do this and dare them from trying to stop them.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jan 16, 2020)

Is what the VA legislature doing stupid as hell and getting close to full infringement? 

Yes.

Is some idiot who's to hyped up on boogaloo memes and "Patriotism" likely to shoot someone if these groups enter the capital with weapons? 

Also probably yes.

If there is an incident involving a firearm that occurs next week, the conversation regarding gun rights will shift fully downhill.


----------



## 757 (Jan 16, 2020)




----------



## 757 (Jan 16, 2020)

On a more serious note, here are the three senate bills that have been bumped up to be voted on 1/16: 35, 69, 70.

In essence:

1) 35=allows localities to create new "gun-free"zones.
2) 69=only one gun a month.
3) 70=bans private sales of guns/more extensive background checks.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 16, 2020)




----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 16, 2020)

Well, West Virginia introduced a bill in the State House to admit certain Virginia counties into the State of West Virginia: HCR 8 Text


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 16, 2020)

What's fucking Virginia is the DC area. Get rid of those traitors and tyrants and this state can maintain its motto, sic semper tyrannis.


----------



## GOTWA (Jan 16, 2020)

I actually like VA and would take a job there if it managed to work out. This whole gun shit is upsetting.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 16, 2020)

GOTWA said:


> I actually like VA and would take a job there if it managed to work out. This whole gun shit is upsetting.



Virginia is a great state. The politics up there suck now, it went from conservative to Blue dog Democrat to rabidly liberal very fast.

That said, if you can live west of 95, and the further west you go the better, you get into the more rural and more conservative areas.


----------



## GOTWA (Jan 16, 2020)

Devildoc said:


> Virginia is a great state. The politics up there suck now, it went from conservative to Blue dog Democrat to rabidly liberal very fast.
> 
> That said, if you can live west of 95, and the further west you go the better, you get into the more rural and more conservative areas.



Well, being intel, and keeping in that line of work, I probably wouldn't go west of Tysons. Even that might be too far depending on job location.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 16, 2020)

GOTWA said:


> Well, being intel, and keeping in that line of work, I probably wouldn't go west of Tysons. Even that might be too far depending on job location.



To hell with the peri-DC area.  Don't get me wrong, I _LOVE _DC:  if I can stay in it and use public transportation.  Driving?  No way.  24/7/365 traffic jam.  Plus getting more expensive by the day.

I used to have to drive to DC a couple times a month from Durham, NC...what was a solid 4 1/2 hours (with bathroom breaks along the way) is now 6 hours or more.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 16, 2020)

That Virginia gun shit sounded pretty fucked up before I started drinking. Now I've been drinking since 1400 this afternoon and five hours later it still sounds really fucked up.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 16, 2020)

Going full retard on the bit...

Virginia revokes handgun permit agreement with 25 states


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jan 16, 2020)

They're also blocking off egress and ingress points to the capitol grounds, setting up surveillance, and bringing in up-armored vics.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jan 16, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Going full retard on the bit...
> 
> Virginia revokes handgun permit agreement with 25 states


That's an article from Dec 2015...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 16, 2020)

R.Caerbannog said:


> That's an article from Dec 2015...


Wow.  Great catch, my apologies for getting caught up and not fact checking.


----------



## Brill (Jan 16, 2020)

Gunz said:


> That Virginia gun shit sounded pretty fucked up before I started drinking. Now I've been drinking since 1400 this afternoon and five hours later it still sounds really fucked up.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 16, 2020)

So it seems this is why everything is gone squirrelly.  

FBI arrest former Canadian reservist, suspected neo-Nazi, in United States


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jan 16, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> So it seems this is why everything is gone squirrelly.
> 
> FBI arrest former Canadian reservist, suspected neo-Nazi, in United States


Honestly, things have been squirrelly in VA for quite some time now. Right now Northam and his cronies are looking for every criminal and scapegoat so they can try to justify what they're doing. For what it's worth, I posted a pic of Northam a few days ago; he's the dude posing in blackface with a guy in a KKK hood.

These are the statists the people of VA are up against. Levine is also the scumbag who introduced HB 961.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1217060375377719296


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 16, 2020)

Guys with AKs are doing pretty well against the "full might and power of the United States military."

--Signed, every OIF, OEF, and OIR veteran


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jan 16, 2020)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Honestly, things have been squirrelly in VA for quite some time now. Right now Northam and his cronies are looking for every criminal and scapegoat so they can to justify what they're doing. For what it's worth, I posted a pic of Northam a few days ago; he's the dude posing in blackface with a guy in a KKK hood.
> 
> These are the statists the people of VA are up against. Levine is also the scumbag who introduced HB 961.
> View attachment 31613
> ...



This is always the best.

You are comparing 18th century weapons [muskets] to current day while you use a cell phone and Twitter [quill pen and ink] to type a silly message. 

More data to tell me I'm on the right side of this....


----------



## Brill (Jan 16, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Guys with AKs are doing pretty well against the "full might and power of the United States military."
> 
> --Signed, every OIF, OEF, and OIR veteran



SDF, ISOF, & PMF could argue a well-trained a single ISIS sniper with a SVD or M24 can hold up large units.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 16, 2020)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Honestly, things have been squirrelly in VA for quite some time now. Right now Northam and his cronies are looking for every criminal and scapegoat so they can try to justify what they're doing. For what it's worth, I posted a pic of Northam a few days ago; he's the dude posing in blackface with a guy in a KKK hood.
> 
> These are the statists the people of VA are up against. Levine is also the scumbag who introduced HB 961.
> View attachment 31613
> ...



Oh I know it's not the whole cause but it explains the whole state of emergency due to white supremist threats.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jan 16, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> Oh I know it's not the whole cause but it explains the whole state of emergency due to white supremist threats.


I dunno brother, I think that might be a happy coincidence for Northam and his crew. If it really were about safety from supremacist groups then fringe groups like ANTIFA would also be in the crosshairs.

From what I've been seeing on the web, Northam and pals declared a state of emergency when they saw the peasants getting riled up. Heck, they even passed a funding resolution to prosecuting 'firearm crimes' days before.

Also found this circulating on the web, I guess it's headed to Richmond. With the fences, surveillance equipment, and everything else, I don't think this about keeping people safe.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 16, 2020)

*A quick Denny Crane segue....*






*Back to your normal broadcasting station....*


----------



## policemedic (Jan 17, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Guys with AKs are doing pretty well against the "full might and power of the United States military."
> 
> --Signed, every OIF, OEF, and OIR veteran



I Tweeted something similar in response. Pissing in the wind, I know.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 17, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> *A quick Denny Crane segue....*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Denny Crane...one of my favorite TV characters....


----------



## Gunz (Jan 17, 2020)

@Ooh-Rah , that article may have been old, but it has a revealing quote by Mark Herring, VA's AG, talking about concealed firearms licenses issued by other states...his reason to revoke reciprocity:

_"Those states hand out permits to people who are barred under the Virginia law, *like fugitives, convicted stalkers and drug dealers*, which undermines the state's law and puts residents at risk," he said._

An outrageous lie, of course, but it shows to what depths the VA administration will go to confuse the issue and undermine the law.


----------



## Brill (Jan 17, 2020)

VA has put itself into a precarious position. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1217948420696150016


----------



## RustyShackleford (Jan 17, 2020)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> This is always the best.
> 
> You are comparing 18th century weapons [muskets] to current day while you use a cell phone and Twitter [quill pen and ink] to type a silly message.
> 
> More data to tell me I'm on the right side of this....



Yep. I usually bring up the 1st and 4th amendment and cell phones, internet access, etc.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 17, 2020)

So, this gets interesting according to "Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Services and Disaster Law of 2000." 



> *§ 44-146.15. Construction of chapter*
> 
> (3) Empower the Governor, any political subdivision, or any other governmental authority to in any way limit or prohibit the rights of the people to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia or the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, including the otherwise lawful possession, carrying, transportation, sale, or transfer of firearms except to the extent necessary to ensure public safety in any place or facility designated or used by the Governor, any political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or any other governmental entity as an emergency shelter or for the purpose of sheltering persons;


----------



## Box (Jan 17, 2020)

hahahahaha
laws

Thats a good one - that *Construction of chapter* law could have been copied out of a Beetle Baily comic;  with politicians in general - the law doesn't seem to matter if it advances their particular partisan flavor. 




_edited to remove specific reference to a single party - politicians in general - left right or center _


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 17, 2020)

This is in no way directed solely at Box, but if we are going to have these political threads, there has to be some attempt at accuracy when making blanket statements.



Box said:


> to the left - the law doesnt matter. Their ends will always justify their means.


In the spirit of fairness, that is not exactly an accurate statement.  To imply that anyone on the left does not believe or follow the rule of law, is then suggesting that anyone on the right, does.  

If guys are going to offer an opinion, then feel free.  But broad statements in these threads that cannot be linked as fact, will be called out as such.  This is no different than how we run any other thread on this site, prove what you are saying, or state it as an opinion, and then explain why you believe your opinion to be valid.

Otherwise don’t participate in these threads.

#choices


----------



## Box (Jan 17, 2020)

WILCO

my sarcasm frequently gets the best of me


----------



## compforce (Jan 17, 2020)

Have fun with the next hit from Virginia... I present to you House Bill 567. currently in committee



> *Summary*
> 
> Indoor shooting ranges; prohibited in buildings not owned or leased by the Commonwealth or federal government; exceptions; civil penalty. Prohibits the operation of an indoor shooting range, defined in the bill, in any building not owned or leased by the Commonwealth or federal government unless (i) fewer than 50 employees work in the building or (ii) (a) at least 90 percent of the users of the indoor shooting range are law-enforcement officers or federal law-enforcement officers, (b) the indoor shooting range maintains a log of each user's name, phone number, address, and the law-enforcement agency where such user is employed, and (c) the indoor shooting range verifies each user's identity and address by requiring all users to present a government-issued photo-identification card. The bill provides that any person that violates the provisions of this section is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 nor more than $100,000 for the initial violation and $5,000 per day for each day of violation thereafter.




Virginia HB567 | 2020 | Regular Session

(BTW, This will never make it past a legal challenge if it does become law)


----------



## GOTWA (Jan 17, 2020)

Well, might as well go full retard if you're gonna do it.


----------



## Kaldak (Jan 17, 2020)

GOTWA said:


> Well, might as well go full retard if you're gonna do it.



You never go full retard!
- Tropic Thunder


----------



## Brill (Jan 17, 2020)

Box said:


> my sarcasm frequently gets the best of me



The day you stop being a smart ass is the day I go on hunger strike. I’ve been stocking on reserves so I can last several weeks without a meal. I got your back!!!!

Now, forgoing booze...um, you're on your own.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 17, 2020)

R.Caerbannog said:


> They're also blocking off egress and ingress points to the capitol grounds, setting up surveillance, and bringing in up-armored vics.
> 
> View attachment 31605 View attachment 31606
> View attachment 31607View attachment 31608


It's like suddenly the Democrats like walls.


----------



## Florida173 (Jan 19, 2020)

compforce said:


> Have fun with the next hit from Virginia... I present to you House Bill 567. currently in committee
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Probably hits the NRA HQ's inside range pretty hard. Not that it's any good, but still.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 19, 2020)

"Indoor shooting ranges; prohibited in buildings not owned or leased by the Commonwealth."

That is the stupidest law proposal I have read in awhile.......are outdoor ranges okay still?


----------



## compforce (Jan 19, 2020)

Kraut783 said:


> "Indoor shooting ranges; prohibited in buildings not owned or leased by the Commonwealth."
> 
> That is the stupidest law proposal I have read in awhile.......are outdoor ranges okay still?



Actually, so are indoor ranges.  The only range that fits the 50+ employee requirement in the entire state is the NRA headquarters.  That's why I said it wouldn't pass legal muster.  The Constitution explicitly prohibits laws targeting a single business, person or group.


> No State shall … pass any Bill of ​Attainder



U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net



> *Attainder*
> attainder _n._ The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime. [< OFr. _attaindre,_ to convict] _Source: AHD_
> In the context of the Constitution, *a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group* (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder.


----------



## Butthead (Jan 19, 2020)

compforce said:


> That's why I said it wouldn't pass legal muster.  The Constitution explicitly prohibits laws targeting a single business, person or group.


Just a hunch, but something tells me most of the people trying to pass these laws don't care much about what the Constitution says.


----------



## Butthead (Jan 19, 2020)

This is setting up to be a massive shit-show, or the a devastating avalanche. 

Given the history of "rallies" we've had in recent history, I'm leaning more towards a shit-show of dudes in full airsoft "gear" pointing fingers at LEO's calling them Redcoats. However, (OPINION) I think the time of diplomacy and civil "discussions" has passed. I'm not advocating for violence by any means and it would be way better in the long run not only for us as American people, but gun owners as well, to avoid it. Despite that, we have to stop being the civil ones who keep saying "okay you can't have A but we'll give you B. Aw man you took A and B? Okay well don't take C as well. Aw shoot you took C." etc. The gun control advocates are walking all over gun owners and gun owner advocates because we keep allowing them and keep blaming it on "voters". We need to take the button-ups off and put on our big boy shoes and tell them to put a sock in it. Just my (and not very valuable) $0.02.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 19, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Just in time for tomorrow's 2A rally on the grounds of the Virginia Captol,* it's... The FlintGlock(tm)!!*
> 
> "The FlintGlock(tm) combines the raw mass-destructive power of modern firearms with the timeless elegance of Revolutionary War-era flintlock pistols. And, given that it's based on the popular Glock frame, it is ultimately customizable to suit every firearm enthusiast's need.
> 
> The "Electric Bugaloo" model of the FlintGlock(tm) can be fitted with a bump stock, which enables it to fire in full semi-automatic mode and will transform it into an untraceable "ghost gun" capable of firing dozens of clips a second... just like our country's Founders intended."



;)


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 19, 2020)

Anyone going to the rally tomorrow?


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 19, 2020)

Call me a conspiracist, but shit is going to happen tomorrow. Cops are already threatening people and there is a recon flight going on.

N101CG Live Flight Tracking and History (C208 owned by COSTAR FIELD RESEARCH LLC) ✈ FlightAware


----------



## Brill (Jan 19, 2020)

BloodStripe said:


> Anyone going to the rally tomorrow?




The prevailing mentality is there will be a bunch of racists on one side and peaceful folks who will ensure...peace...on the other side. Seriously, why have a “gun Right s” rally n MLK day?

Cant wait for all the breaking news tomorrow and the the truth a few days later.


----------



## Brill (Jan 19, 2020)

BloodStripe said:


> Call me a conspiracist, but shit is going to happen tomorrow. Cops are already threatening people and there is a recon flight going on.
> 
> N101CG Live Flight Tracking and History (C208 owned by COSTAR FIELD RESEARCH LLC) ✈ FlightAware



Just doing real estate recon. 

Aerial real estate recognizance: CoStar uses a plane to gather data on properties


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 19, 2020)

lindy said:


> Just doing real estate recon.
> 
> Aerial real estate recognizance: CoStar uses a plane to gather data on properties


Right. Just happens to be the week prior to a big rally that the leftist government in charge doesn't want to happen. I'll be there. Won't armed but will be wearing a vest.


----------



## Brill (Jan 19, 2020)

BloodStripe said:


> Right. Just happens to be the week prior to a big rally that the leftist government in charge doesn't want to happen. I'll be there. Won't armed but will be wearing a vest.



Stay at home tomorrow so you can vote later. It’s going to be a cage match. Any violence will be used against the effort so expect anti-gun dressed as pro-gun provocateurs.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1217607952795947008


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 19, 2020)

My thoughts are with the line officers having to work this cluster....stay safe brothers.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 19, 2020)

BloodStripe said:


> Anyone going to the rally tomorrow?



Good luck!


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 19, 2020)

lindy said:


> ...Seriously, why have a “gun Rights” rally on MLK day?
> 
> ...



It's a federal holiday, so people have off from work.

Also, they've been using 20JAN as "lobby day" for more than a decade.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 19, 2020)

If I lived nearby I'd be going to this.  Not out of any strong political convictions, but because this is an interesting and potentially historic event.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 19, 2020)

I live about 30 miles from the border, maybe a little more. I know several people from North Carolina going up for this.  I would certainly go if I could.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 20, 2020)

BloodStripe said:


> Anyone going to the rally tomorrow?


My boss may be going. He owns property up there and I told him to stay alert and have an escape route, he’s been keeping us all up to date about what’s happening because truthfully not a lot is getting out given how big of a deal this is.


----------



## Florida173 (Jan 20, 2020)

I might have considered going since I'm somewhat close in NOVA, but in London today.


----------



## Brill (Jan 20, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> It's a federal holiday, so people have off from work.
> 
> Also, they've been using 20JAN as "lobby day" for more than a decade.



Then it seems odd that this is being framed as a white nationalist rally and Charlottesville 2.0. It’s as if the mischaracterization is intentional.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jan 20, 2020)

lindy said:


> Then it seems odd that this is being framed as a white nationalist rally and Charlottesville 2.0. It’s as if the mischaracterization is intentional.



Is it really suprising though? Because you say that, but first shared this tweet



lindy said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1217607952795947008



Which is from a white nationalist Twitter account saying this is going to be a Charlottesville 2.0

This rally is a great example of a problem that effects this issue(and politics at large). These fringe groups attach themselves to a rally, but very rarely will anybody else involved tell them to fuck off.

It took Charlottesville for some of the state militias in the area to publicly denounce the white nationalism movement, but that's still less than three years ago. Getting rid of the WN/Neo-Nazi stink on 2A rallies is going to take more time and more work.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 20, 2020)

lindy said:


> Then it seems odd that this is being framed as a white nationalist rally and Charlottesville 2.0. It’s as if the mischaracterization is intentional.



Givien my location this is been big news for a while. It is definitely being framed from the Virginia government as two competing storylines, one a peaceful demonstration by the pro-2A crowd, and two, likely interference by white nationalist and CD elements.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 20, 2020)

lindy said:


> Then it seems odd that this is being framed as a white nationalist rally and Charlottesville 2.0. It’s as if the mischaracterization is intentional.



And you can bet some toothless Swamp Critter Militia guys will show up with Johnny Reb flags and they'll be the ones shown on TV. If mischaracterization is possible, it will be gleefully and intentionally exploited by the anti-gunners, the MSM and the Virginia democrats.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jan 20, 2020)

Gunz said:


> And you can bet some toothless Swamp Critter Militia guys will show up with Johnny Reb flags and they'll be the ones shown on TV. If mischaracterization is possible, it will be gleefully and intentionally exploited by the anti-gunners, the MSM and the Virginia democrats.


It's mostly these "cool guy operators" so far



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219257443525500928
And this guy. He's unrelated to that quote, but whoever said that did no favors to the topic 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219249768502788102


----------



## Brill (Jan 20, 2020)

Cookie_ said:


> This rally is a great example of a problem that effects this issue(and politics at large). These fringe groups attach themselves to a rally, but very rarely will anybody else involved tell them to fuck off.



Bingo!

That Virginian-Pilot Twitter feed is insane.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 20, 2020)

Cookie_ said:


> It's mostly these "cool guy operators" so far
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fuck the Virginia Pilot. They are about as left leaning as HuffPo.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jan 20, 2020)

BloodStripe said:


> Fuck the Virginia Pilot. They are about as left leaning as HuffPo.



They had  the only live feed I saw this morning other than WAPO. I don't really care about the politics of the source right now, just updates to how it's going at the Capitol.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 20, 2020)

Cookie_ said:


> They had  the only live feed I saw this morning other than WAPO. I don't really care about the politics of the source right now, just updates to how it's going at the Capitol.


It matters because when you say it's mostly these cool guy operators it isn't true.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jan 20, 2020)

BloodStripe said:


> It matters because when you say it's mostly these cool guy operators it isn't true.



Ah, I gotcha.

I'm not saying that all the people there are like the guys in the photo.

I was replying to @Gunz when he made that comment that the MSM would only be sharing photos of guys with rebel flags in order to push a narrative. I'm saying these are the types of guys the media is  currently/going to highlight.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 20, 2020)

Wondering what's going on in Virginia right now?  Here is a short primer in an article from Black Rifle Coffee Company's "Coffee or Die" magazine.

"In reaction to these new gun control proposals, Second Amendment activists from across the political spectrum and across the nation are descending on the grounds of the Virginia Capitol today, January 20, as part of a mass protest that is expected to involve tens of thousands of people. The event is expected to also attract large crowds of counter-protesters, anarchists, and extremists who may be looking to spark violence. The large, emotional crowds — and the potential for violence — have Virginia, and much of America, on edge."

Divided: How the Latest Fight for Gun Rights Ignited a Showdown in Virginia


----------



## Gunz (Jan 20, 2020)

So all these guys are defying the Virginia Supreme Court ruling forbidding guns at the rally? Will the Governor order mass arrests?


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 20, 2020)

Gunz said:


> So all these guys are defying the Virginia Supreme Court ruling forbidding guns at the rally? Will the Governor order mass arrests?



I think guns are only prohibited inside the fenced-off area immediately surrounding the Capitol.  From the executive order:

To provide for the shelter and safety of state employees who work on or near the Virginia State Capitol and those who come to peacefully assemble, and consistent with the General Assembly’s prohibition on weapons in the Virginia State Capitol and the Pocahontas Buildings, and Executive Order 50 (McAuliffe), which prohibits firearms in offices occupied by executive branch agencies, no weapons, including firearms, may be carried or possessed on any land, real property, or improvements owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia within the area bounded by Broad Street, Ninth Street, Bank Street and Governor Street in the City of Richmond, Virginia, as well as any Commonwealth-owned parking lots for Virginia’s Department of Transportation, the Madison Building, the Monroe Building, the Patrick Henry Building, Washington Building, the Jefferson Building, and the Oliver Hill Building.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 20, 2020)

Gotcha.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 20, 2020)

Correct, just no guns in the fence line. Gov Blackface is hiding out somewhere in a safe house, too afraid to speak with his constituents.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 20, 2020)

BloodStripe said:


> Correct, just no guns in the fence line. Gov Blackface is hiding out somewhere in a safe house, too afraid to speak with his constituents.


While surrounded by his people.

With guns.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 20, 2020)

I dig this patch!


----------



## RustyShackleford (Jan 20, 2020)

What a retard circus.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 20, 2020)

So I guess it's over, and no one got shot?


----------



## ShadowSpear (Jan 20, 2020)

Best display at the rally by far:


----------



## Florida173 (Jan 20, 2020)

Apparently being voted on tomorrow


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 20, 2020)

Glad all went well, with only one arrest...looks like an antifa wanna be, or something....

*One arrested during Richmond gun rights rally for wearing a mask*

"The Virginia Capitol posted on Facebook claiming 21-year-old Mikaela E. Beschler was arrested around 1:30 p.m. on Monday. She was charged with one felony count of wearing a mask in public in the 800 block of East Broad Street."

One arrested during Richmond gun rights rally for wearing a mask


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 20, 2020)

Wearing a mask in public is a felony??? Yikes.  Even if she was Antifa, that seems pretty extreme.


----------



## medicchick (Jan 20, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Wearing a mask in public is a felony??? Yikes.  Even if she was Antifa, that seems pretty extreme.


I've seen it in several states where it is now. This law has been in place since at least 2006.

Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 20, 2020)

I'd never heard of this: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia 

This literally goes against the purpose of the electoral college.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 20, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Wearing a mask in public is a felony??? Yikes.  Even if she was Antifa, that seems pretty extreme.



Virginia passed it in the 50's due to the KKK...etc

Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally


----------



## Gunz (Jan 20, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> I'd never heard of this: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia
> 
> This literally goes against the purpose of the electoral college.



Abolishing the electoral college is a two-edged sword. What arrogance on the part of the democrats pushing this to think their candidates will always win the popular vote.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 20, 2020)

> Today showed that when people disagree, they can do so peacefully," said Northam. "*I will continue to listen to the voices of Virginians, and I will continue to do everything in my power to keep our Commonwealth safe*."




This is code for "fuck you, I didn't learn a thing today, I still want to confiscate your guns."


----------



## Bambi (Jan 20, 2020)

Is buying tactical gear the new form of midlife crisis? Did corvettes get too expensive?


----------



## Board and Seize (Jan 20, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> I'd never heard of this: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia



The ever awesome CGP Grey has a 6min primer on the NaPoVoInterCo.


----------



## Brill (Jan 21, 2020)

I enjoy the after effects of widespread media gaslighting. Very thankful there was zero violence.  

NARRATIVE FAIL: Minorities, LGBT Community, Women Show Up In Force At Pro-Gun Rally


----------



## Bambi (Jan 21, 2020)

lindy said:


> I enjoy the after effects of widespread media gaslighting. Very thankful there was zero violence.
> 
> NARRATIVE FAIL: Minorities, LGBT Community, Women Show Up In Force At Pro-Gun Rally


Also may I add: this is a constitutional infringement issue, whoever shows up understands that, and the MSM acts like people who are more likely to lean left politically don’t care for the Constitution/ Rule of Law. My best friend leans left and he could teach the Constitution basically. Just an observation about the media surrounding the event.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jan 21, 2020)

lindy said:


> I enjoy the after effects of widespread media gaslighting. *Very thankful there was zero violence*.
> 
> NARRATIVE FAIL: Minorities, LGBT Community, Women Show Up In Force At Pro-Gun Rally



100%

I was cynical there would be bad actors who would show up at this, but it seems like whatever dickheads did show up were immediately shut down in a calm but firm way.

A big part of that is due to the VCDL making sure those dudes knew they were unwelcomed, the militias supporting that environment, and even the local ANTIFA that showed up (in regular clothes) to spread the message that gun rights are minority rights.

Literally couldn't have asked for a better pro 2A rally.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 21, 2020)

Gunz said:


> My sister and her new husband were planning to go but they were too busy annexing the rest of the trailer park.
> 
> View attachment 31675


Talk about actual human garbage.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 21, 2020)

Bambi said:


> Is buying tactical gear the new form of midlife crisis? Did corvettes get too expensive?



Holy crap, you should see the range I used to go to...guys decked out in Crye and uber-expensive kit (with NVGs), who were 300 lbs and could not run from here to there and learned almost all of their tactics from YouTube....


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 21, 2020)

CNN Decries Virginia Second Amendment Protest As "Worst Far-Right Extremism Ever" » Article 107 News

“Well, it’s really simple,” explained  Caterina Josefina Jones-Nakembe-Montoyo, an unemployed 22-year-old feminist who double-majored in Gender Students and White Self-Loathing at Yale University. “It’s really easy to be polite when you know that the person you assault can respond with immediate and lethal force.  Every time I felt the urge to “bash the fash,” I saw that said fascist was armed. With like… ALL of the guns. One dude was carrying a five-foot sniper rifle that weighed more than I did. So, we decided that we’d go back to assaulting elderly Trump supporters and attacking conservative speakers at colleges I don’t even go to, and leave all of the armed, alert, and organized Conservatives alone.”


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jan 21, 2020)

While not as respected as 107 news, the folks at NBC had a very similar take.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219452463406821376
It's like you can almost feel the disdain in their voices. 

God bless you Virginia!


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 21, 2020)

American Democrat's and Canadian Liberal's seem to be going hand in hand. 

https://ipolitics.ca/2020/01/20/federal-government-believes-assault-style-rifle-prohibition-can-be-accomplished-in-the-near-term/


----------



## Box (Jan 21, 2020)

The validity of an Article-107 article is MUCH more consistent that what you can expect from the major news outlets.


----------



## Brill (Jan 22, 2020)

What the hell is wrong with people?

Report: 'White Supremacists' Weren't Planning To Attend Virginia Rally To Protest. They Were Planning To Kill Cops And Gun Rights Activists.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 23, 2020)

Made it to the rally Monday. The sheer number of people was amazing. I was so excited to be there, that when I stepped out of my car in the parking garage I had forgotten my phone was in my lap. So needless to say I have no pictures because my screen ended up so badly cracked but will 100% be participating again next year.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 23, 2020)

I got to see the remains. The police made them tear it down. 


ShadowSpear said:


> Best display at the rally by far:
> 
> View attachment 31665


----------



## Brill (Jan 23, 2020)

BloodStripe said:


> Made it to the rally Monday. The sheer number of people was amazing. I was so excited to be there, that when I stepped out of my car in the parking garage I had forgotten my phone was in my lap. So needless to say I have no pictures because my screen ended up so badly cracked but will 100% be participating again next year.



Dang the luck!

Can you tell us what surprised you the most about the crowd?  
Did you get a sense if the attendees were militia, grass roots 2A folk, or just whackos?
Any gauge at all of amount of Virginians vice those bussed in?
Was there a real expectation of violence or was that media spin?


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 23, 2020)

lindy said:


> Dang the luck!
> 
> Can you tell us what surprised you the most about the crowd?
> Did you get a sense if the attendees were militia, grass roots 2A folk, or just whackos?
> ...



I'll say that I'm not a fan of tacticools, especially those who were never in the military or if they were they were in admin or some other super pog job. To answer your questions with that in mind..

1. What surprised me most about the crowd was the lack of counter protesters. There were a few but for a rally/protest of this size I would have thought to have seen more.

2. The crowd was just regular folks, yes some were dressed in camo and the like, but those are the same people you see doing the same on a range. 

3. I have no idea who was a Virginian and who wasn't. There were quite a few out of state license plates but I believe most people in attendance were from here.

4. The violence was what the media was hoping and praying for. It was all hype on their part because violence sells.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 23, 2020)

I was surprised by the lack of counter-protesters as well.  This was a huge opportunity to utilize their "useful idiots" to attack people with guns, get shot over it, and generate HUGE headlines.

But they didn't show up.

I'm interested for various explanations why that was the case.  The most obvious is that Black Bloc or Antifa or whomever knew that the people they planned on assaulting were armed. But at the same time, the revolution needs its martyrs.  The anti-gun folks need their "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" moment.  This wasn't it.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 23, 2020)

Antifa members always wear masks, VA law does not allow that...think they made a choice, knowing it wouldn’t go their way....just a thought.


----------



## Jaknight (Jan 24, 2020)

Bambi said:


> Is buying tactical gear the new form of midlife crisis? Did corvettes get too expensive?


I think it’s asinine and serves little purpose I mean if you are supposedly some anti government militia wouldn’t it be better to dress like a normal person so you could blend in?


----------



## Bambi (Jan 24, 2020)

Jaknight said:


> I think it’s asinine and serves little purpose I mean if you are supposedly some anti government militia wouldn’t it be better to dress like a normal person so you could blend in?


It just fills a void in not cool peoples chest to make them feel cool. I get having a plate carrier at home to have some sort of bulletproof vest to put on if SHTF, but wearing it out in public trying to be something you’re not just makes you look like a dork imo.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jan 24, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> I was surprised by the lack of counter-protesters as well.  This was a huge opportunity to utilize their "useful idiots" to attack people with guns, get shot over it, and generate HUGE headlines.
> 
> But they didn't show up.
> 
> I'm interested for various explanations why that was the case.  The most obvious is that Black Bloc or Antifa or whomever knew that the people they planned on assaulting were armed. But at the same time, the revolution needs its martyrs.  The anti-gun folks need their "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" moment.  This wasn't it.



This was one event where there seemed to be a bunch of overlap between the political ideologies of the right and left, especially given the public sentiment of the 2A in VA.

I had a few friends in the area who went to the rally with/are members of the Antifa Seven Hills; they just didn't wear the usual black bloc shit because they weren't there to counter protest.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 24, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> But at the same time, the revolution needs its martyrs...



Just shows their lack of commitment.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jan 24, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> I was surprised by the lack of counter-protesters as well.  This was a huge opportunity to utilize their "useful idiots" to attack people with guns, get shot over it, and generate HUGE headlines.
> 
> But they didn't show up.
> 
> I'm interested for various explanations why that was the case.  The most obvious is that Black Bloc or Antifa or whomever knew that the people they planned on assaulting were armed. But at the same time, the revolution needs its martyrs.  The anti-gun folks need their "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" moment.  This wasn't it.


I'm going to catch flak for this. Based on past behavior, I think the useful idiot's and their handlers prefer soft targets. It's why you see videos of the ANTIFA types assaulting old people or mobbing single targets. Another tactic of theirs is taking pictures/recordings of people & plate numbers and spreading them, to their compatriots, via social media. 

If anything this rally was a huge HUMINT opportunity for the useful idiot types and their handlers. With the information gleamed from ground and aerial sources someone is making a list and checking it twice.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 24, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> I was surprised by the lack of counter-protesters as well.  This was a huge opportunity to utilize their "useful idiots" to attack people with guns, get shot over it, and generate HUGE headlines.
> 
> But they didn't show up.
> 
> I'm interested for various explanations why that was the case.  The most obvious is that Black Bloc or Antifa or whomever knew that the people they planned on assaulting were armed. But at the same time, the revolution needs its martyrs.  The anti-gun folks need their "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" moment.  This wasn't it.



I am stymied by that as well.  It would have been the perfect storm for them.

I _DO_ know that Northem is taking full credit for his folks defusing potential for violence and ensuring it was peaceful.  IOW, it was because of him, not because the pro-2A folks were, in fact, peaceful.


----------



## 757 (Jan 24, 2020)

Having a friend from high school, who is a member of ANTIFA, is extremely useful when it comes to seeing what she posts on Facebook. Here is an article she posted pre-MLK day. Some interesting quotes are as follows:

"We cannot align with a Democratic political cadre attempting to pass legislation that will felonize us and endanger us to further violence by the police and the Right. And we cannot stand meekly behind the established 2A leadership, keeping quiet as they bicker and rant and platform white nationalists. We know full well that our presence will be tokenized when it is useful and demonized when it is not. Their goals are rooted in a long legacy of white vigilantism and State terror. We will not find friends there. The prospect of joining either side is enough to make us want to bury our guns in the back yard and open up a book while the talking heads tear each other up on _Fox and Friends_. "

"Because the government will always betray, it exists to take tally of the most profitable order of betrayals. They are the force that gnaws every bit of autonomy over our own and collective lives in this place. So we want everything, we want the world. We want our freedom in every sense of the word. And since we will fight for it, we want our guns too. To be quite blunt, a gun is the the only check on this that you can hold in your hand. So we’ll continue to hold them, whether they’re legal or not."


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 24, 2020)

757 said:


> Having a friend from high school, who is a member of ANTIFA, is extremely useful when it comes to seeing what she posts on Facebook. Here is an article she posted pre-MLK day. Some interesting quotes are as follows:
> 
> "We cannot align with a Democratic political cadre attempting to pass legislation that will felonize us and endanger us to further violence by the police and the Right. And we cannot stand meekly behind the established 2A leadership, keeping quiet as they bicker and rant and platform white nationalists. We know full well that our presence will be tokenized when it is useful and demonized when it is not. Their goals are rooted in a long legacy of white vigilantism and State terror. We will not find friends there. The prospect of joining either side is enough to make us want to bury our guns in the back yard and open up a book while the talking heads tear each other up on _Fox and Friends_. "
> 
> *"Because the government will always betray, it exists to take tally of the most profitable order of betrayals. They are the force that gnaws every bit of autonomy over our own and collective lives in this place. So we want everything, we want the world. We want our freedom in every sense of the word. And since we will fight for it, we want our guns too. To be quite blunt, a gun is the the only check on this that you can hold in your hand. So we’ll continue to hold them, whether they’re legal or not."*



Wow...full circle when left meets right.


----------



## Grunt (Jan 24, 2020)

Gunz said:


> Just shows their lack of commitment.



Yep...everyone wants to be cool and tough until they are hit with the real possibility of rounds being shot in their direction. Things tend to get real at that point....


----------



## Gunz (Jan 24, 2020)

757 said:


> "Because the government will always betray, it exists to take tally of the most profitable order of betrayals. They are the force that gnaws every bit of autonomy over our own and collective lives in this place. So we want everything, we want the world. We want our freedom in every sense of the word. And since we will fight for it, we want our guns too. To be quite blunt, a gun is the the only check on this that you can hold in your hand. So we’ll continue to hold them, whether they’re legal or not."




A little short for a manifesto but some good commie rhetoric there. Your little anarchist friend is at least practical enough acknowledge the need for firepower if she intends to take over the world. Wake me up when something happens.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 24, 2020)

Devildoc said:


> Wow...full circle when left meets right.


Horseshoe theory of politics


----------



## 757 (Jan 24, 2020)

@Devildoc It really is very interesting. I've read multiple articles she's posted and my thought process is something like: "yea, yea, agreed, makes sense, slightly disagree but I see the argument, wait...HOW DO YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION?!"


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 31, 2020)

Dear Kentucky.  Please adopt us. Love Virginia. KENTUCKY: Extraordinary scenes of gun owners converging on capitol building for gun-rights rally show of force


----------



## Bambi (Jan 31, 2020)

BloodStripe said:


> Dear Kentucky.  Please adopt us. Love Virginia. KENTUCKY: Extraordinary scenes of gun owners converging on capitol building for gun-rights rally show of force


Sure thing!


----------



## Bambi (Jan 31, 2020)

Gun-toting protesters in camo condemn red flag laws at Kentucky Capitol

You know Virginian 2A folks, we’d love to have y’all.


----------



## Jaknight (Jan 31, 2020)

I often wonder what will become of America’s Gun culture and the 2A.  As more Gun control Laws get passed Are gun owners really gonna start violently resisting? What kind of America would that be to live in ? Now I doubt it will ever get to such things but hell I also never imagined Trump being POTUS


----------



## Bambi (Jan 31, 2020)

Jaknight said:


> I often wonder what will become of America’s Gun culture and the 2A.  As more Gun control Laws get passed Are gun owners really gonna start violently resisting? What kind of America would that be to live in ? Now I doubt it will ever get to such things but hell I also never imagined Trump being POTUS


Law Enforcement wouldn’t enforce bogus unconstitutional “laws” so I think it would stop where it would start and we just get clowns out of office and back to the circus.


----------



## AWP (Feb 1, 2020)

Bambi said:


> Law Enforcement wouldn’t enforce bogus unconstitutional “laws” so I think it would stop where it would start



Don't be so sure about that. In some places? Sure. In others? They will go after your guns with zeal. The same applies to the National Guard.

The oath about all enemies, foreign and domestic, is only as good as the character of the person making said oath. Far too many people will "follow orders" and do whatever they are told. This has played out since the dawn of time, not just in the last century in Europe, but in the US in the last 20 years.

Not one person in America should trust or expect the government to save you from the government.


----------



## Bambi (Feb 1, 2020)

AWP said:


> Don't be so sure about that. In some places? Sure. In others? They will go after your guns with zeal. The same applies to the National Guard.
> 
> The oath about all enemies, foreign and domestic, is only as good as the character of the person making said oath. Far too many people will "follow orders" and do whatever they are told. This has played out since the dawn of time, not just in the last century in Europe, but in the US in the last 20 years.
> 
> Not one person in America should trust or expect the government to save you from the government.


My local Law Enforcement guys are awesome dudes. Kentucky has taken note of the LE in VA declaring counties 2A Sanctuaries, our county officials have talked about doing something similar, but I definitely see your point, it’s naive to think that everyone has the same mindset. Let’s just hope that things remain civil debate & our elected officials continue to do their jobs. /s


----------



## Brill (Feb 1, 2020)

AWP said:


> Not one person in America should trust or expect the government to save you from the government.



Fact!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 1, 2020)

If Kentucky was on the beach I'd move there in a heartbeat.


----------



## Bambi (Feb 1, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> If Kentucky was on the beach I'd move there in a heartbeat.


We don’t have sandy beaches but Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley are in WKY, do those count? 😆


----------



## policemedic (Feb 1, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> If Kentucky was on the beach I'd move there in a heartbeat.



Dude, they have bourbon. Also, Kentucky women are hot. 

What else do you need?


----------



## GOTWA (Feb 1, 2020)

policemedic said:


> Dude, they have bourbon. Also, Kentucky women are hot.
> 
> What else do you need?


A prenup.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 1, 2020)

policemedic said:


> Dude, they have bourbon. Also, Kentucky women are hot.
> 
> What else do you need?


I once dated a redhead from Kentucky. . .



Bambi said:


> We don’t have sandy beaches but Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley are in WKY, do those count? 😆



I once lived in Radcliff.


----------



## Butthead (Feb 1, 2020)

I have a love hate relationship with the people who go "full kit" to these rallies. 
On one hand, it seems to work well as a show of force and is a great intimidation tactic.
On the other hand, they tend to look like idiots. I'm not one to judge a book by it's cover, but I've seen way to many pictures of these "warriors" in full Gucci Gear that look scared to even be rallying, let alone if anything actually happened. 

However, OPINION; a lot of this hubbub does prove the time of walking quietly with a big stick is over. Even after the Virginia rally, politicians seem to be doubling down. Don't go out and shoot your governor, but everyone, please, for the love of God or whoever you pray to/worship, prepare while you can, and research and pay attention to how people are acting. On both sides. You can tell when someone is going to punch you long before they swing. Don't get caught with your pants down.


----------



## Bambi (Feb 1, 2020)

Butthead said:


> I have a love hate relationship with the people who go "full kit" to these rallies.
> On one hand, it seems to work well as a show of force and is a great intimidation tactic.
> On the other hand, they tend to look like idiots. I'm not one to judge a book by it's cover, but I've seen way to many pictures of these "warriors" in full Gucci Gear that look scared to even be rallying, let alone if anything actually happened.
> 
> However, OPINION; a lot of this hubbub does prove the time of walking quietly with a big stick is over. Even after the Virginia rally, politicians seem to be doubling down. Don't go out and shoot your governor, but everyone, please, for the love of God or whoever you pray to/worship, prepare while you can, and research and pay attention to how people are acting. On both sides. You can tell when someone is going to punch you long before they swing. Don't get caught with your pants down.


If I had a bug out kit, I surely wouldn’t be posting pictures or going out to rallies with it on. The 2A community doesn’t need to be scary or intimidating, that validates anti gunners fear towards us. I don’t know much about plates and vests but isn’t it counter intuitive to have one sit so high that your abdominal region is completely exposed?


----------



## Butthead (Feb 1, 2020)

Bambi said:


> The 2A community doesn’t need to be scary or intimidating, that validates anti gunners fear towards us. I don’t know much about plates and vests but isn’t it counter intuitive to have one sit so high that your abdominal region is completely exposed?


While I agree, most people don't listen to threats made by people who don't look like they can follow through with them. "Come and take it" said by a guy with a button up and jeans isn't quite as impacting as someone who is in full kit with a loaded rifle saying it. Anti-gun advocates fear gun owners regardless. That is why they do not want to go confiscate the guns themselves.  

Also, if you want to know more about plates and vests, here is a PDF with how to wear one, and why to wear it like that. ( http://sixty-six.org/files/GUNFIGHTER_ANATOMY_proper_wear_of_armor.pdf )


----------



## Grunt (Feb 1, 2020)

I personally don't care for the "weekend warrior" look as I don't feel it does much to help defend the 2A from those that want it diminished. In fact, I think it hurts the cause, but...that's just my opinion and isn't worth much.


----------



## Butthead (Feb 1, 2020)

Vagabond said:


> that's just my opinion and isn't worth much.


It’s worth about as much as everyone else’s. Personally I think it looks dumb, but it makes people who can’t tell otherwise that “pro-gun people” mean business. Also, just my opinion.


----------



## Butthead (Feb 8, 2020)

It just keeps getting crazier. 
Virginia advances gun control bills that ban sale of some semi-automatics, possession of high-capacity magazines


----------



## Butthead (Feb 8, 2020)

Sorry for the double post, it's not a law yet, however it has passed committee.
Virginian law-makers are not listening to the people.


----------



## Bambi (Feb 9, 2020)

Butthead said:


> Sorry for the double post, it's not a law yet, however it has passed committee.
> Virginian law-makers are not listening to the people.


I genuinely hope they get some sense about them. Where the hell is the NRA? I haven’t seen anything coming from them other than before the 20Jan Protests.


----------



## Brill (Feb 9, 2020)

Butthead said:


> Virginian law-makers are not listening to the people.



Ive always liked this movie.


----------



## 757 (Feb 12, 2020)

HB961 passed in VA. translation: "possession of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 12 rounds punishable by up to one year in prison even if the magazines were legally purchased."


----------



## Jaknight (Feb 12, 2020)

757 said:


> HB961 passed in VA. translation: "possession of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 12 rounds punishable by up to one year in prison even if the magazines were legally purchased."


Not suprised given how they basically shat all over the Gun rights Rally and ignored any concerns of Gun owners


----------



## Grunt (Feb 12, 2020)

757 said:


> HB961 passed in VA. translation: "possession of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 12 rounds punishable by up to one year in prison even if the magazines were legally purchased."



Yep. Somehow, the ammo itself will be outlawed in the future. People can have those "pesky" weapons that they love so much...they just can't have more than three rounds to fire in them.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 21, 2020)

StopHR5717.com 

Text of H.R. 5717: Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020 (Introduced version) - GovTrack.us


I figure the bill's fucking table of contents says enough:

TITLE I—Firearm licensing

Sec. 101. License to own firearms and ammunition.

Sec. 102. State firearms licensing.

TITLE II—Background Check Reform

Sec. 201. Universal background checks.

Sec. 202. Completion of background checks; 7-day waiting period.

Sec. 203. Reporting of background check denials.

TITLE III—Firearm possession

Sec. 301. Protecting victims of domestic violence.

Sec. 302. Fugitives from justice.

Sec. 303. Minimum age for purchasing firearms and ammunition.

Sec. 304. Secure gun storage by owners.

Sec. 305. Secure gun storage or safety device for all firearms.

Sec. 306. Consumer product safety standards for gun locks and gun safes.

Sec. 307. Gun-free school zones.

TITLE IV—Extreme Risk Protection Orders

Sec. 401. Extreme risk protection order grant program.

Sec. 402. Federal extreme risk protection orders.

Sec. 403. Federal firearms prohibition.

Sec. 404. Identification records.

Sec. 405. Conforming amendment.

Sec. 406. Full faith and credit.

TITLE V—Assault weapons and firearms silencers and mufflers ban

Subtitle A—Assault weapons ban

Sec. 511. Definitions.

Sec. 512. Restrictions on assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Sec. 513. Penalties.

Sec. 514. Use of Byrne grants for buy-back programs for semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Sec. 515. Ban on untraceable and undetectable firearms.

Sec. 516. Prohibition on possession of certain firearm accessories.

Subtitle B—Firearm silencers and mufflers ban

Sec. 521. Definition.

Sec. 522. Restrictions on firearm silencers and firearm mufflers.

Sec. 523. Penalties.

Sec. 524. Effective date.

TITLE VI—Firearm trafficking

Sec. 601. Prohibition against multiple firearm sales or purchases.

Sec. 602. Increased penalties for making knowingly false statements in connection with firearms.

Sec. 603. Retention of records.

Sec. 604. Revised definition.

Sec. 605. Firearms trafficking.

TITLE VII—Dealer reform

Sec. 701. Gun shop security measures.

Sec. 702. Inspections.

Sec. 703. Employee background checks.

Sec. 704. Gun store thefts.

Sec. 705. Civil enforcement.

Sec. 706. No effect on State laws governing dealing in firearms.

Sec. 707. Lost and stolen reporting requirement.

Sec. 708. Report on implementation.

Sec. 709. Enhanced record keeping requirements.

Sec. 710. Deadline for issuance of final regulations.

Sec. 711. Repeal.

TITLE VIII—Industry reform

Sec. 801. Repeal.

Sec. 802. Repeal of exclusion of pistols, revolvers, and other firearms from consumer product safety laws.

Sec. 803. Increase in excise taxes relating to firearms.


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 21, 2020)

(d)
Exceptions

(1)
Previously possessed firearms

Subsection (a) shall not apply to the possession of any firearm or ammunition by an individual who otherwise lawfully possessed the firearm or ammunition under Federal law on the date on which the Attorney General begins issuing Federal firearm owner's licenses under this section.

Time to buy what you want!


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 23, 2020)

And just like that, 2nd amendment literally fucking goes away. You either have it before shit happens or you don't after.



https://www.njportal.com/NJSP/NicsVerification


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 23, 2020)

It's amazing that NJ has it own pipeline for NICS checks. I had to research that....NJ is a "point of contact" state that manages NICS checks. While Texas is not a “point of contact” state, which means the FBI runs background checks for prospective purchasers in the state. Here is a list of POC states:

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics-participation-map.pdf

I am surprised New York isn't on there.

Sorry RP, that sucks.


----------



## Brill (Mar 24, 2020)

Why Governments Shouldn't Close Gun Stores During A Pandemic



> The exact numbers will be available in early April, but all expect firearm sales figures to be eye-popping. The reasoning is easy to understand. *Americans want to know they have access to guns when there are real concerns for personal safety.* Authorities announced they would no longer jail nonviolent offenders, and some police departments are being forced to quarantine and temporarily reduce staff due to health concerns.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 24, 2020)

lindy said:


> Why Governments Shouldn't Close Gun Stores During A Pandemic


I suspect if someone dies from a burglary during this period and the state suspended firearms sales some governor may not like their life...


----------



## CQB (Mar 25, 2020)

So the states are going their own way in the absence of a lead federally? The gun ownership to keep people safe in the absence of cops looks like distributes security from the civvie playbook. Good move.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 25, 2020)

Got this in my orders.  WTF.  NY won't issue out-of-state permits, and they don't recognize anyone else's permits, so there is literally no way I can get a NY handgun permit before I PCS.  I'm going to live on-base, which I thought was a blanket exemption to most state laws since it's federal property.  

So... what am I supposed to do with my guns?


----------



## Steve1839 (Mar 25, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> So... what am I supposed to do with my guns?
> 
> View attachment 32744


Years ago at Fort Devens , we had to store privately owned weapons in the arms room....


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 25, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Got this in my orders.  WTF.  NY won't issue out-of-state permits, and they don't recognize anyone else's permits, so there is literally no way I can get a NY handgun permit before I PCS.  I'm going to live on-base, which I thought was a blanket exemption to most state laws since it's federal property.
> 
> So... what am I supposed to do with my guns?
> 
> View attachment 32744


Their answer is to take them, and make you serve as many years in prison as they can heap upon your head.

I’d suggest finding a family member and shipping them to that member before you PCS


----------



## Intel Nerd (Mar 25, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Got this in my orders.  WTF.  NY won't issue out-of-state permits, and they don't recognize anyone else's permits, so there is literally no way I can get a NY handgun permit before I PCS.  I'm going to live on-base, which I thought was a blanket exemption to most state laws since it's federal property.
> 
> So... what am I supposed to do with my guns?
> 
> View attachment 32744



Yeah, probably the worst part about being at Fort Drum. I hated it because I was in the same boat. Once there you can request the NY Pistol Permit, but it'll probably take 6-8 months, and the local officials can just decide to block it anyways leaving you high and dry and with less money on the wallet.

I thought I escaped that moving back to AZ, but the State House and Senate are barely red and we're probably going to flip another Senator from R to D because of the toxicity of the state GOP.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 25, 2020)

Intel Nerd said:


> Yeah, probably the worst part about being at Fort Drum. I hated it because I was in the same boat. Once there you can request the NY Pistol Permit, but it'll probably take 6-8 months, and the local officials can just decide to block it anyways leaving you high and dry and with less money on the wallet.
> 
> I thought I escaped that moving back to AZ, but the State House and Senate are barely red and we're probably going to flip another Senator from R to D because of the toxicity of the state GOP.


Arizona is constitutional carry.  You may carry open or concealed at any time. It ain't a bad place to be at all.  McSally has greater competition from her own party than the Democrats.  Sinema has not been the worst when you look at her voting.


----------



## Brill (Mar 25, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Got this in my orders.  WTF.  NY won't issue out-of-state permits, and they don't recognize anyone else's permits, so there is literally no way I can get a NY handgun permit before I PCS.  I'm going to live on-base, which I thought was a blanket exemption to most state laws since it's federal property.
> 
> So... what am I supposed to do with my guns?
> 
> View attachment 32744



I will gladly store them...after a 14-day quarantine of course.


----------



## AWP (Mar 25, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Got this in my orders.  WTF.  NY won't issue out-of-state permits, and they don't recognize anyone else's permits, so there is literally no way I can get a NY handgun permit before I PCS.  I'm going to live on-base, which I thought was a blanket exemption to most state laws since it's federal property.
> 
> So... what am I supposed to do with my guns?



If you'd like I can give you an address in FL that will keep them safe and sound until your paperwork's in order.


----------



## Brill (Mar 25, 2020)

AWP said:


> If you'd like I can give you an address in FL that will keep them safe and sound until your paperwork's in order.



AW Pawn & Gun opening soon!


----------



## Totentanz (Mar 25, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Got this in my orders.  WTF.  NY won't issue out-of-state permits, and they don't recognize anyone else's permits, so there is literally no way I can get a NY handgun permit before I PCS.  I'm going to live on-base, which I thought was a blanket exemption to most state laws since it's federal property.
> 
> So... what am I supposed to do with my guns?
> 
> View attachment 32744



The answer NY expects from you on "what should I do with my guns" is... don't own them.

Fuck NY.  With a now-well-used Kyber Pass pizza cutter.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 25, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Got this in my orders.  WTF.  NY won't issue out-of-state permits, and they don't recognize anyone else's permits, so there is literally no way I can get a NY handgun permit before I PCS.  I'm going to live on-base, which I thought was a blanket exemption to most state laws since it's federal property.
> 
> So... what am I supposed to do with my guns?
> 
> View attachment 32744



If you need help let me know.


----------



## Brill (Mar 25, 2020)

What the hell is going on in the US?



> Police will no longer respond to assault reports, unless a suspect is still present or the victim requires medical attention, breaking and entering reports unless a suspect is still present, menacing reports "unless suspect is expected or threatens to return or is part of the elements of domestic violence" or theft reports "where there is no possibility of immediate apprehension."



Cincinnati police temporarily suspending in-person response to certain 911 calls

Sounds like our bullshit ROE in Afghanistan.


----------



## AWP (Mar 25, 2020)

lindy said:


> AW Pawn & Gun opening soon!



Gotta' diversify my portfolio in case this peace thingy in Afghanistan means I can't access my farms.


----------



## Dame (Mar 26, 2020)

lindy said:


> What the hell is going on in the US?
> Cincinnati police temporarily suspending in-person response to certain 911 calls
> Sounds like our bullshit ROE in Afghanistan.


The hate is for Cinci, not you.


----------



## 0699 (Mar 26, 2020)

lindy said:


> What the hell is going on in the US?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Good luck.  You're on your own".


----------



## GOTWA (Mar 26, 2020)

lindy said:


> What the hell is going on in the US?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Put up Violence Free Area signs.


----------



## medicchick (Mar 26, 2020)

lindy said:


> What the hell is going on in the US?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Portland has been doing the same for a week or so.
Local Police Limiting Face-To-Face Contact To Slow Coronavirus Spread | KXL

They also closed 2 of the 3 precincts.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 26, 2020)

Once again highlighting the fact that every citizen is a first responder....


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 26, 2020)

medicchick said:


> Portland has been doing the same for a week or so.
> Local Police Limiting Face-To-Face Contact To Slow Coronavirus Spread | KXL
> 
> They also closed 2 of the 3 precincts.



Local jurisdictions doing the same thing.

One county over the high sheriff suspended gun permit applications, which is actually a violation of state law.  There is a big and growing grass roots campaign to have him open up the permit process or be sued.


----------



## AWP (Mar 26, 2020)

Devildoc said:


> One county over the high sheriff suspended gun permit applications, which is actually a violation of state law.  There is a big and growing grass roots campaign to have him open up the permit process or be sued.



Sued? Where are the Boogaloo Boys who were going to go to war in VA earlier? All of these locations restricting their 2A rights and yet no one's living up to their memes and threats...


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 26, 2020)

AWP said:


> Sued? Where are the Boogaloo Boys who were going to go to war in VA earlier? All of these locations restricting their 2A rights and yet no one's living up to their memes and threats...



Amiright?

Lookit, we're either under a state of emergency or not.  None of this "lawsuit" stuff; that's for business as usual.  Blood in the streets.  Now.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Mar 26, 2020)

@Marauder06 Hate for NY being a retarded state, not you.



AWP said:


> Sued? Where are the Boogaloo Boys who were going to go to war in VA earlier? All of these locations restricting their 2A rights and yet no one's living up to their memes and threats...


Yeah... a large chunk of the populace just lost big ol chunk of their savings, lost jobs, are seeing shortages, and in two weeks are going to see the kung-flu pile bodies up. Depending on how our political class handles this crisis and elections go this year I wouldn't discount anything. People are angry and scared. 

If you don't believe me, look at the run on prices for firearms and ammunition. Things are calm now because people have food, security, and their money still has value. Toss hope out the window and the Boogaloo Boy stuff will seem tame by comparison.


----------



## “The Old Man” (Mar 26, 2020)

Know it’s a coastie motto. Has anyone ever taken the two words Semper Paratus to heart? I know it can be difficult to keep track of such things. When life seems to be putzing along. 
Then...WHAM! The fickle finger of fate is 2 knuckles up your ass. 
I can understand a civilian not being better prepared. But ANYONE who served should really know better. 

Oh yeah... I TOLD YOU SO, bwahaha 😆😆😆


----------



## GOTWA (Mar 26, 2020)

Tinman6 said:


> View attachment 32760Know it’s a coastie motto. Has anyone ever taken the two words Semper Paratus to heart? I know it can be difficult to keep track of such things. When life seems to be putzing along.
> Then...WHAM! The fickle finger of fate is 2 knuckles up your ass.
> I can understand a civilian not being better prepared. But ANYONE who served should really know better.
> 
> Oh yeah... I TOLD YOU SO, bwahaha 😆😆😆



And those are the Vets that fell out of the military, and likely again out of college because they couldn't adjust. I'll take my chances. ;)


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Mar 26, 2020)




----------



## “The Old Man” (Mar 26, 2020)

GOTWA said:


> And those are the Vets that fell out of the military, and likely again out of college because they couldn't adjust. I'll take my chances. ;)


Do you really believe that those who “ fell out of the military”. Left whatever skills they attained behind?
I know a WHOLE LOT of dudes. That will hand you your ass. That are prior military, who now pass it on to others. In the form of training their civilian compadres. 
Now here is where your ball sack will probably tighten up. 
The guys I am referring to are a pretty quiet and elusive bunch. However, they are ALL without exception. Full patch members of various OMG’s. 
How do I know this, because I am a former member of an OMG. As to your broad claims of inadequacy amongst those who “ fell out” of the military. I call bullshit. They have “paramilitary” units within these groups. That are very disciplined and effective at shooting, scootin’ and, communicating. 
The great part of all this is that for the most part. These guys are just as well versed in light infantry tactics. As about any active infantry platoon. 
Even better is that they are generally on the side of the “good guys”. 
Just because your still active duty. Really doesn’t mean shit when it comes down to it. Once good order breaks down in society.


----------



## GOTWA (Mar 26, 2020)

Tinman6 said:


> View attachment 32760Know it’s a coastie motto. Has anyone ever taken the two words Semper Paratus to heart? I know it can be difficult to keep track of such things. When life seems to be putzing along.
> Then...WHAM! The fickle finger of fate is 2 knuckles up your ass.
> I can understand a civilian not being better prepared. But ANYONE who served should really know better.
> 
> Oh yeah... I TOLD YOU SO, bwahaha 😆😆😆





Tinman6 said:


> Whatever else you posted.



I'm just a Guard guy, figured I'd say that following the post you made. And when I have my own response, you get all pissy, especially when it was made in good fun. Funny how it works when it's reciprocated, though. Moving on.


----------



## “The Old Man” (Mar 26, 2020)

GOTWA said:


> I'm just a Guard guy, figured I'd say that following the post you made. And when I have my own response, you get all pissy, especially when it was made in good fun. Funny how it works when it's reciprocated. Moving on.


Then I stand corrected @GOTWA. Did I come off as pissy? Your goddamn right I did. 
It’s because of all the fucking levity being thrown around about some deadly serious topics. 
I did not recognize the humor in your post. 
Sorry about that. Not here to get into an argument with anyone.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 26, 2020)

*@Tinman6 *
*@GOTWA *

*Chill or take this offline.*


----------



## RustyShackleford (Mar 26, 2020)

This thread just went full retard.


----------



## “The Old Man” (Mar 26, 2020)

Just about every thread here gets a bit retarded. It usually gets modded back on track.


----------



## AWP (Mar 26, 2020)

Tinman6 said:


> Just about every thread here gets a bit retarded. It usually gets modded back on track.



The Stukas on this board are like a 7/11: We may not be doing business, but we're always open. GCAS, XCAS, your ass, as fragged, we do it all.


----------



## nobodythank you (Mar 27, 2020)

AWP said:


> 7/11: We may not be doing business, but we're always open.


----------



## Brill (Mar 27, 2020)

AWP said:


> The Stukas on this board are like a 7/11:



Concur with your assessment.


----------



## Marine0311 (Apr 14, 2020)

I am surprised anti gun laws haven't slipped through and on the books during this corona crisis.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 14, 2020)

Marine0311 said:


> I am surprised anti gun laws haven't slipped through and on the books during this corona crisis.


Well, there has been a Rep that has introduced a few to the floor of the House.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Apr 14, 2020)

Marine0311 said:


> I am surprised anti gun laws haven't slipped through and on the books during this corona crisis.


I think people might boogaloo if that were to happen. Gun sales are through the roof and even the granola munching beatniks are figuring out the police ain't gonna be there to take care of them. Plus, lot of granola munchers and other non-firearm owners are finding out how long the process for getting a firearms is.

Last I heard, state background checks were backlogged and certain states declared Local Firearms Dealers as non-essential. So looks like alot of people ain't gettin their gats when they want them...  (hope they feel the pain of those dumb laws they cheered on)


----------



## racing_kitty (Apr 14, 2020)

Yeeeeaah, a lot of left leaning voters are getting all kinds of pissed at all the hoops they must jump through to purchase a firearm. Congratulations on reaping what you sow.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 14, 2020)

racing_kitty said:


> Yeeeeaah, a lot of left leaning voters are getting all kinds of pissed at all the hoops they must jump through to purchase a firearm. Congratulations on reaping what you sow.



Poetic justice....


----------



## 0699 (Apr 15, 2020)

racing_kitty said:


> Yeeeeaah, a lot of left leaning voters are getting all kinds of pissed at all the hoops they must jump through to purchase a firearm. Congratulations on reaping what you sow.


Fortunately for The Overlords, The People have short memories.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Apr 16, 2020)

Check out the asshats sponsoring these bills. Guess where they're from? If you guessed NY, NJ, and CA well... there's your sign.
StopGunRegistry.com: OPPOSE HR 6006, S 3348, HR 5917, and S 3299; Federal Electronic Gun Registry

H.R.6006 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Crime Gun Tracing Modernization Act of 2020

H.R.5917 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Gun Records Restoration and Preservation Act


----------



## Kraut783 (Apr 16, 2020)

"Hate" not at you RC, you know that


----------



## AWP (Apr 17, 2020)

You don't need a list of gun owners if you have a list of people who applied for a background check...Our Constitutional rights are still intact, boys!


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 23, 2020)

Everybody seems to forget the DC "Sniper" (shooters) and how the news was blasting how the FBI and ATF were going door to door checking purchased .223 weapons in the surrounding areas. I wonder how the fuck they did that???  

Buy private party, or build your own from an 80% lower, etc. Or just hand that shit over when big brother comes to collect. Way shit keeps going, it shall not be long.


----------



## RackMaster (Apr 30, 2020)

Never let a good crisis go to waste... 

Canada set to ban assault-style weapons, including AR-15 and the gun used in Polytechnique massacre


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 30, 2020)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Buy private party, or build your own from an 80% lower, etc. Or just hand that shit over when big brother comes to collect. Way shit keeps going, it shall not be long.



Los federales will go blind chasing paper trying to untangle private purchases and trades.  How do you know what I have is illegal, if you don't know what I have?  Gun ownership brought to you by Schrodinger's cat...


----------



## RackMaster (Apr 30, 2020)

This would be the same as the President using an Executive Order to ban a list of firearms.

Liberals Preparing To Bypass Parliament In Attack On Law-Abiding Gun Owners, Ignoring Real Source Of Crime


----------



## RackMaster (May 1, 2020)

And there we have it, completely bypassing legitimate democratic debate to push an ideology. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-gun-control-measures-ban-1.5552131


----------



## GOTWA (May 1, 2020)

Man, that's some shit.


----------



## 0699 (May 1, 2020)

Good luck Canada.  


RackMaster said:


> And there we have it, completely bypassing legitimate democratic debate to push an ideology.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-gun-control-measures-ban-1.5552131


Here comes my ignorance of Canadian law...  Does the PM have the authority/power to do this unilaterally?  Did I miss something?


----------



## RackMaster (May 1, 2020)

0699 said:


> Good luck Canada.
> 
> Here comes my ignorance of Canadian law...  Does the PM have the authority/power to do this unilaterally?  Did I miss something?



It's called Order In Council, it's like an Executive Order but it's supposed to be used for appointments or emergency order's.  This will be challenged in court, I'm sure some are already being written.


----------



## RackMaster (May 1, 2020)

Here's the complete list, found a better source.

Firearms Ban 2020.pdf

A separate part, there's an exception for First Nation's for their treaty protected hunting rights.  But no one needs a scary assault rifle for hunting.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 1, 2020)

Wow, @RackMaster .

Canada bans assault-style weapons after shooting rampage


----------



## RackMaster (May 1, 2020)

It's fucked.  They just killed the shooting sports industry in Canada.   I know of one small store with over $150,000 of stock that is useless now and no word if the buyback will cover retailer's or even full cost.


----------



## 0699 (May 1, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> It's called Order In Council, it's like an Executive Order but it's supposed to be used for appointments or emergency order's.  This will be challenged in court, I'm sure some are already being written.


Thanks.  Sounds totally crazy to me; that one man can just decide he doesn't like my legally owned possession and ban it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 1, 2020)

It's not like it's actually easy to buy a firearm or even ammunition in Canada.  All the bullshit Newsom and the California legislature tried to put in place was in place in Canada.


----------



## Blizzard (May 1, 2020)

0699 said:


> Thanks.  Sounds totally crazy to me; that one man can just decide he doesn't like my legally owned possession and ban it.


And particularly hang a key driver to this action on something that occurred 30 years ago?!  Yes, there was the Nova Scotia shooting the other week but still... loco.  

I hope @RackMaster is correct and this challenged and overturned in their courts.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 2, 2020)




----------



## RackMaster (May 2, 2020)

Holy fuck!  They literally threw this together with a bunch of idiots and Google.  AR-15.COM us on the banned list. 

Sporting Arms Industry calls for Blair’s removal


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 2, 2020)

Dear Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Blair.  A personal message to you from Wayne:


----------



## RackMaster (May 3, 2020)

I knew they were just getting started and couldn't let a good tragedy go to waste.   Fuck them.   I will be cordial with any of my Liberal family and friend's but I am truly beginning to despise them.

Legislation allowing cities to ban handguns to come; no timeline released, Trudeau says

We already have red flag law's.   There's a 1-800 number and has been since the 90's. In order to get your license, you need to list your ex and current partner and they are contacted.

Liberals will propose expanding ‘red flag’ gun laws, Blair says


----------



## RackMaster (May 3, 2020)

Well fuck, didn't take these clowns long.  They want them all. 

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup/canada-firearm-ban-violence-against-women-advocates-1.5553689


----------



## Grunt (May 3, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> Well fuck, didn't take these clowns long.  They want them all.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup/canada-firearm-ban-violence-against-women-advocates-1.5553689



Have no fear, Brother. It won't stop once the ball gets rolling. There are plenty of "victim" groups out there that need those pesky loud things banned for *their* safety. But, the *banners* never think about the bad guys reading the paper and learning that now their victims will be easier targets than before.


----------



## RackMaster (May 3, 2020)

Grunt said:


> Have no fear, Brother. It won't stop once the ball gets rolling. There are plenty of "victim" groups out there that need those pesky loud things banned for *their* safety. But, the *banners* never think about the bad guys reading the paper and learning that now their victims will be easier targets than before.



Problem is that this group is the one with the Prime Minister's ear and pushed him to do this now.  Him and his wife are good friend's with the man hater.


----------



## Grunt (May 3, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> Problem is that this group is the one with the Prime Minister's ear and pushed him to do this now.  Him and his wife are good friend's with the man hater.



Yep...and this PM is more than willing to go after weapons. I hate that for y'all.


----------



## policemedic (May 3, 2020)

If Colt and others had any balls, they'd do what Barrett did to California and refuse to sell anything to any Canadian federal, provincial, or municipal agency.


----------



## RackMaster (May 4, 2020)

And it get's worse.   This clown admits they are going to push for centralized storage and creating a Gestapo snitch line.   We're fucked.

Canada’s proposed ‘red flag laws’ could include family members, victims: minister


----------



## Grunt (May 4, 2020)

There are multitudes of bad laws on the books in the US and Canada -- I am sure -- but, Red Flags laws are the worst of the worst. To say I hate them would be an understatement. There are few *laws* that could be more abused than that one.


----------



## RackMaster (May 4, 2020)

This is from a reputable lawyer that specializes on the Canadian firearms file.  They are after the rural way of life.



> Apparently the rumour (which I consider fairly credible) is that the LPC is going to push for central storage next.
> 
> Gun owners know why this is terrible, so this is largely going to be aimed at friends, colleagues, and so forth who may not be aware of some of the issues.
> 
> ...







__ https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2945820802311017&id=1723178067908636


----------



## RackMaster (May 4, 2020)

I didn't think the list could be more full of stupid and now there's an airsoft toy on the prohibited list. 

This one.
Blackwater BW15 FPS-330 Electric Airsoft Rifle


----------



## RackMaster (May 5, 2020)

And the hits keep coming.  According to the new list, any gun with a bore diameter without the choke 20mm or greater is Prohibited.  So almost every modern 12 gauge with removable chokes are now Prohibited. 

Blair bans 12-gauge, 10-gauge shotguns and hunting rifles!


----------



## GOTWA (May 5, 2020)

We'll happily accept you down south.


----------



## Grunt (May 5, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> I didn't think the list could be more full of stupid and now there's an airsoft toy on the prohibited list.
> 
> This one.
> Blackwater BW15 FPS-330 Electric Airsoft Rifle



Serious question my Brother:

Do you see it getting any better there in the future? Does your "Pharaoh" have any legitimate competition in the future?


----------



## RackMaster (May 5, 2020)

GOTWA said:


> We'll happily accept you down south.



I'm starting to think about it.  What's the generational cutoff for citizenship?  My paternal grandmother was born in Watertown, NY. 



Grunt said:


> Serious question my Brother:
> 
> Do you see it getting any better there in the future? Does your "Pharaoh" have any legitimate competition in the future?



He holds a Minority government, so technically any opposition party could hold a non confidence vote in Parliament and trigger an election.  The new government can then repeal their garbage law's, which includes this and another Bill they put through last year that led to this.

Problem 1 - Parliament is suspended and only acting with minimal representation in a virtual setting and only 1 sitting in the House a week. 

Problem 2 - because they lost the last election, the Conservatives were forced into a leadership race that was supposed to be over now but has been delayed until early Fall due to COVID-19. So it would be foolish to try an election now. 

Problem 3 - the other "progressive" parties support getting rid of the AR-15 and more gun control.  But I don't think they knew they were going this far.  

The good thing is there's a 2 year amnesty and the Conservatives were close this past election, gaining the popular vote.   But our riding seat distribution disproportionately supports urban elite area's.  There was a new hard right party (similar to the Tea Party) that split the vote. But I could see them making a good run for it.   The front runner is an Veteran, former Air Force pilot and a former Veteran's Affairs Minister.


----------



## Grunt (May 5, 2020)

Well, at least there is still hope. I sincerely wish all of you the best.


----------



## RackMaster (May 5, 2020)

Grunt said:


> Well, at least there is still hope. I sincerely wish all of you the best.



Thanks Brother.  If anything it has solidified the gun rights groups, we have 3 big ones and another more extreme one.  All have come together to make combined press statements and have publicly called for the clown who wrote it to be removed.   

I just hope the shotguns will get all the FUDD's to open their eye's and see that just because they don't have black guns, that we're all in this together.


----------



## Blizzard (May 5, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> And the hits keep coming.  According to the new list, any gun with a bore diameter without the choke 20mm or greater is Prohibited.  So almost every modern 12 gauge with removable chokes are now Prohibited.
> 
> Blair bans 12-gauge, 10-gauge shotguns and hunting rifles!


Just what in Sam Hill is going on up there?!

Y'all need to get yourselves together and put a stop to the craziness that is taking over you country.  Good luck.

- Your Southern Neighbors


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 5, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> I didn't think the list could be more full of stupid and now there's an airsoft toy on the prohibited list.
> 
> This one.
> Blackwater BW15 FPS-330 Electric Airsoft Rifle


So apparently is the E-11 Blaster Rifle!

Canadian cops Take Down Stormtrooper for Toy Blaster on 'Star Wars' Day

- or - 

FAKE Stormtrooper being arrested by REAL Stormtroopers



*



*


----------



## RackMaster (May 5, 2020)

Everything is going crazy up here.


----------



## medicchick (May 5, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> Everything is going crazy up here.


Just head further north to Alaska. They may be crazy there but you still have freedoms...lol


----------



## RackMaster (May 5, 2020)

medicchick said:


> Just head further north to Alaska. They may be crazy there but you still have freedoms...lol



Given the wife specializes in addictions and crazy, she could probably find work.


----------



## policemedic (May 5, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> Given the wife specializes in addictions and crazy, she could probably find work.



One word—Philadelphia.


----------



## The Quartermaster (May 6, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> Given the wife specializes in addictions and crazy, she could probably find work.


Arizona. Not as cold, next to no bears and the bears we do have are tiny. We definitely have crazy and addicted. Timothy McVeigh crazy as wells a methbillies.


----------



## RackMaster (May 6, 2020)

Colion Noir has a new podcast and his first episode has an amazing lady and the only registered gun rights lobbyist in Canada, Tracey Wilson.  The organization she works for has turned gun rights on it's head and is focused on educating the uneducated.  They also created a website with quizzes for people to test their knowledge of our gun law's and added in prizes to attract people that would normally ignore it.

Home

Take the Canadian Firearms Quiz


----------



## RackMaster (May 6, 2020)

Today is full of surprises.  We're finally taking the government to court. 

We’re Going to Court – Charter Challenge


----------



## Kraut783 (May 6, 2020)

Luv Colion Noir...good dude.


----------



## AWP (May 6, 2020)

Kraut783 said:


> Luv Colion Noir...good dude.



I stopped paying attention to him years ago when he was hanging around James Yeager.


----------



## GOTWA (May 7, 2020)

AWP said:


> I stopped paying attention to him years ago when he was hanging around James Yeager.


Ol' James "keep it in neutral" Yeager.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 7, 2020)

AWP said:


> I stopped paying attention to him years ago when he was hanging around James Yeager.



Permit him his transgressions for he does not know what he did.


----------



## policemedic (May 7, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> So apparently is the E-11 Blaster Rifle!
> 
> Canadian cops Take Down Stormtrooper for Toy Blaster on 'Star Wars' Day
> 
> ...



I’d lose my job and commission, and likely be prosecuted if I did anything that stupid.


----------



## RackMaster (May 8, 2020)

So the insanity has come to fruition. 

For Immediate Release:  RCMP Prohibits first 12-Gauge Shotgun with 20mm Bore Law


----------



## RackMaster (May 8, 2020)

Oh and now American manufacturers are warned about exporting shotguns to Canada.



> Important Alert: New Canadian Gun Ban Poses Risks for Exported American Shotguns  Based on strict reading of the new Canadian law (SOR/2020-96, Section 95) 12-gauge shotguns are banned because with the choke tube removed the muzzle diameter is 20mm or greater (depending on the model). The new law bans any firearm with a bore of 20mm or greater. According to Canadian law, the barrel bore is measured at the widest point through which the projectile travels, which is the muzzle on a 12-gauge shotgun. 10-gauge shotguns may also be included in the ban.   We would urge all companies to exercise caution when deciding whether to export any 12-gauge or 10-gauge shotguns to Canada at this time. It is possible that the Canadian Border Security Agency (CBSA) could impound and/or seize the shipment. If impounded, you will face thousands of dollars in fees per day based on the size of your shipment. There have been public statements by Canadian officials suggesting that 12-gauge shotguns are not banned. However, the law as written has not been changed to remove any legal ambiguity.   NSSF® is attempting to obtain legally-reliable assurances from the Canadian government as to whether 12-gauge or 10-gauge shotguns can be lawfully exported to Canada. We will continue to monitor this situation and keep members updated on further developments.


Proof - Subject


----------



## RackMaster (May 14, 2020)

This is proof positive of the stupidity. 

Trudeau’s latest firearms ban prohibits historic cannons too, MP claims


----------



## The Quartermaster (May 14, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> This is proof positive of the stupidity.
> 
> Trudeau’s latest firearms ban prohibits historic cannons too, MP claims


Stupid question, but are you all allowed to keep what you bought or is it all mandatory to turn in?


----------



## Blizzard (May 14, 2020)

I'm just amazed Canadians aren't in an uproar over this.


----------



## RackMaster (May 14, 2020)

The Quartermaster said:


> Stupid question, but are you all allowed to keep what you bought or is it all mandatory to turn in?



They haven't made a decision.  There's a 2 year amnesty, so there's time for a change of government and repeal the laws.  But there's a chance they'll be safe queens for life and then they would have to be destroyed.  They've also talked about paying "fair market value" and confiscate/destroy them.


----------



## The Quartermaster (May 14, 2020)

Let me know if you need a real estate agent. 10 to 5 acre plots, house goes up from dirt to an actual home in six months, $300k on average.


----------



## Kraut783 (May 14, 2020)

Where?


----------



## The Quartermaster (May 14, 2020)

Kraut783 said:


> Where?


Williamson Valley RD, which falls under Prescott, AZ township.


----------



## RackMaster (May 18, 2020)

Quick Dick McQuick says it better than I.


----------



## The Quartermaster (May 20, 2020)




----------



## The Quartermaster (May 21, 2020)

...sigh.

My false flag radar just went live. The Westgate shooter is no coincidence, considering that little napoleon Bloomberg is pumping five million dollars for gun control in AZ.

Edit: Found out some possible new intel, vet at your own discretion please: 




> At least one of the guys over on the BQG group on Facebook knows the shooter. I would have merely copied and pasted it here, but before I could, FB took it all down.
> 
> Supposedly originally from New Mexico. "He's not all there" said the guy who knows him, although hasn't been in contact with him in over a year. Supposedly also an alcoholic. Supposedly also a FORMER Trump fan, but now a hater. The fellow describing him believed the shooter was likely targeting caucasians.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 21, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> Quick Dick McQuick says it better than I.



Still waiting on Alberta to join the union... just saying. 😬


----------



## RackMaster (May 21, 2020)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Still waiting on Alberta to join the union... just saying. 😬



A referendum on separation is on the ballot for their next election.


----------



## policemedic (May 21, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> A referendum on separation is on the ballot for their next election.



Oui ou Non 1980 un autre fois.


----------



## RackMaster (May 21, 2020)

policemedic said:


> Oui ou Non 1980 un autre fois.



I'm thinking that's why the Bloc are propping up Trudeau.  Help make Confederacy weak and raise their own case for separation.


----------



## RackMaster (May 25, 2020)

And onto the next stupid law.  This sounds like handguns will be centralized storage.  

Ottawa’s gun legislation will effectively allow cities to ban handguns


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 26, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> Oh and now American manufacturers are warned about exporting shotguns to Canada.
> 
> 
> Proof - Subject


----------



## R.Caerbannog (May 26, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> And onto the next stupid law.  This sounds like handguns will be centralized storage.
> 
> Ottawa’s gun legislation will effectively allow cities to ban handguns





Ooh-Rah said:


>


Was thinking more like this...


----------



## RackMaster (May 26, 2020)

And with that, the biggest legal action in the name of Canadian gun owner's was filed today.


----------



## policemedic (May 26, 2020)

Here’s hoping they win!


----------



## The Quartermaster (May 27, 2020)

New guy on another board, local to AZ, pro 2A. Just joined, first post gets right into it, questioning how easily it is to be a new gun owner. Second post after someone took the bait, rinse and repeat manipulative chess being played.

He almost had me going into the conversation but as I was about to type my thoughts, saw that this he just joined. This is his first post, first thread, etc. Nope, no coincidence at all that Bloomturd has made it known that he has AZ on his hit list. I saw what he did to Washington state with 1639 and what happened in VA as well.

This "person" is concern trolling. Usually first posts are introductions and maybe some background such as what they like to shoot, reload, whatever. This guy? None of that, straight on into it. I'm saying to myself, do you actually believe that we're not smart as you to not see what he's doing??

I asked how much he is being paid and whom is paying him. He became a bit bent because of that. Not sorry at all for calling it as I saw it.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jun 5, 2020)

Many of my friends who don't have a permit and don't own guns are blowing me up on how to get it done.


----------



## Kaldak (Jun 5, 2020)

My lawyer, and a longtime friend from college, asked me if I had one to spare yesterday.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 5, 2020)

Kaldak said:


> My lawyer, and a longtime friend from college, asked me if I had one to spare yesterday.


"I'm sorry, but that's illegal.

I'm also sorry because I can't help you because lost them in a canoe accident.

Want to go to Bass Pro together?"


----------



## Kaldak (Jun 5, 2020)

What state are you in Thunder? I can sell a firearm to someone here in Wisconsin straight up. Cash and you buy my gun. Nothing prevents it. I've acquired a few that way from people I know.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 5, 2020)

Kaldak said:


> What state are you in Thunder? I can sell a firearm to someone here in Wisconsin straight up. Cash and you buy my gun. Nothing prevents it. I've acquired a few that way from people I know.


Pardon the sarcasm!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 5, 2020)

Kaldak said:


> What state are you in Thunder? I can sell a firearm to someone here in Wisconsin straight up. Cash and you buy my gun. Nothing prevents it. I've acquired a few that way from people I know.


MN is the same.


----------



## Kaldak (Jun 5, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> Pardon the sarcasm!



Sorry brother. Thought you actually meant it was illegal. The follow on you had, made me feel you were NOT being sarcastic.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 7, 2020)

Funny how times change:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1269455538120568832


----------



## SaintKP (Jun 7, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> Funny how times change:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1269455538120568832




Tom Arnold is a dork, and guess we figured out what Blackwater has been up to.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 7, 2020)

Nah, probably a gaggle of different federal agencies...BOP...etc being used.


----------



## SaintKP (Jun 7, 2020)

Gotcha yeah that'd make more sense


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 7, 2020)

Kraut783 said:


> Nah, probably a gaggle of different federal agencies...BOP...etc being used.


I'm quite surprised most PDs haven't gone sterilized with uniforms during this unrest.

ETA:  This was last week, there was almost zero coverage of it.  But I remember that the media tried to make the Michigan protests at the capital all about white people when there were blacks and latinos.  

What do I see?  Black men at the Michigan state capitol, open carrying.  No one died, no one got arrested.

Rally Against Hate in Lansing is peaceful as protesters fight racism


----------



## Grunt (Jun 8, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> Funny how times change:



Tom who????


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 8, 2020)

Seishin said:


> Tom who????


Some D-lister that is extremely anti-gun.


----------



## GOTWA (Jun 8, 2020)

SaintKP said:


> Tom Arnold is a dork, and guess we figured out what Blackwater has been up to.



Someone needs to take his cocaine away.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 8, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> I'm quite surprised most PDs haven't gone sterilized with uniforms during this unrest.
> 
> ETA:  This was last week, there was almost zero coverage of it.  But I remember that the media tried to make the Michigan protests at the capital all about white people when there were blacks and latinos.
> 
> ...



Isn't it illegal in a large amount of places for officers to have sterile uniforms? I remember reading something about DC and NYC in particular on that.

Remember, the only reason places like buffalo suspended the officers who pushed that old man over are because people on twitter were able to read their names on the video. Giving anonymity to officers during a movement (ostensibly) against brutality is a bad idea.

To your ETA point: I'd been trying to convince some of my more liberal friends that the difference wasn't that they anti-lockdown crowd was white, but they had guns. Maybe this will start convincing them.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jun 8, 2020)

Seishin said:


> Tom who????


Roseanne Barr’s ex-husband. The only movies I can think of with him in it are True Lies (supporting actor) and The Stupids (self-explanatory). He comes across as an ignorant, no-talent bag of roach shit that can’t seem to keep his shnoz out of the Colombian catnip.


----------



## digrar (Jun 9, 2020)

He did I'm a celebrity get me out of here about 3 years ago. I don't watch shit like that, but I'm led to believe he was as popular as the clap and was the first evicted. There was a bit of a stir as he had a contract to to a tour afterwards, which would have been a disaster and it was shit canned.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 17, 2020)

Something to think about:


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 19, 2020)

Peer reviewed study proving that firearms laws have no effect on firearms related homicide and suicide.  It's all socio-economic. 

Effect of firearms legislation on suicide and homicide in Canada from 1981 to 2016


----------



## AWP (Jun 20, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> Peer reviewed study proving that firearms laws have no effect on firearms related homicide and suicide.  It's all socio-economic.
> 
> Effect of firearms legislation on suicide and homicide in Canada from 1981 to 2016



Silly Canadian. You and your facts!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 20, 2020)

RackMaster said:


> Peer reviewed study proving that firearms laws have no effect on firearms related homicide and suicide.  It's all socio-economic.
> 
> Effect of firearms legislation on suicide and homicide in Canada from 1981 to 2016


That was fascinating.  So literally did nothing.


----------



## AWP (Jun 20, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> That was fascinating.  So literally did nothing.



How many laws aren't for the people, but to control the people?


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 20, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> That was fascinating.  So literally did nothing.



"That's only because we didn't go far enough with the banz!!!" /s


----------



## BloodStripe (Jun 23, 2020)

Set your calendars. Virginia Lobby Day is set for 18 January 2021 next year.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jun 25, 2020)




----------



## RackMaster (Jun 27, 2020)

Well this has been coming for a while.

Gun Maker Remington Preps for Bankruptcy, Seeks Sale to Navajo Nation


----------



## GOTWA (Jun 27, 2020)

If Remington can be sued for use of their weapons in a murder, social media platforms and apple/google should as well when someone uses those platforms/devices when it leads to death. Like online bullying that leads to suicide. It's only fair.


----------



## BlackSmokeRisinG (Jun 28, 2020)

I love the idea that an Indian tribe would purchase Remington, which probably made many of the rifles used against them in the 1800's. I'm pretty sure I saw a special on a corporate takeover of a gun maker, where the corp. used the gunmaker's credit to run up huge debts while it gutted the company, then the formerly successful company went bankrupt. Wasn't sure if it was Remington? America's oldest firearm manufacturer, gets destroyed by a greedy corporation...


How awesome would it be if they changed the logo to a Navajo warrior on horseback gunning down settlers?


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 28, 2020)

BlackSmokeRisinG said:


> I love the idea that an Indian tribe would purchase Remington, which probably made many of the rifles used against them in the 1800's. I'm pretty sure I saw a special on a corporate takeover of a gun maker, where the corp. used the gunmaker's credit to run up huge debts while it gutted the company, then the formerly successful company went bankrupt. Wasn't sure if it was Remington? America's oldest firearm manufacturer, gets destroyed by a greedy corporation...
> 
> 
> How awesome would it be if they changed the logo to a Navajo warrior on horseback gunning down settlers?


Wait are we talking about Freedom Group, owned by Cerberus Capital Management?


----------



## AWP (Jun 28, 2020)

The Navajo buying Remington....am I the only one who wants to see Jack Daniels sold to the Cherokee or Lakota?


----------



## BlackSmokeRisinG (Jun 28, 2020)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Wait are we talking about Freedom Group, owned by Cerberus Capital Management?



That sounds familiar. Was it a Netflix special or something? I barely remember. I do remember the corporation got tax concessions from a southern state, promised living wage jobs in an area with high poverty, never delivered, and bled the gun company dry until it went bankrupt with some kind of loan and debt scheme.


----------



## J. (Jun 28, 2020)

AWP said:


> The Navajo buying Remington....am I the only one who wants to see Jack Daniels sold to the Cherokee or Lakota?



10/10 would drink Cherokee Jack Daniels.


----------



## AWP (Jun 28, 2020)

J. said:


> 10/10 would drink Cherokee Jack Daniels.



With a single ice cube.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 28, 2020)

BlackSmokeRisinG said:


> That sounds familiar. Was it a Netflix special or something? I barely remember. I do remember the corporation got tax concessions from a southern state, promised living wage jobs in an area with high poverty, never delivered, and bled the gun company dry until it went bankrupt with some kind of loan and debt scheme.


I don't think so... I don't do the Netflix thing. This is me spitballing, but Cerberus Capital Management is an equity firm that buys distressed companies. CCM gets majority shares of the company (or group), loads them up with further debt, proceed to gut the company to pay back said debt, and then dumps the shares of what appears to be a healthy company.

It's pretty much a bait and switch scheme. Freedom Group, which Remington and it's subsidiaries fall under, is one such victim.



AWP said:


> The Navajo buying Remington....am I the only one who wants to see Jack Daniels sold to the Cherokee or Lakota?


Something tells me this is going to end badly. Not trying to sound like a dick, but tribal leadership within a lot of American Indian Groups is very reminiscent of Soviet kleptocracy. It's that bad.

Seriously, if this takeover is being led by the tribal leadership Remington is fucked. Tribal leaders give no fucks and as they consider themselves sovereign nations, they'll part out Remington and it's tech to whoever pays the most (regardless of national affiliation).


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 29, 2020)

Yep.  Remington got absolutely gutted by vulture capitalists who hollowed out the company and then spit out its desiccated husk. It’s pretty awful.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 29, 2020)

Salt USMC said:


> Yep.  Remington got absolutely gutted by vulture capitalists who hollowed out the company and then spit out its desiccated husk. It’s pretty awful.



I don't think vulture capitalists put them a billion dollars in debt, got them sued by Sandy Hook parents, or created the laws that forced an expensive relocation from New York to Alabama, though.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 29, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> I don't think vulture capitalists put them a billion dollars in debt, got them sued by Sandy Hook parents, or created the laws that forced an expensive relocation from New York to Alabama, though.


Freedom Group had already been acquired by Cerberus Capitol before that other stuff went down. The events that transpired were the final nails on the coffin.

Check out the press release CCM released after the Sandy Hook shooting.
Cerberus Capital Management Statement Regarding Freedom Group, Inc.


----------



## BlackSmokeRisinG (Jun 29, 2020)

^Yeah, that sounds about right. I swear there was a special on it somewhere, maybe and American Greed episode or a YouTube video or something.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 29, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> I don't think vulture capitalists put them a billion dollars in debt, got them sued by Sandy Hook parents, or created the laws that forced an expensive relocation from New York to Alabama, though.


You're right about the last two things, but Cerebrus Group actually did leverage a bunch of Remington's assets to borrow a ton of money to bail out a holding company that they (Cerebrus) had created.  I mean, think about it: how does a gun company acquire almost a billion dollars in debt during the Obama administration?  

NYT Magazine has a long and in-depth look at the whole saga: How America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

Here's a quote from the relevant section


> In order to buy Remington, Cerberus, as most private-equity firms would, created a new entity, a holding company. Instead of Cerberus buying a gun company, Cerberus put money into the holding company, and the holding company bought Remington. The entities were related but — and this was crucial — each could borrow money independently. In 2010, Cerberus had the holding company borrow $225 million from an undisclosed group of lenders, most likely hedge funds. Because this loan was risky — the lenders would be paid only if Remington made a lot of money or was sold — the holding company offered a generous interest rate of around 11 percent, much higher than a typical corporate loan. When the interest payments were due, the holding company paid them not in cash but with paid-in-kind notes, that is, with more debt. These are known as PIK notes.
> 
> The holding company now had $225 million in borrowed cash. Cerberus, meanwhile, owned most of the shares of the holding company’s stock, basically slips of paper they acquired when they created the holding company. The handoff happened next: The holding company spent most of the $225 million buying back its own stock, effectively transferring all the borrowed cash to Cerberus. Cerberus would keep that money no matter what. Meanwhile Remington continued rolling along as though nothing had happened, because Remington itself was not responsible for the holding company’s debt. Remington was just an “operating company” that the holding company owned, something that allowed the holding company to borrow money, the way you would take a necklace to a pawnshop. These were garden-variety maneuvers in a private-equity buyout. In the trade, this is called “financial engineering.” People get degrees in it.
> 
> ...



That's not to say that Remington didn't have problems before the acquisition, but I really think that they could've survived if Cerebrus hadn't done the ol' Private Equity shuffle on them.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 30, 2020)

BlackSmokeRisinG said:


> ^Yeah, that sounds about right. I swear there was a special on it somewhere, maybe and American Greed episode or a YouTube video or something.


If it helps, I read about it somewhere else. I lurk on alot of other forums. Only reason I know anything about this is Remington's slow demise has allowed new players to expand their footprint in the firearms industry.

Prior to the panic AR's, munitions, and their accessories, were having a heyday in terms of affordability and optimization.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 22, 2020)

So looks like the stable geniuses in Congress want to ban mills and lathes, cause they're retarded.
Congress Looking to Ban 'Ghost Gun' Machinery :: Guns.com

Guess which idiots are leading the charge.
Giffords Applauds New Legislation to Ban Machines Used to Build Dangerous, Untraceable, Unlicensed Weapons   - Giffords
Raskin, Cicilline Introduce Legislation to Stop Home Manufacture of “Ghost Guns”


----------



## GOTWA (Jul 22, 2020)

Come to AZ where the private gun sales are plentiful.


----------



## Intel Nerd (Jul 23, 2020)

GOTWA said:


> Come to AZ where the private gun sales are plentiful.



Indeed. Hoping the state doesn't flip Blue though. That last round of gun control discussion being pushed really illuminated how tenuous the hold on power is by the AZ GOP. Too many Californians moving in and trying to make our state like their failed one..


----------



## GOTWA (Jul 23, 2020)

Intel Nerd said:


> Indeed. Hoping the state doesn't flip Blue though. That last round of gun control discussion being pushed really illuminated how tenuous the hold on power is by the AZ GOP. Too many Californians moving in and trying to make our state like their failed one..



The LEOs won't enforce it. The Sheriffs certainly won't. I think the biggest proponent is Giffords and Mark Kelly. Otherwise I think it's pretty safe. I'll move to Texas if shit goes south.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jul 23, 2020)

Intel Nerd said:


> Indeed. Hoping the state doesn't flip Blue though. That last round of gun control discussion being pushed really illuminated how tenuous the hold on power is by the AZ GOP. Too many Californians moving in and trying to make our state like their failed one..



That is what bothers me. I live in a purple/mixed state now. I can't move so I have to fight this nonsense. That's where it starts is one little thing.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 23, 2020)

GOTWA said:


> The LEOs won't enforce it. The Sheriffs certainly won't. I think the biggest proponent is Giffords and Mark Kelly. Otherwise I think it's pretty safe. I'll move to Texas if shit goes south.



Every time I see "Captain" Mark Kelly ads I get very annoyed.  That's a no from me dog.


----------



## Intel Nerd (Jul 26, 2020)

GOTWA said:


> The LEOs won't enforce it. The Sheriffs certainly won't. I think the biggest proponent is Giffords and Mark Kelly. Otherwise I think it's pretty safe. I'll move to Texas if shit goes south.



Not too sure about that. Phoenix and Tucson both have Mayor's who are Democrats and those Police Departments have leadership that is politically appointed.

Additionally, Maricopa County has a Democrat that managed to ride in on the legacy Arpaio left behind to get elected.

If there's one thing I've noticed over this year is that a whole lot more LEOs will enforce laws that we previously said they wouldn't. I'm not too worried down in Cochise County, but that's not where most of the people are.

I think if McSally is on the ticket, Kelly wins. If Daniel McCarthy wins the primary, I think we'll keep from going to two Democrat Senators for at least the next four years..


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 26, 2020)

GOTWA said:


> The LEOs won't enforce it. The Sheriffs certainly won't. I think the biggest proponent is Giffords and Mark Kelly. Otherwise I think it's pretty safe. I'll move to Texas if shit goes south.


That is mighty trusting of you. Not trying to sound mean, but history is replete with examples of people trusting laws and institutions to protect them. Lotta trusting people ended up disappearing or were subjected to barbarism. Hard pass brother.



Intel Nerd said:


> Not too sure about that. Phoenix and Tucson both have Mayor's who are Democrats and those Police Departments have leadership that is politically appointed.
> 
> Additionally, Maricopa County has a Democrat that managed to ride in on the legacy Arpaio left behind to get elected.
> 
> ...


Yep!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 26, 2020)

Intel Nerd said:


> Not too sure about that. Phoenix and Tucson both have Mayor's who are Democrats and those Police Departments have leadership that is politically appointed.
> 
> Additionally, Maricopa County has a Democrat that managed to ride in on the legacy Arpaio left behind to get elected.
> 
> ...


McSally barely lost to Sinema, and Kelly really doesn't have anything going for him.  I have no idea who McCarthy is, seems to be doing a good job of going unnoticed.  

Also, Octogenarian Joe seems to be running for Sheriff over in the County of Scottsdale.


----------



## Intel Nerd (Jul 26, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> McSally barely lost to Sinema, and Kelly really doesn't have anything going for him.  I have no idea who McCarthy is, seems to be doing a good job of going unnoticed.
> 
> Also, Octogenarian Joe seems to be running for Sheriff over in the County of Scottsdale.



We'll see how it goes. McSally is about as exciting as mayonnaise. Daniel McCarthy is probably more known as the "#DemandDaniel" candidate with an AR-15 often featured on his posters.

Kelly will hopefully start having to answer in debates about his financial connections to the PRC. Given the amount of overt bias and nearly overt campaigning by some news outlets for him, I doubt a lot of moderates or undecided voters will know much about it though.


----------



## Kaldak (Aug 2, 2020)




----------



## Bypass (Aug 4, 2020)

I didn't write this but here you go.

New House Defense Bill Includes Gun Confiscation for Military Members | The Liberty Loft
Washington, D.C – Democrat House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and her fellow liberal comrades are trying to sneak a gun confiscation scheme onto a giant piece of legislation.

Section §542 of H.R. 6395, would authorize an unannounced middle-of-the-night raid of the home of any individual subject to the Uniform Code of Military Conduct (§542(a)) based on a middle of the night _ex parte_ “court” proceeding (§542(i)) initiated by an aggrieved friend or relation, raising unsubstantiated allegations that the serviceman or servicewoman was “abusive.”

Per Pelosi, the gun owner is not entitled to receive notice or give his or her side of the story. The proposed emergency Military Court Gun Confiscation Orders (GCOs) are explicitly exempted from the “Protection of Due Process” provided for in 542(g)(1).

As written, any local, state, or federal law enforcement office could come crashing down the door of unaware firearm owners, and seize all guns, and, if the target resists, kill the servicemember.

As the 2020 United States presidential election approaches, the liberal-left is using Joe Biden’s hopeful leap to the Oval Office to institute a complete disarming of lawful Americans.


----------



## BlackSmokeRisinG (Aug 4, 2020)

^Great, now ammo is going to be as high as gold...


----------



## Bypass (Aug 4, 2020)

BlackSmokeRisinG said:


> ^Great, now ammo is going to be as high as gold...


The guys in Georgia are selling M855/SS109 at 1 dollar per round and people are buying. Eeeek!!!

I'm good though.


----------



## BlackSmokeRisinG (Aug 4, 2020)

One website had 500 rnds. of 5.56 for $499. I only have about 350 rds. of .40 s&w back home and one pistol. I figure if SHTF for real I'll just learn how to make HME like haj'.  I do hope I can still pick up an AR when I get home next month!!


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 4, 2020)

I don't have a ton of ammo, some holding off any shooting, classes, range training. Looking at some more innovative training, dry firing, technique stuff.


----------



## compforce (Aug 4, 2020)

BlackSmokeRisinG said:


> One website had 500 rnds. of 5.56 for $499. I only have about 350 rds. of .40 s&w back home and one pistol. I figure if SHTF for real I'll just learn how to make HME like haj'.  I do hope I can still pick up an AR when I get home next month!!



My plan is to pick up an AR after the fact.  there will be plenty that are "never fired, dropped once" if something actually happens.  I'm sure there will be plenty of already loaded magazines as well.


----------



## BlackSmokeRisinG (Aug 5, 2020)

^Free Gucci ARs all around once SHTF.

I have a sandbagged vehicle trunk, pop up like a jack in the box', empty a magazine into the first couple of armed clowns that walk by, fantasy.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 6, 2020)

New York AG on a witch hunt:

New York AG seeks to dissolve NRA in lawsuit accusing leaders of self-dealing, causing $64 million in losses


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 6, 2020)

" The suit was filed in New York county in the New York State Supreme Court. At a press conference announcing the suit, James said the NRA was “a *breeding ground for greed, abuse, and brazen illegality*.”

I love when politicians try and be honest and "doing the right thing" "fighting the good fight" "for the greater good"...etc

I gotta ask, where does NY have jurisdiction?  corporate HQ for the NRA is Virginia....

EDIT: DC has jumped on the bandwagon....DC sues the NRA Foundation for alleged misused funds

DC sues the NRA Foundation for alleged misused funds


----------



## Deleted member 15200 (Aug 6, 2020)

NRA has been racked by serious scandals for a long time. There is a very real need for a more legitimate organization to represent 2A.

@Kraut783 If you are serious about asking where the jurisdiction is, all of that information is listed in the suit itself. I would recommend at least skimming through it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 6, 2020)

PineTree said:


> NRA has been racked by serious scandals for a long time. There is a very real need for a more legitimate organization to represent 2A.
> 
> @Kraut783 If you are serious about asking where the jurisdiction is, all of that information is listed in the suit itself. I would recommend at least skimming through it.



The NRA does fine. This is a leftist hit job. They succeed, and we will have issues protecting our rights.


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 6, 2020)

PineTree said:


> NRA has been racked by serious scandals for a long time. There is a very real need for a more legitimate organization to represent 2A.
> 
> @Kraut783 If you are serious about asking where the jurisdiction is, all of that information is listed in the suit itself. I would recommend at least skimming through it.



I looked at the article, I didn't see where the offenses occurred in the jurisdiction of NY State. I see the NRA is registered in NY, but the corporate HQ is VA....seems like a stretch...but, will look at the actual filing docs.

seems more like a political move....


----------



## Deleted member 15200 (Aug 6, 2020)

@ThunderHorse 
I think you’ll find that you’re mistaken.

Just to mention a few of the instances of mismanagement/scandal in the NRA’s recent history:

2016: The NRA reports loss of $46 million + $40 million in pension liabilities

2016: NRA records $1 million in lobbying expenses to the IRS, but $3.4 million to congress

2017: NRA pays advertising firm Ackerman McQueen $40 million and Ackerman McQueen refuses to provide documentation on what the money was for

2017: NRA membership revenue falls 21%

2018: Maria Butina convicted of conspiracy to act as a foreign agent of Russia

2018: Wall Street Journal poll finds *Americans hold a net unfavorable view of the NRA*

2018: NRA files complaint admitting financial issues and inability to obtain insurance coverage

2019: NRA leadership (North and LaPierre) accuse each other of impropriety. North alleges millions embezzled by LaPierre

2020: 18 month long investigation into $60+ million in financial fraud and misconduct results in civil suits by AGs

I agree with you that the second amendment is under duress. Not due to a vague left wing conspiracy, but rather due to a steadily shifting public opinion towards more restrictive gun control that is being pushed as an agenda item by politicians on both sides.

Whatever the reason, a flailing NRA run by poor leaders won’t do anything to educate/inform people or change opinions on gun control. It won’t be shut down, but it needs to be cleaned up and restructured. We’ll just have to see what happens in court.


----------



## Muppet (Aug 7, 2020)

The NRA are run by a bunch of fudd shills. I stopped supporting them years ago. I do support Gun Owners Of America though.

Also, I advocate tar and feathering any politican, left or right if they violate 2A or any bill of right.....


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 7, 2020)

PineTree said:


> Post


NRA has problems.  Like any organization.  But this is a most definite political hatchet job.

The amount of firearms education you can get from the NRA is almost boundless.  It is a massive organization and I stand by my opinion that without them, Gun Owners in this country will lose a mile, in what is a fight for meters.

Add it up.  Election year, etc, just like the now bullshit Steele dossier.


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 8, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> The NRA does fine. This is a leftist hit job. They succeed, and we will have issues protecting our rights.



Yes perhaps but if the NRA was mis using my money I would want to know and something to be done.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 8, 2020)

Marine0311 said:


> Yes perhaps but if the NRA was mis using my money I would want to know and something to be done.


I agree.  But this is just all too convenient.  Suing the NRA itself, which is a member organization, rather than the specific employees and former employees is my problem.


----------



## Deleted member 15200 (Aug 8, 2020)

@ThunderHorse If you read the suit you'll find that it actually names 4 specific defendants. 

Wayne LaPierre
Wilson Phillips
John Frazier
Joshua Powell

The organization in general is named according to the suit because:

"... the NRA, at the direction of the Individual Defendants and with a series of failures of required oversight by its Board, has persistently engaged in illegal and unauthorized activities in the conduct and transaction of its business[...]
As  a  result  of  these  persistent  violations  of  law  by  the  Defendants,  the  Attorney  General seeks a finding by this Court that the NRA is liable to be dissolved pursuant to 
(a) N-PCL § 1101(a)(2) based upon the NRA’s pattern of conducting its business in a persistently fraudulent or illegal manner, abusing its powers contrary to public policy of New York and its tax exempt status, and failing to provide for the proper administration of its trust assets and institutional funds; and/or 
(b) N-PCL § 1102(a)(2) because directors or members in control of the NRA have looted or wasted the corporation assets, have operated the NRA solely for their personal benefit, or have otherwise acted in an illegal, oppressive or fraudulent manner. The Attorney General requests that this Court determine, in the exercise of its discretion under Section 1109(b)(1) of the N-PCL, that the interest of the public and the members of the NRA supports a decision to dissolve the NRA[...]"


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 8, 2020)

PineTree said:


> @ThunderHorse If you read the suit you'll find that it actually names 4 specific defendants.
> 
> Wayne LaPierre
> Wilson Phillips
> ...



Again, not my point.  My point is timing.  And the timing is convenient as hell.  Especially from a political creature like the AG of NY.

The NRA is a non-profit member organization.  How it is able to mobilize and protect your rights is something no other 2nd Amendment organization can do.  She's seeking dissolution which will have a negative affect on mine and your rights.  This is a trashy attack.  There's a difference between coercing an org to clean up their shit vs. dissolution which would be a significant victory to the disarmament crowd.


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 8, 2020)

Well, since NY has always ignored the 2nd Amendment, and I don't see the citizens on NY breaking down the door at the NY AG's office to have the NRA dissolved......this is absolutely political timing.

For transparency...I have never been a member of the NRA.


----------



## Deleted member 15200 (Aug 8, 2020)

Isn't everything political at the end of the day? You could argue back and forth forever about whether the timing of the announcement helps or hurts the AG politically. Personally I don't have an opinion on it and at the end of the day it comes down to perception, there isn't an objective answer.

As for what actually happens to the NRA, well, that's up to the courts to decide, not the AG


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 8, 2020)

True....I just wonder what put a bee in the bonnet of the NY AG office....it's not like they have an increase in violent crime....private businesses failing due to the Covid-19, NYPD retiring in mass...I mean, we talk about focusing on the 25m target....NY AG office is focusing on the 300m target.


----------



## AWP (Aug 8, 2020)

Whatever the NRA's transgressions, this is so politically motivated, "sign of the times" shit you'd need a lobotomy to miss the "why" behind this move.


----------



## Bypass (Aug 9, 2020)

If a clergyman embezzled from the church would you disband Catholicism  and the church for one or a few men's transgressions?


----------



## Deleted member 15200 (Aug 9, 2020)

For those who support more gun control, this is a great opportunity to bring your issue back into the limelight. No convenient school shootings to take advantage of

For those who support less gun control, perceived threats to the 2A are great for mobilizing support and increasing gun sales (Remember gun sales under Obama?)

This is one of those awful news stories where everyone gets the chance to snuggle up in their echo chamber and feel self righteous, all the while using American institutions as a political punching bag.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 13, 2020)

I post this knowing that Rasmussen has a bias (leans conservative).  That said, they had a poll showing a 12% reduction in support for gun control.  This, along with record sales of guns and ammo, may create a great campaign niche for Trump and Company.

27% With Guns in the House Bought One in Last Six Months


----------



## Bypass (Aug 13, 2020)

/Cough......I'm a double life member of the NRA. I do however think the whole NRA is being led by a buncha greedy ass carpetbaggers.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 17, 2020)

OMFG...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1294769718595858433
How about tell people to buy guns, since we know the Philly PD have heir hands tied to their feet?


----------



## Jaknight (Aug 17, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> OMFG...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1294769718595858433
> How about tell people to buy guns, since we know the Philly PD have heir hands tied to their feet?


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 17, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> OMFG...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1294769718595858433
> How about tell people to buy guns, since we know the Philly PD have heir hands tied to their feet?


I would hit that!

pretty silly message by Philly tho.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 17, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> OMFG...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1294769718595858433
> How about tell people to buy guns, since we know the Philly PD have heir hands tied to their feet?


What's larger?
Boobs or IQ?
Tough decision.


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 17, 2020)

DA SWO said:


> What's larger?
> Boobs or IQ?
> Tough decision.


Google her, lots of great pics 

katie katro - Google Search

but I digress....


----------



## Bypass (Aug 17, 2020)

Kraut783 said:


> Google her, lots of great pics
> 
> katie katro - Google Search
> 
> but I digress....


----------



## CQB (Aug 17, 2020)




----------



## Devildoc (Aug 18, 2020)

Kraut783 said:


> Google her, lots of great pics
> 
> katie katro - Google Search
> 
> but I digress....



Mercy...


----------



## Kaldak (Aug 19, 2020)

Kraut783 said:


> Google her, lots of great pics
> 
> katie katro - Google Search
> 
> but I digress....



And I thought Fox had good looking women...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 22, 2020)

DNC was like a gun grabber paradise.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Aug 28, 2020)




----------



## RackMaster (Sep 12, 2020)

Big day for Canadian gun owner's  educating the public about what the current governments ban means for all of us.

A new documentary was released.






And there was a march on Parliament today.  News reports 800 but it looks like it was closer to 5000, attended.

'People are super frustrated:' Gun owners, firearm activists march at Parliament Hill


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 13, 2020)

Ammo prices around me are through the roof.


----------



## Kraut783 (Sep 13, 2020)

heh, if you can find ammo...


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 13, 2020)

Kraut783 said:


> heh, if you can find ammo...



I have and it has been a pain in the ass.


----------



## GOTWA (Sep 13, 2020)

Kraut783 said:


> heh, if you can find ammo...



Www.ammoseek.com


----------



## Kraut783 (Sep 13, 2020)

Nice site GOTWA, thanks!


----------



## BlackSmokeRisinG (Sep 13, 2020)

500 rnds. 9x19 for $350 something... Should be here in a couple days.


----------



## 757 (Sep 21, 2020)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1307454541126930435


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 10, 2020)

Can't fucking wait:

Joe Biden's Plan to End Gun Violence | Joe Biden for President


----------



## Grunt (Nov 10, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> Can't fucking wait:
> 
> Joe Biden's Plan to End Gun Violence | Joe Biden for President


I hope he plans to start in Chicago as his test case. I'm sure the homies will take kindly to his suggestions.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 10, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> Can't fucking wait:
> 
> Joe Biden's Plan to End Gun Violence | Joe Biden for President


Jesus.

Here we go again.


----------



## Florida173 (Nov 10, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> Can't fucking wait:
> 
> Joe Biden's Plan to End Gun Violence | Joe Biden for President



There are so many opportunities for "unintended consequences" for people that are too dumb. I mean a task force for online harassment? If that doesn't sound like some thought crime shit right there, I don't know what does.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 10, 2020)

Florida173 said:


> There are so many opportunities for "unintended consequences" for people that are too dumb. I mean a task force for online harassment? If that doesn't sound like some thought crime shit right there, I don't know what does.


It all starts "small" for the betterment of society. You know, the Good-Idea Fairy striking again and all that. Neighbors reporting on neighbors like they did with COVID except only better....


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 10, 2020)

Holy hell....I read that thing (albeit quickly...), filled with so many half-truths, assumptions, and assertions.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 10, 2020)

And according to it all, he plans to do so by executive order.  This is a huge issue.  We need to stop ruling via executive order. We have elected representatives for a reason.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 10, 2020)

Blizzard said:


> And according to it all, he plans to do so by executive order.  This is a huge issue.  We need to stop ruling via executive order. We have elected representatives for a reason.



I think this is where Amy C Barrett will be (hopefully!!) helpful....


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Nov 10, 2020)

That's gonna be a whole lotta Americans baying for blood, that's if Biden makes it to the WH with recounts, lawsuits, etc. Whoever wrote that musta gotten into Hunters crack stash or Ol Biden is hitting the pipe with his son.


----------



## Cookie_ (Nov 10, 2020)

Blizzard said:


> And according to it all, he plans to do so by executive order.  This is a huge issue.  We need to stop ruling via executive order. We have elected representatives for a reason.


Couldn't agree more. The biggest issue is getting people to stop justifying it if it's their side doing it. 

On Biden's plan though, looks like a grand total of one thing I actually like, which is allowing the CDC to study gun violence.

As I'm sure most people are aware, the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides, and I think treating that as a health issue, not a gun issue, is the way to attack it. Don't quite trust the Biden administration to not fuck it up, but I'd love to a more "mental/social" issue view of guns than "boom-booms scary".


----------



## Florida173 (Nov 10, 2020)

Cookie_ said:


> Couldn't agree more. The biggest issue is getting people to stop justifying it if it's their side doing it.
> 
> On Biden's plan though, looks like a grand total of one thing I actually like, which is allowing the CDC to study gun violence.
> 
> As I'm sure most people are aware, the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides, and I think treating that as a health issue, not a gun issue, is the way to attack it. Don't quite trust the Biden administration to not fuck it up, but I'd love to a more "mental/social" issue view of guns than "boom-booms scary".



So would DHS be more appropriate, or is gun violence predicated mental illness a disease now?


----------



## Cookie_ (Nov 10, 2020)

Florida173 said:


> So would DHS be more appropriate, or is gun violence predicated mental illness a disease now?



I don't have a good answer to your question, and that's kind of my thing; I think we need more information on these issues with a viewpoint other than "guns and crimes". 

I think a lot of people on this site probably agree that gun violence (or violence in general) seems to be more of a societal issue than the weapons themselves, and I'd like to see some research into how that could be fixed, if possible.

Banning/not banning guns is an easy soundbite for politicians, but trying to figure out why we have so many issues compared to a place like Switzerland is harder.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 10, 2020)

Cookie_ said:


> I don't have a good answer to your question, and that's kind of my thing; I think we need more information on these issues with a viewpoint other than "guns and crimes".
> 
> I think a lot of people on this site probably agree that gun violence (or violence in general) seems to be more of a societal issue than the weapons themselves, and I'd like to see some research into how that could be fixed, if possible.
> 
> Banning/not banning guns is an easy soundbite for politicians, but trying to figure out why we have so many issues compared to a place like Switzerland is harder.



I'm not exactly sure why the CDC needs to study "gun violence" at all.  We have the statistics that they can easily looks at.  2/3 of firearms related deaths roughly being from suicide, ok what more do you need there?  A firearm is just a method.  We have plenty of bridges that people use around this country.  The issue is just mental health and providing support.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 10, 2020)

The biggest cause of gun violence is the devaluation of human life. It really is that simple...it's just that folks like to complicate things.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 10, 2020)

Devildoc said:


> I think this is where Amy C Barrett will be (hopefully!!) helpful....


We shouldn't even have to get to that point.  Someone needs to put on the brakes.  It's out of control.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 10, 2020)

Blizzard said:


> We shouldn't even have to get to that point.  Someone needs to put on the brakes.  It's out of control.



What _should_ happen and what _will_ happen are two different things.  I trust Biden like I trust gas station sushi, and for all of the "I am not after your guns" he said on the campaign trail, he is definitely after the guns.  He will use end-arounds and EOs to push it knowing it won't get traction in congress.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 10, 2020)

Devildoc said:


> What _should_ happen and what _will_ happen are two different things.  I trust Biden like I trust gas station sushi, and for all of the "I am not after your guns" he said on the campaign trail, he is definitely after the guns.  He will use end-arounds and EOs to push it knowing it won't get traction in congress.


Concur.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 19, 2020)

It is this issue specifically that made me vote for Trump.

Biden deputy chief of staff touted 'mandatory buybacks' of assault weapons


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 19, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> It is this issue specifically that made me vote for Trump.
> 
> Biden deputy chief of staff touted 'mandatory buybacks' of assault weapons



"Mandatory buyback" (which semantically means they purchased it in the first place if they plan to 'buy it back') smack of 'false positive', 'jumbo shrimp, 'politically correct', and any other contradictory phrase you can think of.

But yeah, that's a hard 'no' from me...


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 19, 2020)

ref. an earlier discussion in this thread:  2A advocates are uneasy about the CDC doing research into gun violence, because it is transparently an end-around into ultimately infringing on gun rights.

Why we can't trust the CDC with gun research


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 19, 2020)

Devildoc said:


> "Mandatory buyback" (which semantically means they purchased it in the first place if they plan to 'buy it back') smack of 'false positive', 'jumbo shrimp, 'politically correct', and any other contradictory phrase you can think of.
> 
> But yeah, that's a hard 'no' from me...



And guess what, you will get pennies on the dollar.  Most of the "buyback" programs have been standard like 300 bucks.  So really we should just go buy a bunch of Hi-Points and sell back at a profit!


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 19, 2020)

Devildoc said:


> "Mandatory buyback" (which semantically means they purchased it in the first place if they plan to 'buy it back') smack of 'false positive', 'jumbo shrimp, 'politically correct', and any other contradictory phrase you can think of.
> 
> But yeah, that's a hard 'no' from me...



That's the plan here in Canada.  They actually put the job out to tender twice, both times no applications.  Then mysteriously there was a PM hired for the buyback program.  Probably an internal hire. 

The Democrat's and Canadian Liberal's are using the same play book for most of the same issue's.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 19, 2020)

Damn.  That's a LOT of missing pew-pews.



> 'Crazy mess:' Philadelphia sheriff's office missing more than 200 guns​




'Crazy mess:' Philadelphia sheriff's office missing more than 200 guns


----------



## Kaldak (Nov 20, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Damn.  That's a LOT of missing pew-pews.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sounds like a boating accident may have occurred...


----------



## AWP (Nov 20, 2020)

The FBI runs the ViCAP database, but there isn't a requirement for local law enforcement to submit their numbers. Crazy idea here, but if what there was...into a product that already exists?  The Center for DISEASE Control needs to study gun violence instead of a law enforcement organization?

GTFOutta here.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 24, 2020)

Yeah um, so this dude at Apple tried to bribe the Santa Clara County Undersheriff to issue him four different CCW permits...

Apple Security Chief Offered iPads to Police as a Bribe for Gun Permits, Prosecutors Allege

Santa Clara County's undersheriff, Apple security chief, businessman indicted in bribery schemes


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 24, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> Yeah um, so this dude at Apple tried to bribe the Santa Clara County Undersheriff to issue him four different CCW permits...
> 
> Apple Security Chief Offered iPads to Police as a Bribe for Gun Permits, Prosecutors Allege
> 
> Santa Clara County's undersheriff, Apple security chief, businessman indicted in bribery schemes


Anytime there's "discretion" over something that should be a right, there's a strong probability of something like this.


----------



## AWP (Nov 24, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Anytime there's "discretion" over something that should be a right, there's a strong probability of something like this.



You don't need rights if you have enough money...


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 24, 2020)

AWP said:


> You don't need rights if you have enough money...


...a different type of "golden rule."


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 24, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> Anytime there's "discretion" over something that should be a right, there's a strong probability of something like this.



Knowing this process decently well, PDs tend to deny people that have demonstrated need for a permit, in fact that happens often because California PDs are under pressure and honestly full of liberals in uniform (not that that is a problem necessarily). 

When trying to get them through the Sheriff's office it is purely about donating enough money to the campaign to have the conversation with the man.  But you see here is subordinates taking advantage and acting in a wholly corrupt mode de vie.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 24, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> Knowing this process decently well, PDs tend to deny people that have demonstrated need for a permit, in fact that happens often because California PDs are under pressure and honestly full of liberals in uniform (not that that is a problem necessarily).
> 
> When trying to get them through the Sheriff's office it is purely about donating enough money to the campaign to have the conversation with the man.  But you see here is subordinates taking advantage and acting in a wholly corrupt mode de vie.


I've had some pretty bad experiences trying to get permits in CT and NY.  GA and NC were e-z.


----------



## Brill (Nov 24, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> I've had some pretty bad experiences trying to get permits in CT and NY.  GA and NC were e-z.



MD was stupid easy: I realized their laughter meant “no”.


----------



## LeadSled1 (Nov 24, 2020)

lindy said:


> MD was stupid easy: I realized their laughter meant “no”.


Funny part is under current MSP guidance I could get one by simply getting a letter from my security officer on my clearance status. The MSP has no need to know what our status is and they will not receive that information. MSP: “See, we are trying to help the military but they don’t want it”.

That is towards the MSP licensing division. The rest of the boys there are good apples.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 24, 2020)

lindy said:


> MD was stupid easy: I realized their laughter meant “no”.



I didn't even try in Hawaii, because I knew how difficult it would be.


----------



## Brill (Nov 24, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> I didn't even try in Hawaii, because I knew how difficult it would be.



Nov ‘19 MD thinks I’m a threat...Dec ‘19 GA thinks I’m an upstanding citizen.

I dunno...guess HR will eventually call the sheriff.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 1, 2020)

My fair burg has seen a pretty significant increase in shootings this year:

'This is an emergency:' Shootings up 43 percent this year in Durham  :: WRAL.com

While the 'Defund the Police' movement has chattered about here and there, >85% of these shootings are in the same 15-square-blocks, and those people want more LE presence, not less.  Interestingly, those same citizens are also (legally) buying guns and are getting in the faces of the elected officials who are trying to impose more laws on gun ownership.  The people are speaking.

Also, for every one shooting we see on the news, there's one more who get to the ED via Home Boy EMS (slow drive by the entrance and dump out the door).


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 12, 2021)

Unsure if anyone posted the letter that the Biden Campaign issued on the 8th.  But Biden and Harris aim to bring this one civil right to its knees and also destroy the NRA.  We can say what we want about NRA this or the NRA that.  But it's really bad.  This would be like any President-Elect saying they aimed to defeat the ACLU.

Biden Announces His Aim Is To ‘Defeat’ Pro-Second Amendment NRA


----------



## Jaknight (Jan 12, 2021)

ThunderHorse said:


> Unsure if anyone posted the letter that the Biden Campaign issued on the 8th.  But Biden and Harris aim to bring this one civil right to its knees and also destroy the NRA.  We can say what we want about NRA this or the NRA that.  But it's really bad.  This would be like any President-Elect saying they aimed to defeat the ACLU.
> 
> Biden Announces His Aim Is To ‘Defeat’ Pro-Second Amendment NRA


Hate cause it’s another infringement on our rights


----------



## Gunz (Jan 12, 2021)

ThunderHorse said:


> Unsure if anyone posted the letter that the Biden Campaign issued on the 8th.  But Biden and Harris aim to bring this one civil right to its knees and also destroy the NRA.  We can say what we want about NRA this or the NRA that.  But it's really bad.  This would be like any President-Elect saying they aimed to defeat the ACLU.
> 
> Biden Announces His Aim Is To ‘Defeat’ Pro-Second Amendment NRA



Now that White Boys have busted their cherries in the big DC riot, the cork is out of the bottle. Biden pushes it too far and masses of 2A supporters will start joining in on the fun. He says he wants to "heal a divided nation." Getting froggy with millions of gun owners ain't the way to go about it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 12, 2021)

If the ACLU defended gun rights like they defended speech we wouldn't need the NRA.


----------



## Brill (Jan 12, 2021)

ThunderHorse said:


> If the ACLU defended gun rights like they defended speech we wouldn't need the NRA.



I remember when the ACLU defended both the Klan and Nazi rallies. Now they defend...Twitter? FB? I dunno.


----------



## Grunt (Jan 12, 2021)

lindy said:


> I remember when the ACLU defended both the Klan and Nazi rallies. Now they defend...Twitter? FB? I dunno.


Brother, do some serious digging into the founders of the ACLU and you will find they were card-carrying communist. Just watched a documentary on them two nights ago.


----------



## Kaldak (Jan 12, 2021)

Sohei said:


> Brother, do some serious digging into the founders of the ACLU and you will find they were card-carrying communist. Just watched a documentary on them two nights ago.



Remember the name of the documentary?


----------



## Grunt (Jan 12, 2021)

Kaldak said:


> Remember the name of the documentary?


It's a series on Prime Video called "Hidden Agenda." It is several episodes long and was done in the 80's, I believe.

It's absolutely astonishing to see the exact things they are speaking of coming to fruition currently. If you can't find it there or don't have Prime, you may be able to find it somewhere else. Let me know if not, and I will help you hunt for it. It's sincerely worth the watch.

Here is a link to the series:

Hidden Agenda - Real Conspiracies that Affect Our Lives Today on Apple TV


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 12, 2021)

Sohei said:


> It's a series on Prime Video called "Hidden Agenda." It is several episodes long and was done in the 80's, I believe.
> 
> It's absolutely astonishing to see the exact things they are speaking of coming to fruition currently. If you can't find it there or don't have Prime, you may be able to find it somewhere else. Let me know if not, and I will help you hunt for it. It's sincerely worth the watch.
> 
> ...


Man, the guy who made that series, G. Edward Griffin, is a John Birch Society weirdo.  Those guys think EVERYONE is a communist.  The founder literally accused Dwight Eisenhower of being a secret communist!  

Let’s not forget their paranoia over Jade Helm, Agenda 21 (Agenda 21 Exposed : The John Birch Society) and all of the other loony Alex Jones-esque stuff they buy into.  Any media produced by a Bircher is not worth wasting your time on.


----------



## Board and Seize (Jan 12, 2021)

In our current climate, I strongly disagree with using ad hominem and guilt-by-association attacks to dismiss information without addressing it.


----------



## BlackSmokeRisinG (Jan 13, 2021)

^A broken clock is right twice a day, and even Alex Jones has hit on some things the regular media ignores. I'd like to see that documentary.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jan 13, 2021)

Sohei said:


> Brother, do some serious digging into the founders of the ACLU and you will find they were card-carrying communist. Just watched a documentary on them two nights ago.



One of the ten founders joined the communist party in the 30s.

After that, the ACLU voted to ban communists from its leadership position and worked with the FBI to monitor communists in its organizations.

The ACLU’s Fifth Column?

The whole "ACLU is secretly communist" theory has been steeped in the Red Scare paranoia the JBS was known for.


----------



## pardus (Jan 15, 2021)

A documentary should not be taken as a thorough and factual source of information, even as compelling as they often are.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 15, 2021)

lindy said:


> I remember when the ACLU defended both the Klan and Nazi rallies. Now they defend...Twitter? FB? I dunno.



I saw a tweet put out by the ACLU calling out Twitter re: Trump, said it was (paraphrasing) dangerous precedent.


----------



## Grunt (Jan 15, 2021)

pardus said:


> A documentary should not be taken as a thorough and factual source of information, even as compelling as they often are.


Indeed. That's where one should use critical thinking and the ability to dig deeper for the truth. They are simply a source to begin with and go from there....


----------



## Brill (Jan 15, 2021)

Devildoc said:


> I saw a tweet put out by the ACLU calling out Twitter re: Trump, said it was (paraphrasing) dangerous precedent.



We are screwed as a nation when We are afraid of a fat 74 year old man...with a hot wife.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 15, 2021)

I see where the NRA has declared bankruptcy, moving from New York to Texas. I wonder if this is going to be a massive reorganization or if they're going to just sell their assets and just peter out.


----------



## Kaldak (Jan 15, 2021)

Devildoc said:


> I see where the NRA has declared bankruptcy, moving from New York to Texas. I wonder if this is going to be a massive reorganization or if they're going to just sell their assets and just peter out.



Wait, what?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 15, 2021)

Devildoc said:


> I see where the NRA has declared bankruptcy, moving from New York to Texas. I wonder if this is going to be a massive reorganization or if they're going to just sell their assets and just peter out.





Kaldak said:


> Wait, what?



The Attorney General of New York went after them last year and has been trying to get them de-certified as a non-profit.  They've incurred likely millions of dollars in legal bills.  NRA owns their real estate in New York, so sell that shit and move to Texas?  You betcha. But they should have moved a long time ago...like New York ain't exactly been a state that welcomes gun ownership.


----------



## Kaldak (Jan 15, 2021)

ThunderHorse said:


> like New York ain't exactly been a state that welcomes gun ownership



No truer statement. As @Marauder06 can attest.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 15, 2021)

Devildoc said:


> I see where the NRA has declared bankruptcy, moving from New York to Texas. I wonder if this is going to be a massive reorganization or if they're going to just sell their assets and just peter out.


Bloomberg - NRA files bankruptcy


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 15, 2021)

Kaldak said:


> No truer statement. As @Marauder06 can attest.


For real.  It has been extraordinarily frustrating to me that I had to buy a completely different stock for my daughter's 10/22 because the one I bought it with--30+ years go--makes it some kind of evil "assault weapon" here.

An assault 10/22.

I had to offload my AR-15 and my SKS before I moved here.  Getting the ammo I want, much less the guns, is a huge hassle.  Getting a concealed carry permit?   hahahahahaha.... no.

I'm actually going shooting here in a couple of minutes with my oldest daughter.  Thank goodness for on-post gun ranges that are open to the public.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 16, 2021)

Marauder06 said:


> For real.  It has been extraordinarily frustrating to me that I had to buy a completely different stock for my daughter's 10/22 because the one I bought it with--30+ years go--makes it some kind of evil "assault weapon" here.
> 
> An assault 10/22.
> 
> ...


Plenty of room in the bottom of the lake with my guns if you're looking to unload any other time.


----------



## Topkick (Jan 16, 2021)

ThunderHorse said:


> like New York ain't exactly been a state that welcomes gun ownership.



True. I've always found it odd that a lot of major gun manufacturer's are located in New York. I believe they are also starting to pack their shit and move out, though.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 16, 2021)

Fuck the NRA. They are lost in the sauce any more.


----------



## Topkick (Jan 16, 2021)

BloodStripe said:


> Fuck the NRA. They are lost in the sauce any more.


NRA is a goat fuck right now, but whos gonna line those pockets to make sure we have a 2A when they are gone? I think most of those saying "cold dead hands" will likely just hand'em over at the first knock.


----------



## Topkick (Jan 16, 2021)

The NRA is filing bankruptcy only as a work-around. They claim that they are not in financial trouble. However, the media has done an excellent job of pushing the NRA's corruption, so it wouldn't surprise me if their membership is way down. I think its a wise move to relocate to Texas, but hopefully not too late. I don't know what to believe these days, but in IMO they needed to break away from LaPierre in order to maintain and boost membership levels.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/nra-files-for-bankruptcy-says-it-will-reincorporate-in-texas.html


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 16, 2021)

I always wondered why they picked to HQ in New York in the first place.


----------



## Florida173 (Jan 16, 2021)

I honestly thought their HQ was down the street from me in Fairfax, VA. I've shot at the range there


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 16, 2021)

Florida173 said:


> I honestly thought their HQ was down the street from me in Fairfax, VA. I've shot at the range there



They have a great museum there.


----------



## Brill (Jan 17, 2021)

Kraut783 said:


> I always wondered why they picked to HQ in New York in the first place.



I bet the state conceded HUGE tax incentives way back when it was ok (aka not prone to outrage).


----------



## Gunz (Jan 17, 2021)

Topkick said:


> True. I've always found it odd that a lot of major gun manufacturer's are located in New York. I believe they are also starting to pack their shit and move out, though.


It goes back to the old days. Colt and Ruger were in Connecticut where gun laws now are probably even tighter than NY.

Colt is still in Hartford.

Sturm-Ruger moved to NC but when I left active duty they were in  Southport CT. I applied for a job there but I guess they didn’t need a machine-gunner with PTSD.

What can I say about the NRA? They’ve needed to drop that ghoul LaPierre for years, shut Ted Nugent the fuck up, and revamp...because the Left has demonized them so successfully that the organization itself is held to blame for any gun violence anywhere.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 18, 2021)

Texas Governor Greg Abbot says he wants to make Texas a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary State. Apparently a number of Texas counties have already done so on the local level. Most of the sources I've seen regarding this are pro-gun anti-Biden...nothing in the mainstream.

God Bless Texas.


----------



## Brill (Jan 23, 2021)

This new push to combat “Domestic Violent Extremism” will be the predicate to remove your 2A privileges. The idea that the ODNI will look inward is very concerning.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1352687523269640192


----------



## Intel Nerd (Jan 24, 2021)

Brill said:


> This new push to combat “Domestic Violent Extremism” will be the predicate to remove your 2A privileges. The idea that the ODNI will look inward is very concerning.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1352687523269640192



I better delete my MeWe account and remove gun photos from my Instagram. Sure it's all databased later for the Commissar to say that supporting my oath to the US Constitution in spirit, actions, and Founders intent will not be well appreciated.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 24, 2021)

Brill said:


> This new push to combat “Domestic Violent Extremism” will be the predicate to remove your 2A privileges. The idea that the ODNI will look inward is very concerning.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1352687523269640192



Not really to do with this topic, but she gets treated so much better than any of the Trump Press Secretaries...the Press literally doesn't care anymore.


----------



## Brill (Jan 24, 2021)

Intel Nerd said:


> I better delete my MeWe account and remove gun photos from my Instagram. Sure it's all databased later for the Commissar to say that supporting my oath to the US Constitution in spirit, actions, and Founders intent will not be well appreciated.



GA allows person-to-person sales and I sold my soon to be regulated arms & mags for cash, which was used to buy a car.

I have no idea what the buyer did with the items.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 27, 2021)




----------



## RackMaster (Jan 27, 2021)

Marauder06 said:


> View attachment 38676


Canadian as well.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 26, 2022)




----------



## Muppet (Feb 28, 2022)

This....


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 3, 2022)

Can anyone verify this with a link from a reputable source?  I couldn't find one in a quick Google search:


----------



## Topkick (Mar 11, 2022)

I couldn't find anything on Poland but if governments keep all the weapons and hand them out only in a time of need, it could be too late to train the people how to use them effectively. The US has an abundance of citizens who are comfortable and trained with firearms at its disposal. Gun control will obviously reduce that force multiplier.


----------



## AWP (Mar 11, 2022)

I want to believe the Polish Army has improved from a decade ago when it allowed a convoy to drive over a known command detonated IED. They should totally give everyone in that country an AK…


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 12, 2022)

Topkick said:


> I couldn't find anything on Poland but if governments keep all the weapons and hand them out only in a time of need, it could be too late to train the people how to use them effectively. The US has an abundance of citizens who are comfortable and trained with firearms at its disposal. Gun control will obviously reduce that force multiplier.


That's exactly right.  That's similar to the example I use when I talk about "well-regulated militia" with people who don't understand 2A.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 12, 2022)

The cognitive dissonance of people who are cheering for the Ukrainians on one hand and telling me all the reasons I shouldn't have a gun on the other represents mental gymnastics of staggering proportions.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 12, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> That's exactly right. That's similar to the example I use when I talk about "well-regulated militia" with people who don't understand 2A.



The word militia has been hi- jacked. A significant portion of citizens have been led to associate militia with racist, uneducated, right- wing nut-jobs.


----------



## “The Old Man” (Mar 12, 2022)

Topkick said:


> The word militia has been hi- jacked. A significant portion of citizens have been led to associate militia with racist, uneducated, right- wing nut-jobs.


I am a vetted member of the state organized militia here in Missouri. We are under sole control of the Governor. With zero ties to any federal authority. We assist during natural disaters and civil unrest.
In my zone we guard necessary infrastructure.  Such as the LifeFlight facility, county POL dump. As well as working as fuelers for both facilities.  We maintain roadblocks for the State Police snd local Sheriffs Dept.
We are working hard to show in our community’s that a militia. Is NOT what a large portion of the populous  believes a militia is.
Custodes Libertatis is who we are.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 12, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> That's exactly right.  That's similar to the example I use when I talk about "well-regulated militia" with people who don't understand 2A.


When it was written, "militia" meant basically every man capable of carrying a rifle.  And they trained as a community, similar to volunteer firefighters.  It was not about the "national guard" etc.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 12, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> *When it was written, "militia" meant *basically every man capable of carrying a rifle.  And they trained as a community, similar to volunteer firefighters.  It was not about the "national guard" etc.


Still is.  Every able-bodied, military-aged person man, according to US Code.


----------



## “The Old Man” (Mar 12, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> Still is.  Every able-bodied, military-aged person man, according to US Code.


Do we have a current “Militia” thread?


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 12, 2022)

Tinman6 said:


> Do we have a current “Militia” thread?


Doesn't look like we have an explicit one.


----------



## “The Old Man” (Mar 12, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> Doesn't look like we have an explicit one.


Just didn’t want to continue in this vein. Not trying to steer away from the original topic.


----------



## “The Old Man” (Mar 12, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> Doesn't look like we have an explicit one.


We do now.


----------



## RackMaster (May 30, 2022)

Canada just banned handguns.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/handguns-liberal-bill-1.6470554


----------



## Devildoc (May 30, 2022)

It's only banned if you allow it.

Example: to carry concealed, we have to have a permit. I carry concealed, but do I have a permit? It's no one's business.  I do what I want.  I sleep well at night.  

But yeah, what your government and president (prime minister?) Has done is abhorrent.  

In other news, Biden has come out against 9 mm pistols, saying they should be banned because of the devastating injuries they cause. Fine, I will carry 450 Casull or 50 S&W.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 31, 2022)

well Texas allows you to own, carry, kill whatever... just saying


----------



## Muppet (May 31, 2022)

Shall not be infringed. Fuck them.


----------



## AWP (May 31, 2022)

Gun control discussions are so filled with emotion and not fact that it is impossible to have that discussion with just about anyone. Just a few points though:
- Increased background checks are laughable given the state of the computer network. Expect to spend 2 billion+ and a decade to overhaul that antiquated monstrosity.
- Guns off the street? LOL, that will take a few generations for us to see any benefit.
- Where is mental health in the vaunted ACA, aka "Obama Care?" Yeah...
- The NRA needs to drop the whole video game argument. They look like clowns taking that path.
- I've spoken about the history behind the Second Amendment earlier in this thread. 
- Speaking of, the American Revolution began, in part, because the British moved against a private armory which contained cannons. The whole "weapons of war/ assault rifle" argument is dead in the water without someone's emotion.
- Anyone advocating anything "for the children" is 100% full of shit. I don't want to hear it. Guns, drugs, abortion, safety, education...blah, blah, blah, "for the children" is the most bullshit reason in the history of bullshit reasons to taint the earth. "Save the children" or "for the children" doesn't matter, there is a political and/ or religious agenda behind those statements. "They are slaughtering our babies" means I'm ignoring your argument. Do better.


----------



## Stretcher Jockey (May 31, 2022)

My issue with gun control always has been and will be that giving more power to the same programs that continue to fail us is a terrible idea. Here are at least 2 cases, with more out there but I'm not going to link every single known event.

Sutherland Springs Shooting. The Air Force failed to update the national database with the shooter's assault conviction. This would have prevented the shooter from attaining the weapons used in the attack.

Buffalo New York. There is an ongoing investigation whether a retired FBI agent knew of the shooting before it happened and didn't do anything to stop it/notify anyone of the upcoming attack.

Giving MORE oversight to these agencies that have failed in the past will never make sense to me. Do I think we need to change something? Yes. Am I smart enough to know what the answer it outside of better mental health care? No. But I will not be convinced that giving more power to the government is a good idea.


----------



## RackMaster (May 31, 2022)

Here's the details on the "freeze" in Canada.


----------



## Bypass (May 31, 2022)

Sorry Canada but we got our own gun problems here in the USA.

Contact your congress people and senators they're gonna try to ban everything.


----------



## Dame (May 31, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> Canada just banned handguns.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/handguns-liberal-bill-1.6470554


Come to Nevada. We haz bacon, booze, and bullets.
No registration.


----------



## RackMaster (May 31, 2022)

Bypass said:


> Sorry Canada but we got our own gun problems here in the USA.
> 
> Contact your congress people and senators they're gonna try to ban everything.


That's the problem.  Idiots here have used major US events to justify the biggest grabs in recent years.  We have a gang war problem and they have only reduced sentencing for gun related charges.


----------



## “The Old Man” (May 31, 2022)

Yeah, I am one of those guys. Part of a state militia with the support of the Governor of our state. It keeps me somewhat fit at 60 years of age. As well as it motivates me to stay current with TCCC. Now that I am no longer dependent on mobility devices.

The last line is kinda corny, I agree.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 1, 2022)

White House walking back Biden's comments now.

His damage control team could have kept the USS Arizona afloat.


----------



## Muppet (Jun 1, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> White House walking back Biden's comments now.
> 
> His damage control team could have kept the USS Arizona afloat.



What did the walk back sound like?

2A was written for fucking scum like this guy.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 1, 2022)

Muppet said:


> What did the walk back sound like?
> 
> 2A was written for fucking scum like this guy.



Biden doesn’t support ban on all handgun sales, White House press secretary says

But it also doesn't help anyone when you say the lies so often you hope it becomes truth:

Biden keeps repeating false Second Amendment claim, despite repeated fact checks


----------



## Gunz (Jun 1, 2022)




----------



## Gunz (Jun 1, 2022)




----------



## Muppet (Jun 1, 2022)

Gunz said:


> View attachment 39568



Doesn't matter. Those Americans that are swayed by emotions and media, controlled by politicians will always look to suckle the teet of big government in their lives.

Liberals, leftists believe, no guns are needed in a civilized society. The police will protect you, except, when they don't.

Don't get me wrong, I know many great cops that would abide by the constitution and protect our citizens, but, event after event, some cops display otherwise.

At this point, we, the people that actually give a fuck for our country, our families, our children just need to not abide by unconstitutional and illegitimate "laws" and let the ilk get fucked by state and federal government. 

Yep, I said it. I stand by it, my stance will not change.


----------



## Grunt (Jun 1, 2022)

If the 2nd Amendment shall ever be messed with and watered down - then I SHALL be an outlaw....

It's just that simple for me....


----------



## Muppet (Jun 1, 2022)

Imagine if feds or cops were allowed into your home without a warrant. Or, no trial by jury, speedy trial, or, you're unable to practice religion of your choice, speak your mind (wait, that's happening).

What if, Americans were as concerned about 2A being a civil right just like 1A, 5A and others. 

To be honest, government won't take the guns. They'll peck and peck with illegitimate laws, small ones, followed by bigger, followed my additional events to solidify reasoning until a population bows.


----------



## “The Old Man” (Jun 1, 2022)

Training day at Ozark School Of Gunfighting back when it as a little cooler. Taught a Sheriff’s Dept. basic CUF (care under fire) class.


----------



## AWP (Jun 1, 2022)

Muppet said:


> Imagine if feds or cops were allowed into your home without a warrant. Or, no trial by jury, speedy trial, or, you're unable to practice religion of your choice, speak your mind (wait, that's happening).
> 
> What if, Americans were as concerned about 2A being a civil right just like 1A, 5A and others.
> 
> To be honest, government won't take the guns. They'll peck and peck with illegitimate laws, small ones, followed by bigger, followed my additional events to solidify reasoning until a population bows.



Considering that we (and I was among them) once thought the Patriot Act was the bees knees, where's our 4th Amendment now?

Lawmakers won't touch the Constitution, that's political suicide. They will instead legislate it into the ground and We the People will at times support the hell of it.


----------



## Muppet (Jun 1, 2022)

AWP said:


> Considering that we (and I was among them) once thought the Patriot Act was the bees knees, where's our 4th Amendment now?
> 
> Lawmakers won't touch the Constitution, that's political suicide. They will instead legislate it into the ground and We the People will at times support the hell of it.



My point exactly.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 1, 2022)

No one is coming to save you. It's all on you.


----------



## Bypass (Jun 2, 2022)

Funny how all this shit seems to happen at once to cover up other world events. The goal is to disarm and subjugate same as always.


----------



## AWP (Jun 2, 2022)

I'm feeling a little sporty and don't know how to shut my mouth, so I want to expand on an earlier comment I made. Love or hate the guy, I think Joe Rogan put it best back in 2013:

_"This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem"_

I'm 48. This shit wasn't a thing in the 80's/ early 90's when I went to school. During deer season half of the school had shotguns and rifles in their trucks. Fights weren't settled with guns or knives or bats or anything but one's fists. 

We’ve Known How To Prevent A School Shooting for More Than 20 Years

_“School shooters typically do this out of a profound adolescent crisis,” said James Garbarino, a professor of psychology at Loyola University Chicago who specializes in teen violence and began studying school shooters in the late 1990s._

The rest of the article discusses that point and those around school shootings, but the point remains...this is a mental health issue.

And if you think we don't, another little anecdote for everyone. This forum is well aware of the number of veteran suicides per day. What, you think they were distraught they couldn't buy Chik-Fil-A on a Sunday? No, we have a mental health crisis in the US. Crisis, and I say that without hyperbole. During the unspecificed virus of unknown origin global lockdown, expert after expert talked about the effects of the pandemic on everyone's mental state. Some will bounce back, but some won't. Now, go look at health coverage from the ACA or insurance from your job. Check out the mental health side. Mine pays for 6 visits. 6 hours of therapy to work out whatever is in my head. Same for you probably. Some plans might offer 10 visits, but if you have an excellent mental health program through your insurance you've hit the lottery.

Imagine a kid who has been abused, bullied, an outcast...do you think 6 hours of therapy is going to save them? That's a band-aid on a bullet hole. You have more physio visits covered to rehab a joint or muscle injury, but your brain? Nah, son. Good luck.

We have a mental health crisis in the US. School shootings are a symptom. Veteran suicides are a symptom. 

I'm tired of typing. You either learned something or you didn't. Just look out for each other and those around you.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 2, 2022)

Bypass said:


> Funny how all this shit seems to happen at once to cover up other world events. The goal is to disarm and subjugate same as always.



Can you explain this post?


----------



## Gunz (Jun 2, 2022)

I think most of the Western World is having a mental health crisis.


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 2, 2022)

AWP said:


> I'm feeling a little sporty and don't know how to shut my mouth, so I want to expand on an earlier comment I made. Love or hate the guy, I think Joe Rogan put it best back in 2013:
> 
> _"This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem"_
> 
> ...



Even in lovely Canuckistan it's the same.  Mental health is not covered by our glorious health care system.  Insurance treats it the same way as the US.  But here's a pro tip:  typically it's worded, so your provider can write it up and bill per "topic".  So 6 or 10 sessions for anxiety, another 6 or 10 for sleep, depression and so on.


----------



## Bypass (Jun 2, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> Can you explain this post?


No.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 2, 2022)

Bypass said:


> No.


Dude I don’t think that’s right.  

Staff or no staff, part of the success of this this board and what has helped bring highly intelligent, active duty members to participate here is that we have always been about transparency and backing up our posts, citing sources.   

If you throw insinuations out there without evidence and then ignore requests for comment, well…welcome to TwitterSpear, I guess. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Polar Bear (Jun 2, 2022)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Dude I don’t think that’s right.
> 
> Staff or no staff, part of the success of this this board and what has helped bring highly intelligent, active duty members to participate here is that we have always been about transparency and backing up our posts, citing sources.
> 
> If you throw insinuations out there without evidence and then ignore requests for comment, well…welcome to TwitterSpear, I guess. 🤷‍♂️


It is right on every level, you stated “highly intelligent“ people. If he has to explain it then they are not “highly intelligent“. His statement is straight forward. We are talking about Guns now, president on tv, while we have Ukraine, baby formula, the border, drugs all seem are now pushed to the side.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 2, 2022)

I disagree with the insinuation of his text, and I will explain myself.

It seems as if he’s insinuating there is some pseudo-government inciting all of this to distract the masses.

I refuse to believe that, maybe I’m the idiot.

If that was not his insinuation, then clarify instead of simply saying “no” when asked to.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 2, 2022)

Bypass said:


> No.



Cool. I’m going to go with you believing that the government or anti-gun folks or the demigorgon are paying for or orchestrating multiple mass shootings to distract us from gas prices, war, and how mean President Biden was to you. 



Polar Bear said:


> It is right on every level, you stated “highly intelligent“ people. If he has to explain it then they are not “highly intelligent“. His statement is straight forward. We are talking about Guns now, president on tv, while we have Ukraine, baby formula, the border, drugs all seem are now pushed to the side.



Cool. Same for you. 

It isn’t a strong logical leap from where you guys are to a pretty Alex jones take. I’ll just assume that is what you both think and move on. 

I think it is pretty weak to come on here, post something incendiary, be asked what you meant and just have a non-response.


----------



## Bypass (Jun 2, 2022)

Come on guys. You ever heard the saying wag the dog? (To* wag the dog means* to distract attention away from a political scandal, often through military action.) 

Since it is only a hypothesis/theory I will give you my take as an example. 

Letter agency takes the Uvalde shooters grandmother hostage and say's we will kill her if you don't do as we say. HERE broke kid take these two 2500 dollar Daniel Defense AR 15s and go to the local school and kill a bunch of kids and we will let your grams live. So one DD AR15 was left at the house with said letter agency who shoots gram in the face after broke kid who can't afford a 2500 dollar AR much less two 2500 dollar ARs leaves to do as he is told.

I'm curious since grams lived can she speak or will she die mysteriously.


----------



## Bypass (Jun 2, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> Cool. I’m going to go with you believing that the government or anti-gun folks or the demigorgon are paying for or orchestrating multiple mass shootings to distract us from gas prices, war, and how mean President Biden was to you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do what you feel you must but I still believe my OP needs no explanation.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 2, 2022)

Bypass said:


> Come on guys. You ever heard the saying wag the dog? (To* wag the dog means* to distract attention away from a political scandal, often through military action.)
> 
> Since it is only a hypothesis/theory I will give you my take as an example.
> 
> ...



Well at least we ruled out the demigorgon.


----------



## Bypass (Jun 2, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> Well at least we ruled out the demigorgon.


Not necessarily.


----------



## Bypass (Jun 2, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> Can you explain this post?


Also, if you want to control a society, they must lack the ability to fight your efforts to control them which is why the left is always harping gun control. I mean come on man they advocate killing babies in the womb do you really think they give a damn about your kids in grade school.

The left wants us all dead so they can have their utopia evident by gas prices through the roof and broken supply chains and no baby formula.

Let me check my watch while these bodies of Americans are offloaded coming home from Afghanistan. Hey Jill, can we go get an ice cream?


----------



## Bypass (Jun 2, 2022)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I disagree with the insinuation of his text, and I will explain myself.
> 
> It seems as if he’s insinuating there is some pseudo-government inciting all of this to distract the masses.
> 
> ...


Deep down you feel it in your gut and you know Jeffrey Epstein didn't hang himself either. But you know shit happens when you are on suicide watch in a cell designed for suicide watch and suddenly the cameras in and around that cell don't work.


----------



## Bypass (Jun 2, 2022)

Power........REAL power is a people and country united as one. The progressive left seeks to divide and conquer. CRT, racism, genderism, some other stupid fucking ism. Divide divide divide and keep the masses fighting each other while we find a way to disarm them so they can't fight US.

If I were planning to subjugate a population that is how I would go about it.

Not trying to insult you BUT'
Don't be naive.


----------



## Bypass (Jun 2, 2022)

"For the children."


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 2, 2022)

Bypass said:


> Deep down you feel it in your gut and you know Jeffrey Epstein didn't hang himself either.


There are a number of things that give me the feeling you are describing; I often wrestle with them.  Religion, aliens, and the illusion of currency among them.  Much past that and you are walking down a path I refuse to accept. Partially because I don’t want to believe it possible, but more so because I don’t believe “we” are capable of being as organized and efficient in pulling off these shadow-government missions as Alex Jones  would like to have us believe…the dude literally claimed the Sandy Hook massacre did not happen.  The Sandy Hook shooting and how conspiracy theories affect national security - "Intelligence Matters"

In regards to Epstein, I have no problem believing that he was murdered.  There are some seriously powerful men/women who did not want him talking; but that is a far cry from what you are preaching.  ie: organizing a school shooting so that there will be more pressure to ‘take our guns’.

Because as you say…


Bypass said:


> l. I mean come on man they advocate killing babies in the womb do you really think they give a damn about your kids in grade school.



Jesus, I can’t believe I just typed that.


----------



## CQB (Jun 3, 2022)

Weeell, I'm almost outta popcorn.


----------



## Bypass (Jun 3, 2022)

Ooh-Rah said:


> There are a number of things that give me the feeling you are describing; I often wrestle with them.  Religion, aliens, and the illusion of currency among them.  Much past that and you are walking down a path I refuse to accept. Partially because I don’t want to believe it possible, but more so because I don’t believe “we” are capable of being as organized and efficient in pulling off these shadow-government missions as Alex Jones  would like to have us believe…the dude literally claimed the Sandy Hook massacre did not happen.  The Sandy Hook shooting and how conspiracy theories affect national security - "Intelligence Matters"
> 
> In regards to Epstein, I have no problem believing that he was murdered.  There are some seriously powerful men/women who did not want him talking; but that is a far cry from what you are preaching.  ie: organizing a school shooting so that there will be more pressure to ‘take our guns’.
> 
> ...


You'll come around. I have faith. As bad as they are we are better.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 3, 2022)

CQB said:


> Weeell, I'm almost outta popcorn.



I mean our Queen is a lizard so...


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 3, 2022)

SpitfireV said:


> I mean our Queen is a lizard so...



Dude!  She is the Demogorgon...


----------



## Muppet (Jun 3, 2022)

I had to look up demogorgon. Lol


----------



## Gunz (Jun 3, 2022)

@Bypass confronts the Demigorgon


----------



## Bypass (Jun 4, 2022)

Gunz said:


> @Bypass confronts the Demigorgon
> 
> 
> View attachment 39587


That's funny right there.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 4, 2022)

Bypass said:


> That's funny right there.



Just kiddin you Brother. But the legend is that you have battled demigorgons at Waffle House at 0300.


----------



## Grunt (Jun 4, 2022)

Gunz said:


> Just kiddin you Brother. But the legend is that you have battled demigorgons at Waffle House at 0300.


Waffle House at 0300 is the civilian version of combat training....


----------



## Bypass (Jun 4, 2022)

Gunz said:


> Just kiddin you Brother. But the legend is that you have battled demigorgons at Waffle House at 0300.


Yep that was pretty methed up.


----------



## “The Old Man” (Jun 4, 2022)




----------



## “The Old Man” (Jun 4, 2022)

High caliber lung blower outers. Been needing me some of them there🤔🤔🤔


----------



## AWP (Jun 5, 2022)

I fired a lung blower once. Not my fault she was inhaling at the time.


----------



## Bypass (Jun 5, 2022)

At least 3 killed, 11 injured in shooting on Philadelphia's South Street


----------



## Grunt (Jun 5, 2022)

I've seen triple digit homicides and shootings with everything you can imagine. I have never seen a lung blown out by a 9mm. Hahahahaha...what a tool he is....


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 5, 2022)

Wow the last few pages of this thread really devolved...😆


----------



## “The Old Man” (Jun 5, 2022)

Bypass said:


> At least 3 killed, 11 injured in shooting on Philadelphia's South Street


@Muppet is right in the middle of that shit hole. Trying to get him to move out here to God’s country😀


----------



## Muppet (Jun 5, 2022)

Tinman6 said:


> @Muppet is right in the middle of that shit hole. Trying to get him to move out here to God’s country😀



Fucking cesspool. South Street ain't ghetto neither. All kinds of folks down there, clubs, cool eateries, near the river.

Oh, Philly. Where gun laws are strict and yet, cock roaches do dirt. Weird, how that happens. Hmmm...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 5, 2022)

Muppet said:


> Fucking cesspool. South Street ain't ghetto neither. All kinds of folks down there, clubs, cool eateries, near the river.
> 
> Oh, Philly. Where gun laws are strict and yet, cock roaches do dirt. Weird, how that happens. Hmmm...


A DA that cares more for Criminals than cops is part of it.


----------



## Muppet (Jun 5, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> A DA that cares more for Criminals than cops is part of it.



Yep, policemedic can elaborate.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 5, 2022)

Not trying to sound smart, but I take it these DA's live in gated off communities... where they don't have to live amongst the messes they make?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 5, 2022)

General observation. 
Kids from my teenager’s generation don’t give a shit about the Second Amendment. I would not be at all surprised if even 10 years from now the freedoms we hold dear, will become simple privileges for the few.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 5, 2022)

Ooh-Rah said:


> General observation.
> Kids from my teenager’s generation don’t give a shit about the Second Amendment. I would not be at all surprised if even 10 years from now the freedoms we hold dear, will become simple privileges for the few.


If that's truly the case, they deserved to be conquered and their weak bloodlines allowed to die out. Any man that doesn't prize freedom and the means to protect that freedom may as well be an emasculated mongrel.

Weak men make hard times.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 6, 2022)

Ooh-Rah said:


> General observation.
> Kids from my teenager’s generation don’t give a shit about the Second Amendment. I would not be at all surprised if even 10 years from now the freedoms we hold dear, will become simple privileges for the few.


I think that may be true to some degree. But to be fair, I didn't really put too much thought into the 2A when I was a teenager either. Even being brought up around guns and shooting, all I cared about was getting drunk and laid at that age. My 20 YO son does actually care more about the second amendment than I did at his age.


----------



## Bypass (Jun 6, 2022)

Man in Norway bow-and-arrow attack pleads guilty to murder​A man charged with killing five people and wounding four others in southern Norway when he attacked strangers with a bow and arrows and knives has pleaded guilty to murder and attempted murder





 abcnews.go.com


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 9, 2022)

Nothing like rushing through legislation with an intent to usurp peoples rights.  Guess I need to go buy a ton of standard capacity magazines.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534879994530480128


----------



## Muppet (Jun 9, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> Nothing like rushing through legislation with an intent to usurp peoples rights.  Guess I need to go buy a ton of standard capacity magazines.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534879994530480128



And the ilk that are emotional, useful idiots buy into it. Nothing like applauding the destruction of civil rights.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 9, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> Nothing like rushing through legislation with an intent to usurp peoples rights.  Guess I need to go buy a ton of standard capacity magazines.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534879994530480128



The "high capacity" wording in the bill is in there to make the bill unpalatable to center left Dems and the whole GOP. The party heads get to say "we tried!" but they don't actually have to change anything. 

It's purely political theater.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 9, 2022)

Ooh-Rah said:


> General observation.
> Kids from my teenager’s generation don’t give a shit about the Second Amendment. I would not be at all surprised if even 10 years from now the freedoms we hold dear, will become simple privileges for the few.


I've said it before on this board and I'll say it again; the right wing answer of "any laws on guns are infringement" is going to be what causes a total ban in this country.

Mass killings can happen anywhere and with anything, like that bow attack in Norway shows.

But the severity and commonality of mass deaths by shootings are a purely American problem.

The younger generations aren't stupid. They can look at every other country that has tighter restrictions and see how fucked up we are. They can see that the GOP response of "we need to fix mental health" doesn't hold water for a party that consistently votes against access to that health care. They can see that the idea of "give teachers guns" doesn't make sense in an already stressful and underpaid profession.

I'm not saying that the DNC is right to try and reenact a ban (they aren't), but I am saying that there is only one party that actually seems to be trying to fix the issue. That's a problem.

If you don't try to fix the issue and maintain the right to bear arms, you'll lose that right.
For all the people bitching about "liberals trying to disarm us", you're going to bring it upon yourself in some weird self-fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 9, 2022)

I understand not a lot of love in the senate for the house bill.  We'll see.

What's painfully funny is, there is not a single thing in that bill that actually does anything tangible except to provide a soundbite.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 9, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> I understand not a lot of love in the senate for the house bill.  We'll see.
> 
> What's painfully funny is, there is not a single thing in that bill that actually does anything tangible except to provide a soundbite.


The closest thing to useful in that bill was a incentive (tax break, I think) for gun safes/storage. There was also something about guidelines for extreme risk red flag laws, but I haven't read it yet to see it was written in an acceptable way or not.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 9, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> I've said it before on this board and I'll say it again; the right wing answer of "any laws on guns are infringement" is going to be what causes a total ban in this country.
> 
> Mass killings can happen anywhere and with anything, like that bow attack in Norway shows.
> 
> ...



Hahahahaha.  Ever been to a Banelieue? What is the issue to fix?  That people aren't educated on the value of life? 

There's an entire section on 9 News in Australia about stabbings: Stabbing - 9News - Latest news and headlines from Australia and the world


----------



## Topkick (Jun 9, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> If you don't try to fix the issue and maintain the right to bear arms, you'll lose that right.


The view from most gun owners is that if you allow the rights to erode, you'll also lose that right.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 9, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> Hahahahaha.  Ever been to a Banelieue? What is the issue to fix?  That people aren't educated on the value of life?
> 
> There's an entire section on 9 News in Australia about stabbings: Stabbing - 9News - Latest news and headlines from Australia and the world


Did you miss the entire part where I said violent crimes still happen everywhere, but shootings are a mostly American thing? And that it's this fixation on ignoring the actual issue is what's going to cause a loss of the right to bear arms?

You're literally being an example of missing the point when you go "but Australia has stabbings!!!"



Topkick said:


> the view from gun owners is If you allow the rights to erode, you'll also lose that right.


Every single Constitutional right has limitations, whether we agree with them or not.

If those who support the right to bear arms refuse to be part of the conversation on what acceptable limitations are, don't be surprised when the people who don't give a shit about the 2A are the ones that win in the long run. The time of saying "all legislation is unconstitutional" is fading away.
The only people I see talking about gun regulations that maintain the right to bear arms are leftists. I'm not talking ANTIFA soy boys, Latte liberals, or college socialists when I use that term btw, I mean more anarcho-left/social libertarian types.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 9, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> don't be surprised when the people who don't give a shit about the 2A are the ones that win in the long run.


Your point is valid and that may be how it ends. I just disagree that giving into "sensible gun laws" is going to help maintain your right to own a firearm in the long run. Take a look around the world.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 9, 2022)

R.Caerbannog said:


> If that's truly the case, they deserved to be conquered and their weak bloodlines allowed to die out. An man that doesn't prize freedom and the means to protect that freedom may as well be an emasculated mongrel.
> 
> Weak men make hard times.


Responses like this are why I can never take your posts seriously; they are always so full of rhetoric I can never tell what you mean literally versus trying to make a point.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 9, 2022)

There are IDK 300,000,000+ guns in America. So weirdos getting hold of one and killing a couple of dozen people is, sadly, inevitable. The sheer number of guns precludes confiscation. Outright banning would be strongly resisted and given the number of legit gun owners would never pass.

Having said that, some restrictions make sense.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 9, 2022)

Topkick said:


> Your point is valid and that may be how it ends. I just disagree that giving into "sensible gun laws" is going to help maintain your right to own a firearm in the long run. Take a look around the world.



I think it's important to clarify what a "sensible" gun law is. Is it a law that says you can no longer own 30 round magazines, or is it a law that says someone convicted of a violent/relationship crime (assault, cruelty to animals, stalking) is banned from purchasing firearms for x number of years?

One of those laws does nothing to actually attack gun violence; the other directly targets personal behaviors that are common in perpetrators of such attacks.



Gunz said:


> There are IDK 300,000,000+ guns in America. So weirdos getting hold of one and killing a couple of dozen people is, sadly, inevitable. The sheer number of guns precludes confiscation. Outright banning would be strongly resisted and given the number of legit gun owners would never pass.
> 
> Having said that, some restrictions make sense.



There was a leftist (anarcho) youtuber I watch who explained how stupid confiscation was.
His question was:

 "If you took a gun off the street every minute starting today, and a child born today lived to be 100, how old would their headstone be when the last gun was recovered?"

I think the answer was 500 years old for the headstone.


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 9, 2022)

Canada has some of the toughest gun laws in the world and you know what, shit still happens.   Do you know the common denominator in all of these mass killings, guns or bows or vans?  Lack of effective police response and family/friends/teachers/mental health professionals; all fail to acknowledge there's a problem and do something about it.  What is happening among the vocal left in the US and Canada, is to slowly chip away at ownership; until there's nothing to own.  Canada is proof.  They just "froze" sales of handguns based off of an American shooting.  At the same time they reduce sentences and allowed house arrest for gun related crimes because of systematic racism.  Maybe if they actually did the hard work in communities significantly affected by gun crime, mostly gang related.


----------



## SOSTCRNA (Jun 9, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> I've said it before on this board and I'll say it again; the right wing answer of "any laws on guns are infringement" is going to be what causes a total ban in this country.
> 
> Mass killings can happen anywhere and with anything, like that bow attack in Norway shows.
> 
> ...


So give up our rights to save our rights…got it.

Now I’m for more money for police training and school security etc but I’m hard line no on giving any ground to the socialist gun grabbers.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 9, 2022)

SOSTCRNA said:


> So give up our rights to save our rights…got it.
> 
> Now I’m for more money for police training and school security etc but I’m hard line no on giving any ground to the socialist gun grabbers.


Right. More money for training to the police forces that are happy to do "Warrior Mindset" training with Rex Grossman but routinely seem to fail to engage shooters.
Or increasing school security which does nothing to address the actual shootings.

You talking about "socialist gun grabbers" kinda demonstrates the overall lack of nuance people have with this issue. The liberal side of that is the whole "AR-15s explode bodies and 9mm explodes lungs!!" statement.

There are a decent number of proposals that would work against gun violence without giving up any right to arms, but how will that ever happen if the only people who care about the 2A are either unable to think of solutions or unwillingly to work with them?


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 9, 2022)

Here, I'll give a number of examples that are being voiced by "socialists and leftists"

*Solutions that focus on behavior or personal actions:*

-Raise age to 21 (not a fan of this)

-Expand Lautenberg Ammendment to include crimes against romantic partners (IE the boyfriend loophole)

-Temporary prohibition on owning or possessing firearms for those charged with assault, stalking, or animal cruelty. (All of those are markers for perpetrators)

-Expand red flag laws. They need to be written so that they are temporary holds (no greater than 7 days) and do not allow for asset forfeiture.

*Solutions that focus on societal changes:*

-Ban firearm advertising tied to military/military imagery (cultural shift around weapons)

-Provide basic weapons training to civilians. A commonly suggeted way to do this is to use the National Guard (through AGR/technician jobs) to conduct the training.

-Expand mental health access. Medicare for all/single payer option.

-Actually invest in social services in schools. Counselors/psychiatrists are more helpful than resource officers.


Not a single one of those suggestions limits ownership, weapons availability, or taxes anything more than it already is.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 9, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> Right. More money for training to the police forces that are happy to do "Warrior Mindset" training with Rex Grossman but routinely seem to fail to engage shooters.
> Or increasing school security which does nothing to address the actual shootings.
> 
> You talking about "socialist gun grabbers" kinda demonstrates the overall lack of nuance people have with this issue. The liberal side of that is the whole "AR-15s explode bodies and 9mm explodes lungs!!" statement.
> ...


Rex Grossman would like an apology:


----------



## SOSTCRNA (Jun 9, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> Right. More money for training to the police forces that are happy to do "Warrior Mindset" training with Rex Grossman but routinely seem to fail to engage shooters.
> Or increasing school security which does nothing to address the actual shootings.
> 
> You talking about "socialist gun grabbers" kinda demonstrates the overall lack of nuance people have with this issue. The liberal side of that is the whole "AR-15s explode bodies and 9mm explodes lungs!!" statement.
> ...


So abolish the police?  Leave the schools exposed?  Talk about a lack of nuance. 

And as for my stance on gun control, there is no nuance intended.  The answer is HELL NO


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 9, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> Right. More money for training to the police forces that are happy to do "Warrior Mindset" training with Rex Grossman but routinely seem to fail to engage shooters.
> Or increasing school security which does nothing to address the actual shootings.
> 
> You talking about "socialist gun grabbers" kinda demonstrates the overall lack of nuance people have with this issue. The liberal side of that is the whole "AR-15s explode bodies and 9mm explodes lungs!!" statement.
> ...



Do you actually think any of these are solutions.  On Lautenberg Amendment, if you're convicted of DV, you're convicted of DV.  It doesn't matter if it's a boyfriend or a husband or a girlfriend, this is already covered.  Saying it isn't is ballshoi.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 9, 2022)

SOSTCRNA said:


> So abolish the police?  Leave the schools exposed?  Talk about a lack of nuance.
> 
> And as for my stance on gun control, there is no nuance intended.  The answer is HELL NO


Cool. I dont think I ever said abolish the police, or that school security is a bad thing. 

I just highlighted how both of those options don't do shit to actually address the issue.

Explain where any of those things I posted are "gun control".

You're "hell no!!!!" Attitude is why in 50 years we're going to be in danger of actually losing our rights. 



ThunderHorse said:


> Do you actually think any of these are solutions.  On Lautenberg Amendment, if you're convicted of DV, you're convicted of DV.  It doesn't matter if it's a boyfriend or a husband or a girlfriend, this is already covered.  Saying it isn't is ballshoi.


That's not how the text of the law works, as it only applies to:


> a *current / former spouse, a parent or guardian, or against a close family member* with whom the victim is living or has lived in the past.



Unless you're thinking of felony convictions, in which case they do. I'm specifically talking about the wording of misdemeanor charges only applying in the above circumstances.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 9, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> You talking about "socialist gun grabbers" kinda demonstrates the overall lack of nuance people have with this issue


Losing those rights are black and white. I don't see a lack of understanding here. If we ever give up any rights, we likely don't get them back. Where does it end? I do not have enough trust in politicians to decide what's best for everyone.

I do agree with you in that I do think its possible that progressiveness, indoctrination, or whatever you wanna call it will change that nation's overall attitude and we could eventually lose this battle. Bottom line though, its not responsible gun owners shooting up schools. So, is taking measures against us really the solution to the problem? I don't see how banning a 30 round mag will change anything. Bad people don't play by rules.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 10, 2022)

Ooh-Rah said:


> General observation.
> Kids from my teenager’s generation don’t give a shit about the Second Amendment. *I would not be at all surprised if even 10 years from now the freedoms we hold dear, will become simple privileges for the few.*





Ooh-Rah said:


> Responses like this are why I can never take your posts seriously; they are always so full of rhetoric I can never tell what you mean literally versus trying to make a point.


Just trying to keep the demoralization in check. Especially when someone opines that we're gonna be serfs in 10 years. 

Hard pass, eh.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 10, 2022)

Any ot you all ever thought fuck it? Let them write whatever laws they do.... I just ain't gonna follow them? Yes it's dumb, yes it's bullshit.  Guess what? Titties are nice, as well as other things... 

The outrage!


----------



## Topkick (Jun 10, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> You're "hell no!!!!" Attitude is why in 50 years we're going to be in danger of actually losing our rights.


I personally don't think most virtue signaling politicians are worried about your safety. Its all about who controls the narrative in order to stay in power. For example, bashing responsible gunowners as right wing crazies when they are not the people committing the crimes. The NRA has ensured the right controls the narrative, but that seems to be changing due to piss poor leadership from within. That's another discussion.


----------



## Jaknight (Jun 10, 2022)

My question is what is it gonna take to make the gun control crowd feel safe enough that they stop going after guns? If we give them what they want bans on “assault” rifles, universal background checks, red flag laws and mag limits. What happens if even after, that some idiot goes crazy and shoots people this time with handguns or a rifle. Are the Gun Grabbing crowd gonna blame something else other than guns or are they going to demand more restrictions? My bet is on the latter


----------



## Topkick (Jun 10, 2022)

Jaknight said:


> My question is what is it gonna take to make the gun control crowd feel safe enough that they stop going after guns? If we give them what they want bans on “assault” rifles, universal background checks, red flag laws and mag limits. What happens if even after, that some idiot goes crazy and shoots people this time with handguns or a rifle. Are the Gun Grabbing crowd gonna blame something else other than guns or are they going to demand more restrictions? My bet is on the latter


Despite the current "we're not trying to take your guns" rhetoric, I think many people truly would like to disarm the populace. But you have to ease into that, right? Columbine took place in 1999 during Clinton's Armalite Rifle ban. The shooters were able to get the guns & ammo they used, regardless of the restrictions placed on the population. No new gun laws will stop this from happening. Too many guns out there and bad people don't play by the rules.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 10, 2022)

393,347,000 estimated guns in civilian ownership in the US, according to Wikipedia. Any serious gun-banner looking at that number is going to realize the futility of any hard-line control effort like confiscation, banning or outlawing. They are reduced to nibbling away at specifics, like pistol grips, high-cap mags etc.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 10, 2022)

My issues with red flag: prior to these laws, if someone is deemed dangerous and/or incompetent, the state appoints an attorney, and the state bears the cost.  Under red flag, if I am right, they do neither.  So someone says Devildoc is a danger, they come and take my guns.  Now I have to hire an attorney and I pay all court costs to prove that I am not a danger.  Oh, and I might not get my guns back.

There's a legal debate that they are unconstitutional (eliminates due process), of which I agree.  

I absolutely agree that we need to open up mental health resources and push resources back into the schools and communities.

Raising the age to 21?  Fine.  Then do the same for voting, smoking, and joining the military.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 10, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> My issues with red flag: prior to these laws, if someone is deemed dangerous and/or incompetent, the state appoints an attorney, and the state bears the cost.  Under red flag, if I am right, they do neither.  So someone says Devildoc is a danger, they come and take my guns.  Now I have to hire an attorney and I pay all court costs to prove that I am not a danger.  Oh, and I might not get my guns back.
> 
> There's a legal debate that they are unconstitutional (eliminates due process), of which I agree.
> 
> ...


I think the Red flag law will be used as a weapon against undeserving people in some cases.


----------



## AWP (Jun 10, 2022)

Red flag laws...supporting those is the antithesis of being an American. 

RE: "common sense" gun control. Yeah, nah. The gov't doesn't willingly give up something once taken from you.

There are two sides to this problem and two sides to the solution and those sides are the pro- and anti-gun lobbies. I do not like the NRA for a few reasons, but that's not the focus. As the largest, most vocal, pro-2A organization with deep pockets, it really needs to pull its head out of its ass. "Good guy with a gun" is a viable argument, but too heavily pitched. Video game violence...just shut up with that noise. Armed teachers, that's a bad idea. We're going to arm teachers and give them a half-assed qualification course to shoot in situations that elite units train for almost daily? Our own police can barely qualify and have a history of doing nothing during school shootings, so that Masters of Ed. holding algebra teacher is gonna' slay out like Rambo? The NRA can do better.

And the "gun grabbers" out there hold the emotional and thus the media high ground. They make for great, passionate sound bites that stir up a semi-educated, mouth-breathing social media lynch mob. Taking weapons from Americans won't solve the problem with gun violence in America. Cities with some of the most restrictive gun laws have some of the highest murder rates in the country (if not THE highest). We have about 120 civilian guns per 100 people in the US, a total as mentioned earlier of about 393,347,000. The only way you're going to make a dent in those numbers is through confiscation. Wait...

There are a plenty of solutions out there that will not affect gun owners one bit *and *that will reduce gun violence in the nation as a whole, not just "for the children." "They're slaughtering our babiezzzz!!!!" Shit, I slaughtered a bunch on your mom's back, but who is arresting me?

The NRA needs to pull the stick out of its ass and the gun control lobby needs to understand violence in America isn't about guns.

But those don't make for good sound bites or campaign contributions. Money and power...


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 10, 2022)

To the people saying the government never gives back rights and what not. They kinda did with the assault weapons ban right? We didn’t turn into a communist hellscape during that time? There are more AR’s in circulation than before? 

I’m not debating the merits of the AWB. It didn’t really do anything. But they took away “rights” and we have them again right?


----------



## Muppet (Jun 10, 2022)

AWP said:


> Red flag laws...supporting those is the antithesis of being an American.
> 
> RE: "common sense" gun control. Yeah, nah. The gov't doesn't willingly give up something once taken from you.
> 
> ...



You, complete me....


----------



## Topkick (Jun 10, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> To the people saying the government never gives back rights and what not. They kinda did with the assault weapons ban right? We didn’t turn into a communist hellscape during that time? There are more AR’s in circulation than before?
> 
> I’m not debating the merits of the AWB. It didn’t really do anything. But they took away “rights” and we have them again right?


Yes, but there was a sunset on that ban.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 10, 2022)

Gun debate summary:  ;)

Bei Facebook anmelden


----------



## Gunz (Jun 10, 2022)

AWP said:


> Red flag laws...supporting those is the antithesis of being an American.
> 
> RE: "common sense" gun control. Yeah, nah. The gov't doesn't willingly give up something once taken from you.
> 
> ...



Awesome post. 

And Wayne LaPierre is a fucking ghoul.


----------



## MIkeH92467 (Jun 10, 2022)

One of the things that gets lost is that from state to state "gun culture" means different things. Here in Idaho, just about everyone who grew up  here has been around guns all their lives, knows how to use them, knows how to maintain them and knows how to use them. Very different from Florida where most of the above is not true. There's an awful lot of yahoos in Florida who probably went to the Barney Fife school of firearms. I do wonder when I'm back in Florida if there's not some idiot out there waiting for an excuse to prove their manhood by whipping out their weapon and putting everyone at risk, because they don't know WTF they're doing and might jack off a round in the process. Idaho is experiencing a high rate of immigration from other states, so our "gun culture" may change, but I hope not.


----------



## SOSTCRNA (Jun 10, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> Cool. I dont think I ever said abolish the police, or that school security is a bad thing.
> 
> I just highlighted how both of those options don't do shit to actually address the issue.
> 
> ...


That makes Zero sense. The ONLY reason the gun grabbing leftists and their RINO enablers havent succeeded more than they have is our uncompromising stance on the 2nd Amendment. Giving little victories to biden, schumer, and pelosi only emboldens them.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 10, 2022)

SOSTCRNA said:


> That makes Zero sense. The ONLY reason the gun grabbing leftists and their RINO enablers havent succeeded more than they have is our uncompromising stance on the 2nd Amendment. Giving little victories to biden, schumer, and pelosi only emboldens them.



Did you actually look at anything I posted? Tell me what rights are being violated.

Here, I'll quote it for you since you haven't addressed it.



Cookie_ said:


> Here, I'll give a number of examples that are being voiced by "socialists and leftists"
> 
> *Solutions that focus on behavior or personal actions:*
> 
> ...



What are right wing solutions that tackle this problem?

Please, give me some. You can scream "No" all you want at the sky, but if you can't find anything more than that you're ensuring you'll lose those rights.

If you refuse to engage in developing solutions that maintain your rights, you ensure you'll lose those rights because of people who don't give a fuck about them.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 10, 2022)

I have complicated thoughts on this issue. I am a firearm owner. I try to stay out of this discussion and see what people say because, honestly, I don’t want to see anymore mass shootings. But I also believe the 2A is important. 

I think the most pro 2A people could learn a lesson or two in empathy. Immediately after a shooting maybe just shut the fuck up. Let a news cycle elapse and then go on. All the noise immediately post children getting murdered makes people look calloused, indifferent, and tone deaf. 

Let your special interest groups lobby. Going on social media and what not and being like “idgaf about those kids, I want an AR-15, high capacity magazines and body armor even though I can’t sprint 15 yards” makes you look like the neck beard fool you are. Be a fucking human being for a day or two. Jesus.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 10, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> Let a news cycle elapse and then go on.


I think this is defensive. My perception is that the anti -gunners immediately start attacking the 2A with "nobody needs an Assault Rifle". They jump right into talking about  changing laws for the people who would never commit the crime. If you are a law abiding citizen who owns an Armalite Rifle, you get defensive. How about talking about addressing mental health and roping in people who state on social media that they are planning to shoot up a school...before they actually do?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 10, 2022)

I don't think anyone wants mass shootings. Anyone who does, is obviously retarded. The overall problem, IMHO, is that people want to blame a firearm for a crazy person's actions. And until people accept that fact, we will continue to have a stupid argument.

"Hey I don't think you are sane enough to own a firearm, so were gonna restrict your right to have self protection"

Sounds great in theory,  until everyone who doesn't agree with your personal view is unarmed, but yet you and everyone who thinks like you do are still armed...

But I will say, in my older "don't fucking care anymore" age... pass whatever laws you want, I will pick and choose whichever I will follow. Funny how you reach a point in life, when all opinions don't mean fuck-all unless you are willing to put your life behind it. Most won't, the few that will, probably ain't too worried what firearm I have or how I procured it.

$.02


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 10, 2022)

Topkick said:


> I think this is defensive. My perception is that the anti -gunners immediately start attacking the 2A with "nobody needs an Assault Rifle". They jump right into talking about  changing laws for the people who would never commit the crime. If you are a law abiding citizen who owns an Armalite Rifle, you get defensive. How about talking about addressing mental health and roping in people who state on social media that they are planning to shoot up a school...before they actually do?



Like I said I’m not going to go into this discussion too much. 

Some thoughts:

Are you willing to raise local taxes to “address mental health?”

Are you willing to nationalize healthcare to “address mental health?”

Are you willing to do anything to “address mental health?”


----------



## Topkick (Jun 10, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> I said I’m not going to go into this discussion too much.


Understandable. Both points of view are well known and both have legitimacy.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 10, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> Like I said I’m not going to go into this discussion too much.
> 
> Some thoughts:
> 
> ...



I watched a video, about however many billion we gave to Ukraine,  could've put a SWAT team in every school, or some shit. Obviously sounds great as an argument.  🙄 

We don't always agree, but 100% both sides of the argument need to STFU and "need" to address the mental illness problems within our nation. Not even getting into the mass shooting, SWAT'ing, bookface live killing people culture.  How about we address every bit of the cultural impact of technology,  morality change and social acceptable behavioral problems of today.


But I digress,  spend the money on figuring out how we move forward as a society, or just pile on more laws and rules and watch us all break them? 🤷‍♂️🙄


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 10, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> Like I said I’m not going to go into this discussion too much.
> 
> Some thoughts:
> 
> ...



Crazy talk!  Canada pays lip service to that, mental health is the least funded part of health care; across the board.  And mostly hires, equally as ill staff.  
For rational people like yourself, it only makes sense but those actually defining policy on the left have only one goal; a disarmed society.  Even if it's by a thousand cuts.  That is very apparent here in Canada.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 10, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> Crazy talk!  Canada pays lip service to that, mental health is the least funded part of health care; across the board.  And mostly hires, equally as ill staff.
> For rational people like yourself, it only makes sense but those actually defining policy on the left have only one goal; a disarmed society.  Even if it's by a thousand cuts.  That is very apparent here in Canada.



Respectfully, and in all seriousness. Canada is not the US.

No version of our country is comparable to yours.

Our healthcare system is nothing like yours.

Our gun policy is nothing like yours.

Our mental health services are nothing like yours.

Our gun laws would need a million cuts to get started on where yours are.

The left is a broad generic term that doesn’t mean the same thing anywhere, or to any two people.

And though we live literally across an imaginary line from you, you have almost no mass shootings comparatively to us, even when accounting for population.(so maybe we should be a little more like you;))


----------



## 81FO (Jun 10, 2022)

I do not typically comment , only read & process , but on this I feel some key points are being omitted from the "debate" ....

No legislation put forth by "congress" has stopped any criminal activity ever. Case in point, the war on drugs was/is an unmitigated disaster, so they've all but given up. 

Offer , solutions ?  There is no fix all solution, because no one can legislate "safety" !  Stopping evil from acting out is a zero sum game. If some recall back in 2012, in this very thread it was pointed out that in china there had been several school stabbings. Recently there was a mass casualty incident where a bow & arrow was used .... just like "9/11" & IEDs the terrorist only has to get it right once.

The Bill of Rights is , contrary to recent statements, Absolute! It codified The Rights of "We the People" , and it expressly restricts government, Not T"The People", which is blantly clear in the correspondence found in the Federalist & Anti- Federalist Papers. 

Any "solutions" must be left to the local & state level of government, not Wash. DC

As for the mental health angle, no ground will be gained on that front until key research is acknowledged and factored into a "solution". Until expanded use of mind-meds , media sensationalism , destruction of historical social norms etc.... are dealt with, we're just spinning a hamster wheel.

I know the despair & anguish of burying a young child , albeit not from a mass shooting , but from someone else's negligence. It is the indiviidual who did the evil not the tool. Life is risky ! I am not advocating a "do nothing" approach, instead a "don't do too much". 

Wash. DC is corrupt , out of touch , not representative of the Nation and therefore broken. Congress , nor the White House can fix "it". Hell, they don't want to, it is just another political "tragedy" strategy to distract from the broken political , economic & social systems of today.


----------



## AWP (Jun 11, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> Like I said I’m not going to go into this discussion too much.
> 
> Some thoughts:
> 
> ...



I am, but I want to see a plan first. I don't want to see a pork-filled bloated disaster. We're wiping student debt left and right, what if we wiped a person's debt in exchange for them becoming a psychologist? Or scholarships for students to choose that path initially instead of art history or some such nonsense?

There has to be a better way and we need to be honest: tangible results will take a generation or two. Stripping away the rights of our citizens is not the answer, but maintaining the status quo is also not the answer.


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 12, 2022)

Looks like there's new laws passing the Senate with Republican support. 

Gun reform deal reached by U.S. senators with key Republican backing


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 12, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> Looks like there's new laws passing the Senate with Republican support.
> 
> Gun reform deal reached by U.S. senators with key Republican backing



It's really nothing more than words. They have agreed to agree on a framework. We will see what happens when they try to hammer out actual legislation.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 12, 2022)

I can't believe we are almost to a point  where your pissed off wife or other family member may be able take your firearms away.


----------



## AWP (Jun 12, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> It's really nothing more than words. They have agreed to agree on a framework. We will see what happens when they try to hammer out actual legislation.



Yeah, they agreed to negotiate a land buy. Maybe that's everything west of the Mississippi, maybe it is a lot in the Fuckoff Lakes HOA suburb or maybe it is...just a great ploy for points in the media.

It means nothing to anyone who knows something.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 12, 2022)

For the board. It's funny how some of the biggest proponents of gun control and handwringers are acting like there aren't a shitload of laws already on the books. If the current rules aren't enforced, there is no point for new rules. If you want a good example of this, look at the case involving Biden's crackhead son and his illegal possession of a firearm.

Also, some of y'all have either forgotten or were never exposed to the lessons learned in the GWOT, when we disarmed civilians and left them to the tender mercies of outside forces. Cause I distinctly remember the sectarian violence that gripped my sector and how the civies we disarmed ended up being fucked, when the sectarian death squads showed up. The civies that held on to their guns, held out.

If that isn't enough, look at what happened to the unarmed Iraqi civie populations when ISIS formed. Maybe look at what's happened to the unarmed Afghans now that the Taliban has taken over. What we're seeing right now isn't about safety it's about control. If you give up any control over your right to self defense, or let lesser men delegate those rights to you, you are giving up your right to autonomy.

I swear... a chunk of our population is weak, demoralized, or so ignorant of history, that they fall for the dumbest shit put up by the psychopaths and sociopaths in DC and the MSM. 

TLDR: No one is coming to save you. It's all on you. 



Topkick said:


> I can't believe we are almost to a point  where your pissed off wife or other family member may be able take your firearms away.


Agree. Though in certain parts of the US that's already a reality, CA, NJ, CO, NC, to name a few. 

I honestly think we are close to the point where the weakness in our population is either gonna be crushed or conditions will deteriorate that they will wish they had been. The world is poised for a bloodletting and I think we're no exception.


----------



## Kaldak (Jun 12, 2022)

R.Caerbannog said:


> For the board. It's funny how some of the biggest proponents of gun control and handwringers are acting like there aren't a shitload of laws already on the books. If the current rules aren't enforced, there is no point for new rules. If you want a good example of this, look at the case involving Biden's crackhead son and his illegal possession of a firearm.
> 
> Also, some of y'all have either forgotten or were never exposed to the lessons learned in the GWOT, when we disarmed civilians and left them to the tender mercies of outside forces. Cause I distinctly remember the sectarian violence that gripped my sector and how the civies we disarmed ended up being fucked, when the sectarian death squads showed up. The civies that held on to their guns, held out.
> 
> ...



This makes zero sense. How can you even begin to compare the US of A to Iraq? Oh, wait, you can't. Make a defensible argument, not some outlandish nonsensical storyline.

Thank you, and have a good week.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 12, 2022)

Kaldak said:


> This makes zero sense. How can you even begin to compare the US of A to Iraq? Oh, wait, you can't. Make a defensible argument, not some outlandish nonsensical storyline.
> 
> Thank you, and have a good week.


Sounds you grew up on the nice side of the tracks and never had to deal with crime, gangs, or neighborhood strong men. The veneer of civilization is much thinner than you think.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 13, 2022)

One of the biggest problems with "common sense gun laws" is that when taken to its logical extreme, it is "common sense" to proponents of such policy that no private person should own a firearm, or at least no firearms that are particularly useful in preserving a free state (e.g. they only want to let you have a double-barrel shotgun). 

The problem with universal registration is that whenever the government decides that "you don't need" X weapon, they have a list and even if they do not (immediately) send armed men to your house to confiscate them from you, you are now a criminal for simply possessing them.

I'm OK in principle with background checks, even for private party sales.    Yes I realize that this is a form of de facto registry (you know who has guns, even if you don't know what guns they have).

If "common sense" proponents really believed in compromise and in commo sense laws, the first thing they would do is implement a CCW that is recognized nationwide for both purchasing and carrying firearms in public, just like drivers' licenses and marriage certificates.  After all, it's common sense...


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 13, 2022)

"Common sense" is a buzz word, just like "assault weapon".  But "common sense" is used as a weapon itself, purposefully, to insinuate that anyone not for a given policy lacks common sense.  Kinda like "it's for the children."


----------



## AWP (Jun 13, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> "it's for the children."



I go into low earth orbit whenever that phrase is used to justify....well, anything. It is such bullshit.


----------



## Bypass (Jun 16, 2022)

BREAKING: Biden Administration Moves to Cut Off Lake City .223/5.56 Ammo From the Commercial Market - The Truth About Guns​&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ Apparently not content with its efforts so far to make gun ownership more difficult and expensive for America’s 100 million firearm owners, a source tells TTAG that the Biden administration is taking steps to reduce the availability of .223/5.56 ammunition...
www.thetruthaboutguns.com


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 21, 2022)

The hand picked by Trudeau, RCMP Commissioner, interfered with the investigation into the the largest mass shooting in Canadian history.  While the shooter was still out there.  In order to help Trudeau and his BS gun control, banning "assault type" firearms. 

RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki tried to 'jeopardize' mass murder investigation to advance Trudeau’s gun control efforts


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 22, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> The hand picked by Trudeau, RCMP Commissioner, interfered with the investigation into the the largest mass shooting in Canadian history.  While the shooter was still out there.  In order to help Trudeau and his BS gun control, banning "assault type" firearms.
> 
> RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki tried to 'jeopardize' mass murder investigation to advance Trudeau’s gun control efforts


Makes sense, these people want us disarmed and at their mercy. I can't imagine the indignities these cockroaches have planned for us, considering the way they treat the common man now.

As an aside, regarding the Uvalde shooting looks like they police interfered with people trying to save their kids. In one case they even detained and arrested a fellow traveler who wanted to go save his wife.


> *UVALDE, Texas* – Shocking testimony from the Texas DPS director on Tuesday has revealed even more insight into the “abject failure” of response to the Uvalde shooting that occurred on May 24.
> 
> Texas Department of Public Safety Director Col. Steven McCraw revealed that the husband of slain elementary teacher Eva Mireles tried to save her but was barred from doing so.
> 
> ...


Officer husband of slain Uvalde teacher was detained, had gun taken away after trying to save wife

To reiterate to the board and anyone reading. At the end of the day your safety is on you. No is gonna come save you and in some cases the people charged with saving you will hinder incoming help. It's all on you.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 23, 2022)

Hot off the press.  Good to see, but really, should not come as a surprise.

Supreme Court shoots down NY rule that set high bar for concealed handgun licenses


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 23, 2022)

Just read that and was coming to post.  Nice to see a win.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 23, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> Just read that and was coming to post.  Nice to see a win.



It is, but my magic 8-ball is telling me now New York will be so onerous in their application process and be on juuuust this side of unconstitutional.  Something stupid like a $1,000 app fee, 50 hours of training, etc.  It's a win, but I think the battle is just beginning.


----------



## Muppet (Jun 23, 2022)

A fucking shame 2A is constantly aborted. Imagine if the state or feds can just come into your home to take your property/papers.

Imagine if no lawyers allowed for trials, if you were allowed to be drawn and quartered instead of being fairly treated? Imagine if your trial was a kangaroo court that lasted forever?

The anti gun nuts and feds would be crying, bitching, calling for change. 2A, fuck it. Abort it. Emotions. Let the government have monopoly on arms and security.

Hypocrisy if you ask me. Maybe, we take the politicians security away, let the fuckers fend for themselves while attempting to take their civil rights away, based on skewed emotions or plain control.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 23, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> It is, but my magic 8-ball is telling me now New York will be so onerous in their application process and be on juuuust this side of unconstitutional.  Something stupid like a $1,000 app fee, 50 hours of training, etc.  It's a win, but I think the battle is just beginning.


It’s already onerous, and expensive, intrusive, and time consuming.  Last time I lived here I gave up on the process because I never expected to come back here.  Now I regret not following though.


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 23, 2022)

Hopefully this scandal finally brings down Trudeau and company.  But he's slid out of worse.

Former RCMP commissioner defends Mountie behind Brenda Lucki allegations - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 23, 2022)




----------



## AWP (Jun 24, 2022)

Side note: she's hot...but so is polonium.


----------



## CQB (Jun 25, 2022)

So the laws have changed, but not as much as the boss wanted. Keeping an eye on those with mental issues is quite sound.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 25, 2022)

CQB said:


> So the laws have changed, but not as much as the boss wanted. Keeping an eye on those with mental issues is quite sound.


Yeah, I think we are all for that. But who initially gets to decide who has mental issues?


----------



## Gunz (Jun 25, 2022)

Topkick said:


> Yeah, I think we are all for that. But who initially gets to decide who has mental issues?



The potential danger would be any proposed arbiters of mental fitness having the authority to access private medical records without due process.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 25, 2022)

Topkick said:


> Yeah, I think we are all for that. But who initially gets to decide who has mental issues?


There's a broad federal law that says persons "committed to a mental institution or determined by a court to be mentally deficient"(paraphrased wording) cannot purchase firearms. 
The specifics are left up to the states, who aren't required to report that information to the NICS.

For a real world example of how this disconnect has failed:

The Virginia Tech shooter was deemed mentally ill in court and ordered to undergo mental health treatment. Under federal law, he wasn't able to purchase a weapon.

However, his treatment was outpatient. Under VA law at the time, only those who had involuntary inpatient treatment would be reported to the NICS.

Another example of a state law is Florida; I remember seeing this after the Parkland shooting. Upfront it needs to be acknowledged it wouldn't have applied to the shooter anyways because he was never commited; this is just an example of the law.

In Florida, someone can be involuntarily committed for up to 72 hours. That would prevent them under federal law from purchasing a firearm, but Florida law still allows it. If, after 72 hours, medical professionals request an extension in court and are granted that, then the person can't purchase a weapon and is reported to the NICS.



Gunz said:


> The potential danger would be any proposed arbiters of mental fitness having the authority to access private medical records without due process.



No harder than getting a warrant is. Everything involved in involuntary commitments is either a court case or an active medical emergency.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 25, 2022)

Okay, @Cookie_ not sure why but you're always trying to present the other side even when it doesnt make sense. Not sure how this  justifies why a pissed off wife or family member can initiate an investigation  to determine if I should have guns or not. You can try to to swing it, but I aint buyin it.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 26, 2022)

Topkick said:


> Okay, not sure why but you always try to present the other side even when it doesnt make sense. Not sure how this  justifies why a pissed off wife or family member can initiate an investigation  to determine if I should have guns or not. You can try to to swing it, but I aint buyin it.


What are you doing to piss off a wife or family member enough that they're willing to contact the police with information that you are a danger to yourself or others, who then contact a judge with that info, who then tells the police whether the can enforce a protective order or not?

Like losing gun rights to mental illness, this shit is a lot harder than you seem to think it is.

To give you a personal example; I was involved in an Extreme Risk Protective Order (ERPO/red flag) back in 2020 for one of the guy's in my guard unit. We were actually one of the first few cases of it being used in the State.

It's May/June during the height of COVID lock downs; I'm working at the unit on ADOS(temp active duty) orders with a few other soldiers. One of the full time staff guys was on leave, but didn't come back to work when he was supposed to.
The female soldier who called him let's us know that he was very drunk on the phone and kept saying he was going to shoot himself.

We get there and he talks to us through a window.
Keeps saying he's going to shoot himself, then changes his mind and says "I'm gonna kill my fucking ex-wife first though".

Now cops get called. He calms down a bit talking to them, but does mention he's still thinking about "hurting" himself.

I'm not to privy on this part, but I know the senior officer decided to petition for a red flag. The officers get with the judge and provide the info, judge says ok; much in the same way a warrant works.

They explain it to him that he's not being charged with anything, not being forced to a hospital, not going to the drunk tank, etc. He agrees to turn over his firearms and gets contact info with local PD.

Fast forward a week to the follow up court case (which has to happen within 14 days under law).

He goes before a judge with his court-appointed counsel (free to him). Explains that he was drunk and depressed, is now in treatment, etc. The people who filled the order (police/family) would at this point have to provide "clear and convincing" evidence that he's still a danger, but obviously we don't.

Judge rules the ERPO is no longer active and that he can have his firearms back. He just goes to the local PD, shows his ID and signs some forms, then he got his property back.

Edit to add: I looked up our state stats, because it's reported by county. In the county he was in, there have been around a dozen requests; half by cops and half by families. His case is one of the LEO requests that was approved; county wide, about half of requests (by family or cops) are approved. So just as many ERPOs have been shot down for being unnecessary has have been approved.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 27, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> What are you doing to piss off a wife or family member enough that they're willing to contact the police with information that you are a danger to yourself or others



“Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” — Every dude on earth.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 28, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> What are you doing to piss off a wife or family member enough that they're willing to contact the police with information that you are a danger to yourself or others, who then contact a judge with that info, who then tells the police whether the can enforce a protective order or not?
> 
> Like losing gun rights to mental illness, this shit is a lot harder than you seem to think it is.
> 
> ...


The assumption that he gets his property back. Would need to look, but that never happens in Cali. Thanks Kamala.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 28, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> *What are you doing to piss off a wife* or family member enough that they're willing to contact the police with information that you are a danger to yourself or others, who then contact a judge with that info, who then tells the police whether the can enforce a protective order or not?


Custody battle?  Caught cheating?  Drunken verbal argument? ...breathing?

I think the issue many conservatives and gun owners (they are not always the same) have with red flag laws is their potential for abuse.  Being deprived of property based on a mere allegation, and the enormous nut roll of going through the process of having your property restored, is a concern for many.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 28, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> Custody battle?  Caught cheating?  Drunken verbal argument? ...breathing?
> 
> I think the issue many conservatives and gun owners (they are not always the same) have with red flag laws is their potential for abuse.  Being deprived of property based on a mere allegation, and the enormous nut roll of going through the process of having your property restored, is a concern for many.



It isn’t just red flag laws. The police can take your money and make you prove you weren’t committing a crime with it. If they can get away with civil forfeiture of money and assets, guns would be super hard to get back.


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 28, 2022)

That is exactly how it is in Canada and it can be any previous partner.  It used to be previous 10 year's, including anything mental health and now it's your whole life.  So if you sought help and were treated 20 year's ago.  Or any previous partner, can be used to  justify immediate seizure of all firearms and ammunition.  If they mention you're a Veteran, you get special treatment.  It's then on you to go to court and fight to get them back.  And even if you get them back, you're definitely being watched more closely. 

I have a friend that gave up after paying lawyers for 2 year's.  The government lawyers can go forever.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 28, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> It isn’t just red flag laws. The police can take your money and make you prove you weren’t committing a crime with it. If they can get away with civil forfeiture of money and assets, guns would be super hard to get back.


Yes, totally.  Those are crappy laws.  Civil forfeiture in the United States - Wikipedia


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 28, 2022)

I can't speak to other states, so I understand that red flag laws can vary widely. I think Colorado had a good model, because the standard is high, a lawyer is provided to to accused for free, and the police cannot legally sell the weapons (AFAIK) even if someone has a year long ERPO.

Laws that don't return property like @ThunderHorse referenced or the low bar @RackMaster has up North are not acceptable.

I don't support any civil asset forfeiture laws that apply prior to conviction, or laws that don't provide a lawyer to the accused.

I am interested in how states implement these laws. 

I know off the top of my head that NY has authorized about 600 and FL about 8,000. I wonder what the difference is.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 28, 2022)

Here is an interesting read about red flag laws in NY.  So in addition to the searches and seizures potentially being carried out based on "triple hearsay," the way I read this article (and assuming that it's true), the potential exists that you could be arrested for violating any number of NY's draconian gun laws during a red flag-related search.  Say for example you moved to NY and have a handgun in your house, but you don't have a permit for it yet because it takes forever to get one.  Or say you just retired from the military and they find a couple of old 30-round AR mags during the search.  You're going to jail, homie.

https://nysba.org/app/uploads/2020/11/Wallach-reprint-Red-Flag-Law-NY-Criminal-Law-NewsFall2020.pdf


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 28, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> I know off the top of my head that NY has authorized about 600 and FL about 8,000. I wonder what the difference is.


This article claims it's because the laws are "poorly understood."  Maybe FL understands better?  IDK.

New York’s ‘Red Flag’ Gun Law Is Little Used, Poorly Understood


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 28, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> Here is an interesting read about red flag laws in NY.  So in addition to the searches and seizures potentially being carried out based on "triple hearsay," the way I read this article (and assuming that it's true), the potential exists that you could be arrested for violating any number of NY's draconian gun laws during a red flag-related search.  Say for example you moved to NY and have a handgun in your house, but you don't have a permit for it yet because it takes forever to get one.  Or say you just retired from the military and they find a couple of old 30-round AR mags during the search.  You're going to jail, homie.
> 
> https://nysba.org/app/uploads/2020/11/Wallach-reprint-Red-Flag-Law-NY-Criminal-Law-NewsFall2020.pdf


Not a fan of charging someone for criminal acts during a non-criminal search.

It's the same reason I don't support laws that charge drug addicts or sex workers when they try to get help or report crimes; it does nothing to help if people go to jail for trying to do the right thing.


Marauder06 said:


> This article claims it's because the laws are "poorly understood."  Maybe FL understands better?  IDK.
> 
> New York’s ‘Red Flag’ Gun Law Is Little Used, Poorly Understood



Seems like a big difference between Florida and New York is that in New York family members (as in Colorado) can do the petition without law enforcement assistance. I know in our state law enforcement requests get worked 95%(est) percent of the time, but requests by family only go through 30ish% of the time. It's a much higher burden of proof to get an ERPO if law enforcement isn't involved.

All requests in Florida go through the police. That probably accounts for why Florida has so many go through, especially when you consider that the vast majority are for mental health crisis.

Full Circle: Florida's red flag law through the eyes of a judge that issues them


> The petitions that come before Pomponio are civil proceedings, not criminal. Therefore, respondents are served and given due process just like in any other proceeding. Think of these hearings as mini-trials that includes evidence and witness testimony.
> 
> "Law enforcement brings the petitions," Pomponio said. "So, I'm dealing with petitions from not only the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, the Tampa Police Department, Plant City Police Department."
> 
> ...


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 28, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> It isn’t just red flag laws. The police can take your money and make you prove you weren’t committing a crime with it. If they can get away with civil forfeiture of money and assets, guns would be super hard to get back.


Correct, and both instances are egregious violations of due process and the 4th amendment. Civil forfeiture blows my freaking mind. 

@Cookie_ , reading your experience above- personal property was removed from this individual without crime, warrant, or due process. _Can you help me to understand how you think that's legal?_ 

What happens when the police come to the door, say "We need to search your house for guns because of red flag laws"... and the response is, "GFY. Go get a warrant and don't come back without one. Or, stack it up, playboi." I can only speak for myself- that's my answer. I would argue that these laws could lead to more deaths in the LE community than it would prevent mass shootings or violence. Maybe an experiment for another thread. 

Let's say I was at all in agreement with Red Flag laws and that they're constitutionally valid (I'm not/they're not but this is pretend time)- an emergency brake I would need is reciprocity and penalty for people using these laws to call the police on people they don't like. _What, in your opinion, would be an appropriate penalty for people that are found guilty of abusing the red flag law reporting procedures? _




Cookie_ said:


> What are you doing to piss off a wife or family member enough that they're willing to contact the police with information that you are a danger to yourself or others, who then contact a judge with that info, who then tells the police whether the can enforce a protective order or not?


And I am going to call this comment as I see it...This is either obtuse or naïve. Not sure if intentional in either regard. 

We live in a world where people call the SWAT team on each other over video game disagreements and where unelected, un-appointed people went as far as calling the police, physical violence and altercations against other normal citizens in America- for not wearing a mask, alone, at a beach. 

So- _are you ignoring those things, or do you not realize that we have a *lot* of examples of people abusing laws like you're describing (for much less)?_


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 28, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> Correct, and both instances are egregious violations of due process and the 4th amendment. Civil forfeiture blows my freaking mind.
> 
> @Cookie_ , reading your experience above- personal property was removed from this individual without crime, warrant, or due process. _Can you help me to understand how you think that's legal?_
> 
> ...



I cannot disagree with you on this, at all. Though recently I have disagreed with many takes you have had.

I may even think masks are the right call, but physical violence visited upon anyone by the state in response to a hearsay complaint is never NEVER  the correct response.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 28, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> Correct, and both instances are egregious violations of due process and the 4th amendment. Civil forfeiture blows my freaking mind.
> 
> @Cookie_ , reading your experience above- personal property was removed from this individual without crime, warrant, or due process. _Can you help me to understand how you think that's legal?_
> 
> ...



To the first part of your reply.

These are civil, not criminal proceedings; that's not a lack of due process or legality in the property being removed. 

My understanding of the vast majority of these orders is that the person in question willingly surrenders the weapons.

I'll have to ask some friends that work on the force what happens if someone doesn't. I can't imagine there's much that can be done if it's a mental health case, as it's not really illegal to say you're gonna off yourself.

If it involves threats to other people though, I guess it'd depend on what the state laws for threatening/intimidation are.

Filing false reports is already a crime in basically all jurisdictions; I'd like to see that actually be enforced if there are instances like you describe.

Again, Colorado has only approved 30ish% or request put in by family members; that's a decently high bar for proof to get an ERPO. 


To the second point:

Sadly, it's way to fucking easy to SWAT somebody. A lot of departments that have been involved in instances like that have come out and said that they often acted without verifying the situation. 

It takes (at least in Colorado) proving to a judge that someone is a danger. That's a higher burden than sending in a SWAT team.
 Looking now at different states, I think Florida has a better idea for initiating an ERPO (must be LEO) than we do (LEO or family).


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 29, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> I cannot disagree with you on this, at all. Though recently I have disagreed with many takes you have had.


I don't take it personally; you'll probably disagree with more in the future. Just some expectation management.  




Cookie_ said:


> To the first part of your reply.
> 
> These are civil, not criminal proceedings; that's not a lack of due process or legality in the property being removed.


This is a non-starter (because it's begging the question, specifically- "Civil forfeiture is legal, its not criminal proceedings"). It is 100% lack of due process. It's further confounded because this is a plain constitutional Right (Big R). Red flag laws take civil forfeiture and amplify it to an alarming level. 

Not only is your property (firearms) being taken from you without a crime or warrant- they're being taken by armed enforcers from the State, behind weapons of their own. 

And yeah, it's "way too easy to SWAT someone". Now, imagine a scenario where where you can do that nationwide, on a highly polarized issue the media is constantly stoking with hate for the other and manipulating opinion, all under the guise of "stopping a school shooting for the greater good." Every Karen with a "quiet, white, 18-35 year old male that keeps to himself, has a garden, and seems to be conservative" will suddenly have a reason to suspect their mental health. 

That's what red flag laws are- the logical outgrowth of "calling the state on your fellow man if you don't like their political leanings for the greater good."


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 29, 2022)

Red Flag laws are a product of the Good Idea Fairy, whereby the intent rapidly diverged from the practice and delivery.

There has long been processes, with due process, whereby people with malintent or psychiatric issues have had weapons confiscated for their, or their loved ones, good.  But they got a lawyer, the courts put the onus on the system to prove, and they ate the costs.  Red Flag laws do none of this.  Red Flag laws have become politicized and weaponized and have diverged from their intent.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 29, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> To the first part of your reply.
> 
> *These are civil, not criminal proceedings; that's not a lack of due process or legality in the property being removed.*
> 
> My understanding of the vast majority of these orders is that the person in question willingly surrenders the weapons.


AFAIK, due process still attaches in civil proceedings.  Regardless, arbitrarily  being deprived of property by the State seems to me to be a pretty clear violation of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 29, 2022)

@amlove21 and @Marauder06 

On the due process argument, both of you are missing that the courts have long agreed that emergency orders do not violate the 14th Ammendment. 

Think of restraining orders, civil commitments for mental health, and even removing children from a home in emergency situations.

All of those happen before a court case. The way those don't violate the 14th is that they are legally required to have that court case at the earliest possible time so as to not deny the rights of the respondent. This is why (here in CO) the court case for an ERPO has to happen within 14 days.

Civil forfeiture isn't a comparable argument here either. It's not the cops taking my property because "I might have done a crime" and then being able to keep it even if I'm not charged with anything. 

They legally have to give the weapons back, let the respondent transfer them to a friend/family member, or allow the respondent to sell them. 
The police do not get to make that decision; if the respondent has 50 gun and 30k rounds of ammo he/she wants to keep, the police legally have to store that.



Devildoc said:


> *But they got a lawyer, the courts put the onus on the system to prove, and they ate the costs*. Red Flag laws do none of this. Red Flag laws have become politicized and weaponized and have diverged from their intent.



This is literally how the system works in my state.


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 29, 2022)

Sorry to derail this conversation on red flag law's but this absolutely disgusts me.  This information that has come to light in the past week was requested a year ago.  They tried to make the Superintendent that had his notes released last week as the fall guy.  And now Trudeau's hand picked RCMP Commissioner is going to take it.  And people will still vote for these assholes in charge.  



> As the dressing down unfolded, Scanlan said Lucki "informed us of the pressures and conversation with (Public Safety) Minister (Bill) Blair, which we clearly understood was related to the upcoming passing of the gun legislation." "I remember a feeling of disgust as I realized this was the catalyst for the conversation and perhaps a justification for what you were saying about us." Scanlan's letter is part of the evidence provided to a public inquiry into the April 18-19, 2020, mass shooting. According to Scanlan, who was the strategic communications director at the time of the shootings, Lucki had come on the line incensed that the Halifax staff hadn't released the gun details, suggesting they had let down surviving children whose parents were killed in Portapique, N.S. "It was appalling, inappropriate, unprofessional and extremely belittling," Scanlan wrote. "To have anyone in the RCMP say we let the boys down. There is nothing that makes that acceptable, especially that it was said by the person, who by rank, is at the top of our organization."



RCMP official: Lucki claimed direct pressure from federal minister to name guns


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 29, 2022)

@Cookie_  I feel like we are talking past each other a bit; I'll own it. Thanks for your patience. 

Calling something "an emergency" does not nullify the 14th or any amendment for that matter. Granted, the last 2+ years have made people forget that fact; I digress. 

The heavy lift of your position is the 4th, not the 14th. While due process and the reasonable expectation of privacy/equal protection are *also* violated in red flag laws, the question still needs to answer the 4th's simple and clear standard. 

Most notably, the "stop and frisk" policy was deemed unconstitutional for this reason. Saying, "It's an emergency! This is a high crime area! We are stopping everyone we think looks nefarious and frisking them!" doesn't nullify the 4th; the same applies to red flag laws. 

The 4th states- 

*"*_*The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."*_

Your position, in light of the 4th, isn't tenable. Remember- the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments aren't a list of **what citizens can do**; it's a plain and clear list of things the Government (State) **is absolutely not allowed to do**. It's why there are directive words- shall not, will not, without, etc. The founders wrote the documents as a warning- not as a permission slip. "You, as the State, are not allowed to all this crap. We, the Citizens, have these inalienable Rights. And if you push us too hard- let me direct your attention to the Second Amendment, which will make all things pretty clear." 

_Can you help me understand how a team of police taking (as always, behind the threat of violence) your personal property "without probable cause, a warrant, or supported by Oath or affirmation" does *not* violate the 4th Amendment?_


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 29, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> @Cookie_  I feel like we are talking past each other a bit; I'll own it. Thanks for your patience.
> 
> Calling something "an emergency" does not nullify the 14th or any amendment for that matter. Granted, the last 2+ years have made people forget that fact; I digress.
> 
> ...



I think the argument on 4th amendment grounds may hold more weight than 14th; I'm surprised I haven't seen more writing on that actually.

As I stated in my previous post; the courts have routinely ruled that the 14th does not apply in emergency situations, as long as the respondent is granted a trial "at speediest opportunity". If that's something you don't agree with I fully understand, but to say it's violating the 14th doesn't hold up in application. 

As to the fourth, I hate to bring up civil forfeiture (because it's bullshit) but that's been ruled not to violate the 4th; I imagine any challenges to red flag laws would be defeated on that ground. I want to make it clear that I'm not supporting civil forfeiture laws, but if we're talking about things with legal standing that doesn't mean we personally agree with it.

I'd say the other thing that seperates this between stop/frisk laws is the level of evidence required to conduct, as in what is "*unreasonable suspicion".*

That's the key phrase in the 4th that found stop/frisk illegal. Police can't just grab someone off the street and pat them down, but they can if they're running from the scene of a shooting.

I'd say the other part of the 4th that would get challenged would be "*probable cause".*

In most instances where red flag laws are applied, those people would either be;

Taken to a hospital, forcefully commited, or just left in crisis

Or (as probably would have happened with my buddy)

Charged with making terroristic threats/intimidation and arrested.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 29, 2022)

Having talked about this for a few days and looking at out states do things, I'll lay out what I'd personally like to see the laws look like, as some states (such as @Marauder06 mentioned about NY) are very expansive at the risk of personal liberties.
Only LEOs should be able to actually file a ERPO (Florida law)

Families cannot file themselves directly, must go through local PD (CO/NY allow direct filing, FL does this method)

People found filing multiple reports should be charged with false filings (I can't find this on the books anywhere, but it should be in writing)

A temp ERPO lasts no more than 14 days (CO law)

Court case for ERPO must occur in 14 days; respondent must be provided legal representation at state cost (CO law)

A full ERPO of 364 days must allow for earlier compliance, through mental health/other requirements set by court (FL law)

A ERPO cannot be extended more than once, i.e. 364 ERPO extended another 364 days (FL law)

Respondent's personal property must be stored at government cost; any lost property use be replaced at 3x market value (CO law first part, second part is what I'd like to see to prevent "lost" property")

Respondent has right to give property to friend/family authorized to have weapons (CO law)

Respondent DOES NOT have to undergo background check to recieve property back (CO law currently requires that; this is bullshit)

Police MAY NOT execute search warrant/charge respondent with crime unrelated to the terms of the ERPO (As NY law currently allows)

If respondent refuses to comply with temporary ERPO, respondent is entitled to immedate court proceeding in regards to ERPO (I can't find this as a law anywhere, but this absolutely should be to address the concerns raised)

Edit to add-

I don't have an answer for what to do if someone refuses to respond to a final ERPO (you had the court case and were ordered to turn over weapons)

I think that's going to have to vary on what your state says about threats/mental crisis. 
Is what caused the ERPO something that rises to the level of a crime/forced medical stay? Something lesser?

It feels like the ERPO shouldn't be a low standard, but more of a "hey, your threats rise to the level of criminal charges, but we're going the civil route instead while we get you help/let you cool off" not "you said some mean things so we want your guns, but if you don't give them to us we're gonna charge you with (felony/misdemeanor/fines)."


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 29, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> Snip


Thanks for the response- I understand what you're saying. 


Cookie_ said:


> Having talked about this for a few days and looking at out states do things, I'll lay out what I'd personally like to see the laws look like, as some states (such as @Marauder06 mentioned about NY) are very expansive at the risk of personal liberties.


I'll do the same, for funsies. Granted, mine is a lot shorter; I only had to read 27 words. 

All red flag laws are infringements on the 2nd. _"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."- Benjamin Franklin.  _

Nothing follows.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 29, 2022)

Cool. Every single right has limitations.

The reading of infringement you're using did not exist until the NRA split in the 60s. 

The founders routinely used restrictive laws on gun rights.

Hell, gun laws were a lot more restrictive in the past than they are now. I think its a good thing we've opened our laws up as much as we have.

If people spent half as much of their political energy on other things (not directed at anyone on the board) as they did on the 2A, the country would be in a much better place as far as freedom goes.


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 29, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> Cool. Every single right has limitations.
> 
> The reading of infringement you're using did not exist until the NRA split in the 60s.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your opinion. I understand what you're saying.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 29, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> Cool. Every single right has limitations.
> 
> The reading of infringement you're using did not exist until the NRA split in the 60s.
> 
> ...


That's the one that ultimately guarantees all of the rest brother, going all the way back to the foundation of our country.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 29, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> That's the one that ultimately guarantees all of the rest brother, going all the way back to the foundation of our country.



And it's always had limits. There is not a single right that is guaranteed; that's the price for living in a society. Even hunter-gather tribes have/had acceptable ways of living that would limit what we consider "freedom".
If it's truly believed that your access to a firearm is what "guarantees" your rights, then the only acceptable thing is to do as @Diamondback 2/2  has referenced and just ignore all laws regarding the 2A. 
That's the only principled option for that viewpoint.

Also, gonna disagree that it's what guarantees the others.

Access to legal weapons isn't what determines an uprising against an oppressive government, speech is. There's no revolution without convincing others to join in; hence why it's always the first thing attacked or controlled by governments.


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 29, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> And it's always had limits. There is not a single right that is guaranteed; that's the price for living in a society. Even hunter-gather tribes have/had acceptable ways of living that would limit what we consider "freedom".
> If it's truly believed that your access to a firearm is what "guarantees" your rights, then the only acceptable thing is to do as @Diamondback 2/2  has referenced and just ignore all laws regarding the 2A.
> That's the only principled option for that viewpoint.
> 
> ...


That's an interesting take. I tend to agree with a cohort of historians and scholars that disagree with you, but I am in no means an authority so you can take that for what you will. Don't know if it's worth the salt or the pennies. 

I believe there are more than 10 examples of governments disarming the population then committing genocide.

Most notably (and the easiest way to avoid Godwin's Law) would be to examine the Armenian genocide; the Ottomans (modern day Turkey) slaughtered 600k-1.5M Armenians after they were "expelled" from the empire. The first thing the government did was disarm the population in 1915. I urge you to use the search engine of your choice and learn a little about that event, and others where atrocities were committed shortly following disarming the people. 

If you want something a little more apropos to the conversation (American results of disarmament)- consider the massacre in Wounded Knee, 1890. The American government sought to disarm the Lakota Sioux “for their own safety and protection at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation." Immediately after the Sioux turned in their weapons peacefully, the 7th Cav slaughtered 297 Sioux. 200 were women and children. 

A couple interesting quotes for the group- 
_"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."

“The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings.”_


----------



## Muppet (Jun 29, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> @Cookie_  I feel like we are talking past each other a bit; I'll own it. Thanks for your patience.
> 
> Calling something "an emergency" does not nullify the 14th or any amendment for that matter. Granted, the last 2+ years have made people forget that fact; I digress.
> 
> ...


Brother, I think you're one of the "constitutional experts" that some folks have been speaking on. Lol. 

Again, my passive-aggressive attitude again. BTW, I agree with you, wholeheartedly.


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 29, 2022)

Muppet said:


> Brother, I think you're one of the "constitutional experts" that some folks have been speaking on. Lol.
> 
> Again, my passive-aggressive attitude again. BTW, I agree with you, wholeheartedly.


Bahahahha nope! The only thing I want less than being regarded as some sort of Internet forum ‘expert’ on an issue is to be considered highly emotional, contrarian, and intransigent when discussing issues!! 

I don’t know if it’s as important to agree with me as it is to learn something from each other. And I perceive that to be happening, so that’s cool. 

And now, back to our regularly scheduled show.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 29, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> That's an interesting take. I tend to agree with a cohort of historians and scholars that disagree with you, but I am in no means an authority so you can take that for what you will. Don't know if it's worth the salt or the pennies.
> 
> I believe there are more than 10 examples of governments disarming the population then committing genocide.
> 
> ...



The deportation of Armenian politicians, community leaders, and "intellectuals" occurred prior to mass disarmament. They went for those able to use speech prior to the weapons.  
The disarmament was "turn in weapons and accept deportation or be killed". There were a number of attempts to resist put down prior to the population at large accepting deportation. I think it's important for context that it was not widely known that the deportations were intended to be death marches; resistance would have continued longer if it was known the options were death or death.

Same thing in Germany, since the whole basis for the plan was the Armenian Genocide.
They arrested communist, social Democrat, and Jewish leaders prior to going for weapons.

That description of Wounded Knee is also missing important context.
It's widely understood from contemporary sources and eye witness accounts that a deaf Lakota man did not understand the command US troops were giving him. Two troops attempted to forcefully take his rifle from behind, causing it to discharge. 4-5 other Lakota then fired at the troops, which led to the incident.

It could be argued that the massacre may have played out differently had the Lakota still had weapons, but a Wounded Knee was never an intended extermination like the other examples. 
I understand the concerns regarding the government having a monopoly on violence.
Despite what it may seem because I'm not a "all laws are infringement" person, I'm not anti-gun. I'm definitely more pro-gun than the vast majority of dems and moderates. I have on more than one occasion served as an instructor/trainer/advocate for minority/progressive groups. It's ironic, but(in my opinion) the people most concerned about the government taking their arms are also the people least likely to be the first groups targeted. 
It'll be the leftists(anarcho/commie/actual socialists), anti-authoritarians/anti-fascists, and minorities first.

I'm more concerned about speech because that seems to be the way it starts more in our modern times, and speech is a much easier thing to get people to agree to limit in this country, as (on a broad scale) freedom of speech for both political party only extends to speech that party seems to support.


----------



## Dame (Jun 30, 2022)

Way to go, dumbasses.
Misfire: California AG publishes names and addresses of judges and police on gun website

And... tells everyone who is in law enforcement.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 30, 2022)

Dame said:


> Way to go, dumbasses.
> Misfire: California AG publishes names and addresses of judges and police on gun website
> 
> And... tells everyone who is in law enforcement.



I wonder if that includes UC.  I smell a lawsuit.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 30, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> And it's always had limits. There is not a single right that is guaranteed; that's the price for living in a society. Even hunter-gather tribes have/had acceptable ways of living that would limit what we consider "freedom".
> *If it's truly believed that your access to a firearm is what "guarantees" your rights, then the only acceptable thing is to do as @Diamondback 2/2  has referenced and just ignore all laws regarding the 2A.*
> That's the only principled option for that viewpoint.
> 
> ...


That's a ridiculous assessment of my position on rights in general, and 2A in particular.  Neither you, nor anyone on this board, have ever heard me make a claim such as the one you just outlined.  It's reductio ad absurdum and unworthy of the kind of discussion I thought you were seeking.

In our Republic all rights are bound.  The problem with 2A rights arises from a disagreement over what makes a restriction reasonable and what starts making it an infringement.  That's the discourse I'm interested in having.

When you said "there is not a single right that is guaranteed," I think you meant "absolute."  If you think none of our rights are guaranteed, then we probably need to have a completely different discussion.

You left an important part of your last statement:  "...always the first thing attacked or controlled by governments," being, "with the use or threat of coercive force."  Disagree all you want, but political violence is what founded our country. We did not printing-press and town-crier our way to freedom.  Speech is necessary but insufficient in the face of repressive tyranny, then now and always.  Fortunately I do not think we live in a repressive tyranny.  But we need to jealously guard our rights so it doesn't become that way.

You can try to talk someone out of depriving you of life, liberty, and property; sometimes that may work.  But when it doesn't, you need to be able to secure it, dare I say guarantee it, by lethal force.  It's an important part of the "three boxes of liberty" triad that has served us well since our founding.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 30, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> When you said "there is not a single right that is guaranteed," I think you meant "absolute." If you think none of our rights are guaranteed, then we probably need to have a completely different discussion.



This was my line of thinking. Colloquially the two are commonly used interchangeably, and I should have clarified that on the board.

I also should have been more specific that my statement regarding firearms was not intended to be directed specifically at you, but people with the mindset of the right being absolute.

Apologies for that. Sometimes the way things are written seem clear to us when (as in this case) that's not how they are received.


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 30, 2022)

Dame said:


> Way to go, dumbasses.
> Misfire: California AG publishes names and addresses of judges and police on gun website
> 
> And... tells everyone who is in law enforcement.


Not an "accident".


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 30, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> ...snip...
> 
> When you said "there is not a single right that is guaranteed," I think you meant "absolute."  If you think none of our rights are guaranteed, then we probably need to have a completely different discussion.
> 
> ...


Fuckin this. Wish I could like posts more than once.


----------



## Muppet (Jun 30, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> Fuckin this. Wish I could like posts more than once.



Ditto brother. Ditto.


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 30, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> That's a ridiculous assessment of my position on rights in general, and 2A in particular.  Neither you, nor anyone on this board, have ever heard me make a claim such as the one you just outlined.  It's reductio ad absurdum and unworthy of the kind of discussion I thought you were seeking.
> 
> In our Republic all rights are bound.  The problem with 2A rights arises from a disagreement over what makes a restriction reasonable and what starts making it an infringement.  That's the discourse I'm interested in having.
> 
> ...


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jul 2, 2022)

Really wished I could have met Abe Lincoln.......damn guns!!!!


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 2, 2022)

The State of New York just convened an emergency session and dropped a whole bunch of new gun restrictions on us.  NY did this explicitly to punish 2A supporters in our state.  They are mad that their ridiculous and unconstitutional "may issue" provision got struck down by the Supreme Court (and they're probably mad about the Dobbs decision also), and they lashed out.  It's a garbage law and it's going to get shot down.  But that's going to take years, and meanwhile those of us who live here are going to have to suffer under it.

New York approves gun law requiring buyers to provide social media handles

Below are some initial reactions based solely on the article above and a quick read of a summary the legislation. I may adjust the below perspective after I dig more into the law myself.



> The new law will require people trying to purchase a handgun license to hand over a list of social media accounts they have maintained over the last three years, so officials can verify their "character and conduct."



The State of NY, whose elected officials are constantly under the microscope for moral and criminal offenses, and whose most recent elected governor governor had to resign in disgrace over a series of sex scandals, is going to verify **my** character and conduct? lol... no. Who is going to verify THEIR character and THEIR conduct?

Character is such a loaded word, and such a subjective characteristic.  What is going to be a disqualifying characteristic in NY, being a registered Republican?  Re-tweeting Daily Wire posts?  This is ripe for potential abuse.  And what does "list of social media accounts" even mean?  My accounts are private and semi-anonymous, good luck finding out anything there.  Or are you expecting me to give you my usernames and passwords too?  I didn't even have to do that for my top secret security clearance.  In any case, fuck right on off with that noise.



> Individuals applying for a license to carry a handgun will also be required to provide four character references and take 16 hours of gun safety training and two hours of shooting practice at a range. They will be subject to periodic background checks and will have to turn over social media accounts and contact information for adults living in their household.



Character references isn't new, I was asked for that when I applied for a permit the last time I lived here.  In fact, that's what stopped me from completing the process.  Four character references?  Fuck you, it's none of anyone else's business if I want to legally own a handgun or not.  That's between the state and me.  Plus the references have to be notarized, which is another haze and (unless you have free access) another expense (x4) for the applicants.  And what are these references going to be used for?  Can someone sue a referrer if the applicant later shoots someone illegally?  It's just another time consuming haze, and I'm embarrassed to say that in my case it worked.  It's completely useless and serves only to make the process more difficult, expensive, and time consuming.

And turn over social media accounts and contact information for adults living in my household??  Double fuck you.  My 18-year-old daughter is not a party to my pistol permit application, and her social media is DEFINITELY not the business of the State of New York.



> Firearms will also be barred from private establishments unless business owners explicitly state that they are allowed. Businesses must post a sign granting permission to armed patrons. In many other states, businesses that do not permit guns typically have to post signs indicating that firearms are not allowed.



So now business owners get to arbitrarily decide whether or not to deprive someone of their rights?? Pretty sure we already decided some cases about this...  Making property owners affirm 2A rights in their establishments is a clear attempt at intimidation of businesses, as it would actively discourage patrons from going there, and would set them up for lawsuits if anything involving weapons occurs on the premises.  And if I do eventually get a permit and I walk into a place that doesn't explicitly confirm my constitutional rights, I'm suddenly a felon?  Wow.



> The legislation also requires background checks for ammunition sales and creates a statewide license and ammunition database.



So on top of government-created ammo shortages, now they're going to track how much ammo I buy when I am actually able to find it?  Again, what is it you think you're going to do with this information, and how long is it going to be before you start making me account for each and every bullet?  This is another attempt at intimidating, inconveniencing, and harassing gun owners.  Right before I moved to NY the first time, a newspaper took it upon themselves to release the names, addresses, and a convenient map of registered gun owners, opening them up to harassment and potential targeting. The same thing is going to happen with this new registry.

Furthermore, registration is often the first step towards confiscation, as evidenced by what happened in CT (where I came from before I moved to NY for the first time) over AR-15s. Moreover, its what far-left liberals similar to the ones running this state ultimately want to do with guns. 

I'm pretty pissed off about these new laws but right now there's not a whole lot I can do other than comply while I figure out what the best way for me to legally contribute to the process of getting this ridiculousness overturned.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jul 2, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> They are mad that their ridiculous and unconstitutional "may issue" provision got struck down by the Supreme Court *(and they're probably mad about the Dobbs decision also)*, and they lashed out. It's a garbage law and it's going to get shot down. But that's going to take years, and meanwhile those of us who live here are going to have to suffer under it.


This honestly sounds like taking some of the abortion laws that some states had (ultrasound, waiting period, minimal location, etc) to not "ban" it, but make it has difficult as possible to achieve.
The court decision only struck down the "may issue" part of the law, not licensing requirements as a whole. so it looks like NY is pushing to see what "undue difficulty" actually is.


Marauder06 said:


> So now business owners get to arbitrarily decide whether or not to deprive someone of their rights?? Pretty sure we already decided some cases about this... Making property owners affirm 2A rights in their establishments is a clear attempt at intimidation of businesses, as it would actively discourage patrons from going there, and would set them up for lawsuits if anything involving weapons occurs on the premises. *And if I do eventually get a permit and I walk into a place that doesn't explicitly confirm my constitutional rights, I'm suddenly a felon?* Wow.



I can find it in my cursory reading, but is it criminalizing carrying in a business that doesn't have a "firearms allowed" sign? Because this standard is already crazy, but that is extra crazy. I can't imagine that would stand up to a legal challenge.



Marauder06 said:


> So on top of government-created ammo shortages, now they're going to track how much ammo I buy when I am actually able to find it? Again, what is it you think you're going to do with this information, and how long is it going to be before you start making me account for each and every bullet? This is another attempt at intimidating, inconveniencing, and harassing gun owners. Right before I moved to NY the first time, a newspaper took it upon themselves to release the names, addresses, and a convenient map of registered gun owners, opening them up to harassment and potential targeting. The same thing is going to happen with this new registry.
> 
> Furthermore, registration is often the first step towards confiscation, as evidenced by what happened in CT (where I came from before I moved to NY for the first time) over AR-15s. Moreover, its what far-left liberals similar to the ones running this state ultimately want to do with guns.
> 
> I'm pretty pissed off about these new laws but right now there's not a whole lot I can do other than comply while I figure out what the best way for me to legally contribute to the process of getting this ridiculousness overturned.



Background checks for ammo is dumb, but I'm willing to bet it would probably pass a legal challenge at higher levels. Registration is also stupid, but that's already a done deal as far as legality goes.


I've said it before, the best ways to target gun violence target personal behaviors (violent crimes, stalking, etc) and provide increased access to social services (mental/psych), not target the weapons themselves, but it's easier (politically) to say "bang bang sticks are bad" than it is to actually address real issues.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 2, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> The State of New York just convened an emergency session and dropped a whole bunch of new gun restrictions on us.  NY did this explicitly to punish 2A supporters in our state.  They are mad that their ridiculous and unconstitutional "may issue" provision got struck down by the Supreme Court (and they're probably mad about the Dobbs decision also), and they lashed out.  It's a garbage law and it's going to get shot down.  But that's going to take years, and meanwhile those of us who live here are going to have to suffer under it.
> 
> New York approves gun law requiring buyers to provide social media handles
> 
> ...


The crest of Virginia is on the service cap of every VMI Cadet. The motto of the state: Sic Semper Tyrranus. 

The people of NY State love tyrants as seen by their draconian laws that go back over 100 years. By the people of the city who are the largest voting block who vote in tyrants en masse as borough presidents and mayors. 

Also, the rights we have protected in the first 10 amendments are those ordained by God, they cannot be taken. They were placed there to codify the limits upon government because a King once tried to take them all away. Maybe that's simplistic, but uh, as @amlove21  famously said: "Come back with a warrant."


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 2, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> , as @amlove21  famously said: "Come back with a warrant."


That's the thing though, this is NY and they absolutely _will _come at me with a warrant.  And that's mandatory jail time in this state.

When I lived on West Point, it was federal property so state gun laws did not apply.  I registered all of my guns with the Provost Marshall's office as required by local regulation / UCMJ (lawful order) and they lived happily in my gun safe, where I could take them out to shoot at the range or in competition, and had them on hand for my own protection.

Now I live about a mile outside of West Point's front gate, and I'm a felon if I have those same weapons and magazines in my home.  A mile away, but a world apart.

I'm fortunate because I an the OIC of cadet shooting club so my NY-illegal guns and magazines can and do legally stay in the arms room.  But I shouldn't have to do that.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 2, 2022)

Now that is getting beyond Canuckistan stupid for gun laws. And that says a lot.


----------



## Muppet (Jul 2, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> The State of New York just convened an emergency session and dropped a whole bunch of new gun restrictions on us.  NY did this explicitly to punish 2A supporters in our state.  They are mad that their ridiculous and unconstitutional "may issue" provision got struck down by the Supreme Court (and they're probably mad about the Dobbs decision also), and they lashed out.  It's a garbage law and it's going to get shot down.  But that's going to take years, and meanwhile those of us who live here are going to have to suffer under it.
> 
> New York approves gun law requiring buyers to provide social media handles
> 
> ...



When do we start tar and feathering these bastards?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 2, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> That's the thing though, this is NY and they absolutely _will _come at me with a warrant.  And that's mandatory jail time in this state.
> 
> When I lived on West Point, it was federal property so state gun laws did not apply.  I registered all of my guns with the Provost Marshall's office as required by local regulation / UCMJ (lawful order) and they lived happily in my gun safe, where I could take them out to shoot at the range or in competition, and had them on hand for my own protection.
> 
> ...


Brother, I'd heavily encourage you to join me in the great state of Texas.  Too many gun grabbers moving here.


----------



## Muppet (Jul 3, 2022)

Denmark shooting: Several dead after attack at Copenhagen shopping centre

Gun laws are strict, no 2A there, yet, this shit happens. It's almost like criminals don't follow laws while innocent get slaughtered.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jul 4, 2022)

Muppet said:


> Denmark shooting: Several dead after attack at Copenhagen shopping centre
> 
> *Gun laws are strict, no 2A there, yet, this shit happens. *It's almost like criminals don't follow laws while innocent get slaughtered.



We've had two mass shootings (that killed police officers) in the last week alone in this country, that both occurred in states with pretty open gun laws.

You aren't really making the strong point that you think you are right now. Criminals do criminal shit, but to act like somehow a lack of gun laws prevents this is the dumbest of takes.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 4, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> We've had two mass shootings (that killed police officers) in the last week alone in this country, that both occurred in states with pretty open gun laws.
> 
> You aren't really making the strong point that you think you are right now. Criminals do criminal shit, but to act like somehow a lack of gun laws prevents this is the dumbest of takes.


The fact that you think those two criminals wouldn't do the same shit if the laws were stricter is quite humorous.


----------



## AWP (Jul 4, 2022)

If criminals cared about laws they wouldn't be criminals.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 4, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> We've had two mass shootings (that killed police officers) in the last week alone in this country, that both occurred in states with pretty open gun laws.
> 
> You aren't really making the strong point that you think you are right now. Criminals do criminal shit, but to act like somehow a lack of gun laws prevents this is the dumbest of takes.



You mean like this?  

6 officers injured in shooting at Saanich, B.C. bank, 2 suspects killed  | Globalnews.ca

Or how about this?

Copenhagen worlds safest city? A look at Denmark gun laws post shooting near Harry Styles concert

You can have all the gun laws in the world and criminals will always have access because they don't give a shit about law's. Same as banning gun's doesn't stop access to gun's for criminals.  There's always a source.   Spend the tax dollars on community outreach, education, make training for law enforcement and civilians more accessible.  Actually enforce the thousands of law's already on the books.  And stop pandering to the hug a thug activists.   Lock them the fuck up and invest in rehabilitation inside facilities.  Putting them back on the streets only emboldens them.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jul 4, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> The fact that you think those two criminals wouldn't do the same shit if the laws were stricter is quite humorous.


How many mass shootings has Denmark had compared to say, Texas in the past 5 years? How many people were killed in those shootings?
(That even gives you the freebie "good guy with a gun" scenario somebody always brings up)

I even said in my post that "criminals do criminal shit" but that isn't what's being discussed. It's the implication that somehow strict gun laws don't work because shootings still happen, ignoring that we have vastly more shootings incidents in places with looser laws. That's not a trivial correlation. 

We're (probably) never going to be a country without some form of 2A rights (and we shouldn't be); but the hot takes like this


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1543674420996317187'

are fucking stupid. 

Overall, Denmark would be the 38th mass shooting this year in the US with three or more killed.  If we go by number of people shot it's 26th.
Even getting rid of domestic shootings/gang related shootings, it'd be the 11th mass shooting this year, tied for 8th deadliest.




RackMaster said:


> Spend the tax dollars on community outreach, education, make training for law enforcement and civilians more accessible.


It's a solution that's basically politically dead here. Money for community outreach, education, and social programs are basically only called for by the Dems, who (as a party) almost always opposed firearms.

GOP supports firearms but commonly opposes the types of programs you're talking about. They usually throw more money at police departments, but not communities. (Again, speaking very broadly here).


RackMaster said:


> And stop pandering to the *hug a thug activists*. Lock them the fuck up and invest in *rehabilitation inside facilities*.



I work in a prison. The simple act of saying "rehab stuff like education/drug abuse classes/life counseling(think anger management or critical thinking skills)" gets you labeled as a hug a thug.

Our country does not rehabilitate during punishment; we punish, make it harder for them to transition to an actual life on the outside, and then act surprised when our recidivism rate is so high. ( obligatory fuck Kamala and Cali)


----------



## AWP (Jul 4, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> It's a solution that's basically politically dead here. Money for community outreach, education, and social programs are basically only called for by the Dems, who (as a party) almost always opposed firearms.
> 
> GOP supports firearms but commonly opposes the types of programs you're talking about. They usually throw more money at police departments, but not communities. (Again, speaking very broadly here).
> 
> ...



Ah, but probably better for a separate thread is criminal justice reform (defund the police thread?). How both Republican and Democrats fed the Black community (and others) into an endless prison meat grinder, then turned around and blamed one another. Communities were shit on, gun violence went up, and now both parties can make their own pro-gun/ anti-gun arguments. The losers here are people who aren't in a position of power, aka "almost every damn American since the War on Drugs kicked off."

Kind of like my post on abortion earlier today, my rants on Afghanistan, and whatever "pick a problem" argument any of us can make: 2nd and 3rd order effects and/ or a lot of our country's problems are interconnected. One reason I'm staunchly against gun control is because it is part of a broader problem in America, not a one-size-fits-all solution.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jul 4, 2022)

AWP said:


> Ah, but probably better for a separate thread is criminal justice reform (defund the police thread?). How both Republican and Democrats fed the Black community (and others) into an endless prison meat grinder, then turned around and blamed one another. Communities were shit on, gun violence went up, and now both parties can make their own pro-gun/ anti-gun arguments. The losers here are people who aren't in a position of power, aka "almost every damn American since the War on Drugs kicked off."
> 
> Kind of like my post on abortion earlier today, my rants on Afghanistan, and whatever "pick a problem" argument any of us can make: 2nd and 3rd order effects and/ or a lot of our country's problems are interconnected. One reason I'm staunchly against gun control is because it is part of a broader problem in America, not a one-size-fits-all solution.



I hate our gay heart icon, but love the post.


----------



## Chopstick (Jul 6, 2022)

Here we go again.  The 22 year old July 4th shooter had multiple encounters with law enforcement yet his uncle claims there were "no warning signs".  

Alleged Highland Park shooter expected in bond court Wednesday after murder charges filed



> Lake County Major Crimes Task Force spokesman Chris Covelli said at a Tuesday morning press conference that Crimo fired more than 70 rounds into the parade.
> 
> Covelli said Crimo planned the shooting for weeks and accessed the rooftop of a building using a fire escape ladder. After the shooting, Crimo reportedly left his rifle and climbed down to escape while wearing women's clothing to blend in and hide his facial tattoos.
> 
> ...





> Police said Tuesday Crimo was involved in two prior incidents in Highland Park, the most recent in September 2019 when a family member called police to report he had a knife collection and "was going to kill everyone," authorities said. Police removed knives from Crimo's possession.
> 
> Months earlier, in April 2019, someone called police one week after learning Crimo tried to kill himself, police said. Police spoke with Crimo and his parents and learned mental health professionals were handling the situation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gunz (Jul 6, 2022)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Really wished I could have met Abe Lincoln.......damn guns!!!!



MAGA hat launcher…bwaaaahaaaaahaaa


----------



## Muppet (Jul 6, 2022)

Chopstick said:


> Here we go again.  The 22 year old July 4th shooter had multiple encounters with law enforcement yet his uncle claims there were "no warning signs".
> 
> Alleged Highland Park shooter expected in bond court Wednesday after murder charges filed



Yep. Instead of additional gun laws, folks should hold these fucking law enforcement agencies, accountable that drop the ball on these wack jobs.

Tin foil hat Alex Jones in me thinks that it's crazy how this stuff happens, you know, to push the agenda for control. Yeah, far fetched, or is it?


----------



## Muppet (Jul 6, 2022)




----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 8, 2022)

Now this one is pretty wild:

"Giant on the world stage": World shocked by assassination of Japan's Shinzo Abe


----------



## Cookie_ (Jul 8, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> Now this one is pretty wild:
> 
> "Giant on the world stage": World shocked by assassination of Japan's Shinzo Abe



It's crazy to me that security let unvetted/searched people get that close to him.  Looks like the shooter made himself a double barreled shotgun.

Shinzo Abe’s suspected assassin pictured behind him before killing


----------



## 757 (Jul 8, 2022)

For the sake of this discussion: 

1) I believe this  page is the actual location of Japan's gun laws, but my Japanese is a bit rusty...as in, I've never taken Japanese.

2) English link to firearm and sword control laws in Japan. _I cannot confirm authenticity at this point, but the info doesn't seem to conflict with what is being reported in most news sites._

TLDR: seems gun laws really haven't been loosened since 1992, at which point they were heavily restricted to airguns and shotguns.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 8, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> It's crazy to me that security let unvetted/searched people get that close to him.  Looks like the shooter made himself a double barreled shotgun.
> 
> Shinzo Abe’s suspected assassin pictured behind him before killing



Japan has a history of politically motivated assassinations of important people. In a number of cases the assassins were driven by what they felt was patriotic duty.

I’m thinking complacency led to the lack of security here. 

IDK what agency in Japan is tasked with close protection of former PMs, but based on the photos, I don’t think this crew was armed.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jul 8, 2022)

Gunz said:


> Japan has a history of politically motivated assassinations of important people.* In a number of cases the assassins were driven by what they felt was patriotic duty.*
> 
> I’m thinking complacency led to the lack of security here.
> 
> IDK what agency in Japan is tasked with close protection of former PMs, but based on the photos, I don’t think this crew was armed.



This one is a little weird purely because of the commonality of patriotic duty being cited as the reason.

It's usually an assailant and politician of opposing parties.

This guy allegedly told the police he killed Abe because he was "dissatisfied with him".

That sounds like he was a member of the LDP(Abe's party) or at least another party that commonly aligns with them.

ETA:

Apprently the guy was there to kill a senior official of a group (Japanese media is saying religious) that Abe is rumored to be part of, not because of his politics.



Suspect behind ex-PM Abe's shooting says he planned to target religious group exec - The Mainichi


----------



## Muppet (Jul 8, 2022)




----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 10, 2022)

Seems legit!


----------



## Muppet (Jul 10, 2022)




----------



## Muppet (Jul 18, 2022)

Uvalde Police Criticize Indiana Mall Armed Citizen For Not Waiting Around Outside For An Hour


----------



## Muppet (Jul 20, 2022)

Fuck you federal cunts. "Just doing our jobs". The nazis were just doing their jobs.

Get a fucking warrant or fuck off.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 20, 2022)

Sheeeiittt....

Unless my kids go to the door, which they often do not, I do NOT go to the door.  They can fuck off right down the street with solicitors, salesmen, Jerry's Kids, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, and everyone else who isn't invited (except my neighbors, they are good to go, and they know it).

And if'n you DO come back, bring that warrant for admission!


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 20, 2022)

Muppet said:


> Fuck you federal cunts. "Just doing our jobs". The nazis were just doing their jobs.
> 
> Get a fucking warrant or fuck off.


"We're just doing a door to door firearms check."  So because I bought two pistols at the same time two years ago, I landed on a federal list and now armed men might show up at my house to "inspect" my guns?  WTF.


----------



## Muppet (Jul 20, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> "We're just doing a door to door firearms check."  So because I bought two pistols at the same time two years ago, I landed on a federal list and now armed men might show up at my house to "inspect" my guns?  WTF.



Oh, no gun registry. Ok ATF.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 20, 2022)

It’s pure harassment, illegal and unconstitutional.

My gate is locked, my perimeter is fenced and wired. My Belgian Malinois can make the 300 foot run from house to the gate in about 4 seconds. 

They would not get in.


----------



## “The Old Man” (Jul 20, 2022)

Muppet said:


> Fuck you federal cunts. "Just doing our jobs". The nazis were just doing their jobs.
> 
> Get a fucking warrant or fuck off.


Our AG told the FBI to eat a dick. Several of our Sheriffs have stood and told them. That they aren’t going to give the FBI shit. 
Missouri is easy to get lost in…🤔


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 20, 2022)

Muppet said:


> Fuck you federal cunts. "Just doing our jobs". The nazis were just doing their jobs.
> 
> Get a fucking warrant or fuck off.



Calling the Sheriff to report armed and mentally deranged types masquerading as law enforcement and you need them off your property before you put holes in their heads. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 20, 2022)

Video shows Utah child, 4, shoot at police outside McDonald's drive-thru



> Utah police have released body-camera footage showing a Feb. 12 incident in which a 4-year-old shot at police officers at a McDonald's drive-thru in Midvale.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 21, 2022)

Let me know if you need an explanation on this one.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 21, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> Video shows Utah child, 4, shoot at police outside McDonald's drive-thru



That's parenthood, right there. Completely fucked-up Bizzaro World parenthood.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 21, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> Let me know if you need an explanation on this one.
> 
> View attachment 39997



The Uvalde Police Department's new tactical instructor.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 21, 2022)




----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 21, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> Video shows Utah child, 4, shoot at police outside McDonald's drive-thru



Well that's kinda different.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 21, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> Well that's kinda different.



Our PD arrested this kid recently.  Apparently gang initiations.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 21, 2022)

House committee approves first assault weapons ban bill in decades | Fox News


----------



## Muppet (Jul 22, 2022)

Gunz said:


> House committee approves first assault weapons ban bill in decades | Fox News



They can kiss my fat fucking Irish Jew arse. Perfect example of why most in federal government should be considered domestic enemies.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 28, 2022)

Under $1500 for an AR and $3000 for that .50 cal.

Feds propose to pay $1,337 for AR-15 under mandatory firearms buyback program


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 28, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> Under $1500 for an AR and $3000 for that .50 cal.
> 
> Feds propose to pay $1,337 for AR-15 under mandatory firearms buyback program


Fuck me, what a country you live in.

To add, I know this is probably been said 1 million times, but I’ll never understand the term “buy back”. They didn’t sell it to me, how can they buy it back from me?


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 28, 2022)

This country is fucked.  I'm not sure if there was an election tomorrow, that the damage could be repaired in my lifetime.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 29, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> Under $1500 for an AR and $3000 for that .50 cal.
> 
> Feds propose to pay $1,337 for AR-15 under mandatory firearms buyback program



They would have to offer at least that much to give the program any chance of success. 

I laugh at some of the buy-back incentives I've seen in this country. If you get a couple of hundred bucks you're lucky. So people turn in broken down unworkable pieces of shit.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 29, 2022)

I’d take $1500 for my returned-to-stock-configuration ARs… then I’d go buy some new ones.


----------



## compforce (Jul 29, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> I’d take $1500 for my returned-to-stock-configuration ARs… then I’d go buy some new ones.


I'll do ya one better.  They classify the gun as being the part with the serial number on it.  I'd strip the frame completely, sell them the empty lower, buy a new lower and put all of my parts back into it...

Or just buy a half dozen of the cheapest lowers I can find and sell them back for profit.  The underwear gnomes would love that business plan...  buy lowers, profit!


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 29, 2022)

Technically in Canada, the lower is the firearm; everything else are accessories.   But once this goes through, there's no new sales and no private sales.  You're grandfathered and it's a safe paperweight.  Can't transfer it to a relative through your estate.  Eventually they all make it to the shredder.

This also included some shotguns and some other long guns.


----------



## Blizzard (Jul 29, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> Technically in Canada, the lower is the firearm; everything else are accessories.   But once this goes through, there's no new sales and no private sales.  You're grandfathered and it's a safe paperweight.  Can't transfer it to a relative through your estate.  Eventually they all make it to the shredder.
> 
> This also included some shotguns and some other long guns.


So, start stocking up on cheap lowers now.😉 🙂


----------



## Muppet (Jul 29, 2022)

"Assault weapons" ban Bill makes it through house.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 29, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> This country is fucked.  I'm not sure if there was an election tomorrow, that the damage could be repaired in my lifetime.


The situation isn't hopeless brother. Especially nowadays, a huge portion of people are becoming immunized towards the lies the clowns in govt are spreading. If you feel hope is lost start networking, build local contacts, and find out who around you is a useful idiot.

Mock the people that think curtailing freedom is a good idea. If all else fail...


----------



## Cookie_ (Jul 29, 2022)

Muppet said:


> "Assault weapons" ban Bill makes it through house.


Dislike. I'm more "gun control" than anyone on here, but I'm fully aware that bans aren't going to accomplish anything given how prevalent firearms are. 

This is stupid.



> For example, all semi-automatic rifles that can accept detachable magazines and have a pistol grip, a forward grip, a *grenade launcher*, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding, telescoping or detachable stock are subject to the ban.



Fuck guys, they're banning our grenade launchers!!!!

House passes bill to ban assault weapons


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 29, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> So, start stocking up on cheap lowers now.😉 🙂



They're months behind in transfers right now because of the run on handguns because of the ban of them. Most dealers don't have any AR anything in stock because of the previous run on them.


----------



## Kaldak (Jul 29, 2022)

At least they pay something reasonable up north.

Dane County gives details on 'Gift Cards for Guns' buyback event


----------



## Gunz (Jul 30, 2022)

Kaldak said:


> At least they pay something reasonable up north.
> 
> Dane County gives details on 'Gift Cards for Guns' buyback event



$250 for an AR. $50 for a revolver. Good luck with that.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 30, 2022)




----------



## Brill (Jul 31, 2022)

So if the Senate passes this bill & it‘s signed, only the cops will have “weapons of war”? I seem to recall the Founder’s had thoughts about this (government forces having arms the citizenry did not).


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 31, 2022)

If I were a betting man, I would bet there are many lawyers lined up with cases ready to go to force SCOTUS to rule once and for all on "common use" firearms.

This might pass, but we will see If it stands.

Me, I don't have anything to worry about since I don't own anything anyway.


----------



## Muppet (Jul 31, 2022)

19 April 1775.


----------



## JedisonsDad (Aug 3, 2022)

This man is playing chess.

Man sells dozens of 3D-printed guns to city at Houston's 1st gun buyback

Edit to add summary: Man prints 62 “guns” on his 3D printer for $3 a piece, then sells them to the city for $50 a piece. Making $2,914 profit.


----------



## AWP (Aug 3, 2022)




----------



## Cookie_ (Aug 3, 2022)

Gay love reactions for both of you.

I'm pretty sure you can't catch moneypox from it.


----------



## Muppet (Aug 3, 2022)

JedisonsDad said:


> This man is playing chess.
> 
> Man sells dozens of 3D-printed guns to city at Houston's 1st gun buyback
> 
> Edit to add summary: Man prints 62 “guns” on his 3D printer for $3 a piece, then sells them to the city for $50 a piece. Making $2,914 profit.



This man is not the hero we want....

But, the hero we need.


----------



## Muppet (Aug 3, 2022)

BTW, fuck that mayor and city. Buy backs are useless. A gun is a gun, now, ghost guns printed are not on the list? You mean, ghost guns are not guns?


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Aug 3, 2022)

If the rules are made by people who don't follow the rules, there really is no point. Why cede any ground?

Bestest hi-point snek evar:


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 4, 2022)

JedisonsDad said:


> This man is playing chess.
> 
> Man sells dozens of 3D-printed guns to city at Houston's 1st gun buyback
> 
> Edit to add summary: Man prints 62 “guns” on his 3D printer for $3 a piece, then sells them to the city for $50 a piece. Making $2,914 profit.


I thought the whole purpose was to remove ghost guns off the street? Lol.


----------



## JedisonsDad (Aug 4, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> I thought the whole purpose was to remove ghost guns off the street? Lol.


It’s like when that one country tried to offer rewards for killing cobras. All it did was triple the cobra population because locals began breeding cobras.


----------



## Muppet (Aug 4, 2022)

If you don't know, Glover is former SF. Not surprising, folks like us are considered domestic terrorists. Crazy, coming from the FBI that are responsible for the murder of US citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Crazy. Who are the real domestic terrorists?


----------



## Muppet (Aug 4, 2022)

FBI Adds Itself To FBI Watch List

Didn't take long. Lmfao


----------



## Topkick (Aug 6, 2022)

Muppet said:


> FBI that are responsible for the murder of US citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco


Until then, I always thought I could just go live in the woods and mind my own business. Ruby Ridge was a clusterfuck.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 7, 2022)

Anti gunners don't care how it's done, as long as they ban them. 

Concerns emerge over 'misleading' Canadian handgun import ban


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Aug 8, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> Anti gunners don't care how it's done, as long as they ban them.
> 
> Concerns emerge over 'misleading' Canadian handgun import ban


Yep... these people want you dead, your children traumatized, and your nation a ruined shell they control.

Fuck em.


----------



## Muppet (Aug 9, 2022)

Great video


----------



## Muppet (Aug 10, 2022)

_Leaked ATF Resignation Letter Shows Agents' Frustration Over Politicization_


----------



## Topkick (Aug 31, 2022)

Biden says pro 2nd Amendment supporters will need an F-15 to fight America, not a gun. 

He's a true "unifier" 

Biden blasted for mocking ‘brave’ Second Amendment defenders: 'You need an F-15' to fight America, not a gun


----------



## Blizzard (Aug 31, 2022)

Topkick said:


> Biden says pro 2nd Amendment supporters will need an F-15 to fight America, not a gun.
> 
> He's a true "unifier"
> 
> Biden blasted for mocking ‘brave’ Second Amendment defenders: 'You need an F-15' to fight America, not a gun


I'll take one if he's offering.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 1, 2022)

Topkick said:


> Biden says pro 2nd Amendment supporters will need an F-15 to fight America, not a gun.
> 
> He's a true "unifier"
> 
> Biden blasted for mocking ‘brave’ Second Amendment defenders: 'You need an F-15' to fight America, not a gun



If you guys thought Trump was a mess on Twitter. So is Biden. Except he's not Trump so it's completely ok. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 1, 2022)

In grad school, one of my female classmates approached me with some questions about the Second Amendment.  She asked me if I owned an AR15 (she was demographically profiling, but in this case she was right :) ) and I told her yes.  She asked me why I needed an AR15 with "100 rounds" for hunting.  I let the "100 rounds" thing go, but I explained that while I'm not opposed to hunting generally, I personally don't engage in it because for me it would be more or less recreational cruelty since I don't need anything from game animals to live.  I also explained that typically you're not allowed to carry "100 rounds" loaded in your gun; when I've hunted the capacity was limited to 5.  And moreover, while I probably wouldn't use an AR to hunt the types of animals I used to hunt growing up (rabbits, squirrels, turkey, doves) I can see how that type of weapon would be useful in hunting large game.  (I'd probably still opt for .30 vs. .223 but I didn't bother explaining that part to her).

What really blew her mind though was when I explained that the 2A has nothing to do with hunting in the first place.  The 2A isn't about hunting.  I don't hunt and I don't own an AR for hunting.  I own an AR because IMO it's the best weapon available to "preserve a free state," both in terms of me personally and in terms of society.  I'm not going to get oppressed by Bambi.  Rabbits are not going to swarm over my house and carry off my property after a natural disaster.  I'm not going to be deprived of my rights by a flock of doves.  I own an AR15 to protect myself, my family, and my property from criminals, and, if it ever becomes necessary, any enemies foreign or domestic.

Another one of my classmates overheard the last part of the conversation and got upset.  "You can't fight the government with assault rifles, they have tanks!"  I was a little taken aback by that comment, as it was the first time I heard it made, and after seven tours in Iraq and Afghanistan I knew very well that you don't need tanks to have an effective resistance.  That discussion kind of petered out when I asked her how many tanks she'd fought in her life.

The reason I bring the above vignette up is that people like the President aren't making the argument they think they are, at least not to conservatives, when they make comments like the president just made.  When liberals say "you can't fight the government because they have tanks/F-15s/nukes," not only do conservatives know that's not true, even if it were true then it supports the argument to allow the American people _MORE _access to weaponry, not less.  "Oh, I can't fight an oppressive .gov or an invading force without a tank?  Guess I better get a Javelin or two.  ...and my own tank.  Thanks Mr. President!!"


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 1, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> In grad school, one of my female classmates approached me with some questions about the Second Amendment.  She asked me if I owned an AR15 (she was demographically profiling, but in this case she was right :) ) and I told her yes.  She asked me why I needed an AR15 with "100 rounds" for hunting.  I let the "100 rounds" thing go, but I explained that while I'm not opposed to hunting generally, I personally don't engage in it because for me it would be more or less recreational cruelty since I don't need anything from game animals to live.  I also explained that typically you're not allowed to carry "100 rounds" loaded in your gun; when I've hunted the capacity was limited to 5.  And moreover, while I probably wouldn't use an AR to hunt the types of animals I used to hunt growing up (rabbits, squirrels, turkey, doves) I can see how that type of weapon would be useful in hunting large game.  (I'd probably still opt for .30 vs. .223 but I didn't bother explaining that part to her).
> 
> What really blew her mind though was when I explained that the 2A has nothing to do with hunting in the first place.  The 2A isn't about hunting.  I don't hunt and I don't own an AR for hunting.  I own an AR because IMO it's the best weapon available to "preserve a free state," both in terms of me personally and in terms of society.  I'm not going to get oppressed by Bambi.  Rabbits are not going to swarm over my house and carry off my property after a natural disaster.  I'm not going to be deprived of my rights by a flock of doves.  I own an AR15 to protect myself, my family, and my property from criminals, and, if it ever becomes necessary, any enemies foreign or domestic.
> Another one of my classmates overheard the last part of the conversation and got upset.  "You can't fight the government with assault rifles, they have tanks!"  I was a little taken aback by that comment, as it was the first time I heard it made, and after seven tours in Iraq and Afghanistan I knew very well that you don't need tanks to have an effective resistance.  That discussion kind of petered out when I asked her how many tanks she'd fought in her life.
> The reason I bring the above vignette up is that people like the President aren't making the argument they think they are, at least not to conservatives, when they make comments like the president just made.  When liberals say "you can't fight the government because they have tanks/F-15s/nukes," not only do conservatives know that's not true, even if it were true then it supports the argument to allow the American people _MORE _access to weaponry, not less.  "Oh, I can't fight an oppressive .gov or an invading force without a tank?  Guess I better get a Javelin or two.  ...and my own tank.  Thanks Mr. President!!"


Well I've been thinking about doing up an AR platform in 7.62 because reasons...


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Sep 1, 2022)

Weeeeeeee! I also have no idea how to drive an F-15 or a tank. I wonder how one get's financing for a tank... .


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 1, 2022)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Weeeeeeee! I also have no idea how to drive an F-15 or a tank. I wonder how one get's financing for a tank... .
> 
> View attachment 40451



Well, you can probably find them right outside of the base gate for a low, low 24% financing....


----------



## Topkick (Sep 1, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> you can't fight the government because they have tanks/F-15s/nukes," not only do conservatives know that's not true


A guy in government since Vietnam should also know this isn't true


----------



## Muppet (Sep 1, 2022)

Apparently, tater in chief and other useless politicians have never heard of asymmetrical warfare, partisan resistance, like, the French, NVA, Afghans and so on. Biden, Beto, all these fuckers pander to emotional pygmies that believe their government has their welfare as the priority.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 1, 2022)

Muppet said:


> Apparently, tater in chief and other useless politicians have never heard of asymmetrical warfare, partisan resistance, like, the French, NVA, Afghans and so on. Biden, Beto, all these fuckers pander to emotional pygmies that believe their government has their welfare as the priority.


Just like the Services tosses the lessons of insurgencies of 200 years ago out of the library, the politicians forget the lessons of insurgencies that they just embarrassingly withdrew from. . .


----------



## Jaknight (Sep 1, 2022)

We need Tanks and jets yet a bunch of people who didn’t have any of that almost overthrew our democracy


----------



## AWP (Sep 1, 2022)

Whenever I hear the "you can't fight the government because it has tanks/ planes/ helicopters" reason for gun control I tune them out because I know I'm dealing with an idiot.

Yes, the president is in that group.

Anyone who casually paid attention to even the most liberal of news commissariats over the last 20 years would not make that argument. CAN'T make that argument, especially since they are "smart" and all. Trust the science? I trust history and to borrow from Stone Cold Steve Austin:

Taliban 3:16 says we just got our asses kicked.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 1, 2022)

Biden’s asinine comments tie in with the campaign to demonize his political opponents two months before midterms. Republicans are insurrectionists, extremists, terrorists bent on “destroying our democracy and stealing our freedom.”

Well, they’re gonna need a freakin F15 if they try that shit, says Biden, metaphorically grabbing his shriveled ball sack in a feeble effort to sound tough and macho, the protector of democracy, the beacon of freedom.

All this and the relentless persecution against an ex-president, both legally and in a concerted left-wing media campaign, to deflect attention from his own weak, lackluster, uninspired and ineffectual presidency and an economy tanking on his watch.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 1, 2022)

Gunz said:


> Biden’s asinine comments tie in with the campaign to demonize his political opponents two months before midterms. Republicans are insurrectionists, extremists, terrorists bent on “destroying our democracy and stealing our freedom.”
> 
> Well, they’re gonna need a freakin F15 if they try that shit, says Biden metaphorically grabbing his shriveled ball sack in a feeble effort to sound tough and macho, the protector of democracy, the beacon of freedom.
> 
> All this and the relentless persecution against an ex-president, both legally and in a concerted left-wing media campaign, to deflect attention from his own weak, lackluster, uninspired and ineffectual presidency and an economy tanking on his watch.



It's the same tactic in Canada, even try to paint the truckers convoy as "insurrectionists".  Nothing like divide and anger.


----------



## Muppet (Sep 1, 2022)

What I think the second amendment should be. Lmfao.

Maria says the music is cartel music.


----------



## Muppet (Sep 2, 2022)

🔨Big Hammer 🔨 on TikTok

Reminder, like you need any....


----------



## Muppet (Sep 2, 2022)

More cunt feds violating rights....


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 2, 2022)

I'm not a fan of Charlie Kirk at all, but he does keep score well. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1565572044309221377


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Sep 2, 2022)

Pretty sure we've established that the people trying to disarm/enslave us are Chicom bought puppets or psychopathic retards who failed history.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 2, 2022)

The things about this is...it's almost real. Which is frightening.


----------



## JedisonsDad (Sep 2, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> The things about this is...it's almost real. Which is frightening.View attachment 40463


Good god, charge your phone.


----------



## Muppet (Sep 3, 2022)

JedisonsDad said:


> Good god, charge your phone.



Lmfao


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 3, 2022)

The production value for the Biden speech was actually pretty amazing. The red dark lighting in the background make the Marines’ white gloves, trousers and covers ‘pop’.

About those gloves though…what are we calling the position they are standing in?  That’s not parade-rest or attention…I’m envisioning some producer trying to position the Marines, having them try their hands in different poses until she gets the one that looks best for the camera.  In my cartoon bubble I am choosing to believe that the Marines both sprained the eye-sockets from rolling them so hard.


----------



## Muppet (Sep 3, 2022)

Don't know where to put this, it goes here. Lol


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 3, 2022)

Do red lights mean something is evil? Fascist? I don’t get it.


----------



## Jaknight (Sep 3, 2022)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1565512389159706632


----------



## Topkick (Sep 3, 2022)

The title of this article alone gave me quick laugh. Have to admit, the last two presidents are good for a few laughs.

Opinion | Joe Biden Holds a Trump Rally


----------



## AWP (Sep 3, 2022)

What the fuck are those Marines doing?! Holding in indigestion? Suppressing a fart? Some MMA pose I don't know about? What the fuck is that?


----------



## Topkick (Sep 3, 2022)

AWP said:


> What the fuck are those Marines doing?! Holding in indigestion? Suppressing a fart? Some MMA pose I don't know about? What the fuck is that?


Trying not to laugh when the big guy tries to talk tough?


----------



## AWP (Sep 3, 2022)

Topkick said:


> Trying not to laugh when The big guy tries to talk tough?



Long as The Big Guy gets his 10% or whatever according to a laptop that doesn't exist...


----------



## Topkick (Sep 3, 2022)

AWP said:


> Long as The Big Guy gets his 10% or whatever according to a laptop that doesn't exist...


Speaking of that...

House Republicans tell Facebook to preserve any FBI communications on Hunter Biden laptop story

Looks like endless congressional hearings will just continue without resolution?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 4, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> View attachment 40468
> 
> Do red lights mean something is evil? Fascist? I don’t get it.



Are you being sarcastic?


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 4, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> Do red lights mean something is evil? Fascist? I don’t get it.


Almost had me here, ngl. Nicely done.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 4, 2022)

Muppet said:


> What I think the second amendment should be. Lmfao.
> 
> Maria says the music is cartel music.



That’s an 82.


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 4, 2022)

Meanwhile our friends to the North still continue to have their own mass casualty events even as their assault on gun ownership continues:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...66d4e2-2c99-11ed-bcc6-0874b26ae296_story.html


----------



## Muppet (Sep 7, 2022)




----------



## Andoni (Sep 8, 2022)

Muppet said:


>


He did great.


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 29, 2022)

Fuck UPS and any company supporting this nonsense:

In massive attack on Second Amendment, woke UPS bows to Democrats request to cease shipping firearms


----------



## AWP (Sep 29, 2022)

I strongly disagree with UPS' stance (it is bullshit to be honest), but that article's headline is somewhat misleading. Is it true? Sure. Does it make the casual reader think UPS will not ship ANY firearms? I think that's also true. More gotcha' journalism, but this is why I try to find multiple sources on a topic. The media's version of "truth" is usually a half-truth at best.


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 29, 2022)

AWP said:


> I strongly disagree with UPS' stance (it is bullshit to be honest), but that article's headline is somewhat misleading. Is it true? Sure. Does it make the casual reader think UPS will not ship ANY firearms? I think that's also true. More gotcha' journalism, but this is why I try to find multiple sources on a topic. The media's version of "truth" is usually a half-truth at best.


Wholeheartedly agree with your assessment.  Issue is that not many other outlets other pro-2A outlets are talking about it. I've seen it discussed for a couple months.

It's a clever strategy, as much as I despise it.  Can't pass laws, pressure businesses.  They did it with Visa/MC. They're doing it with UPS.  They achieve their objective in quiet fashion, bit by bit, without the hassle of legislation.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 29, 2022)

You could get an automatic weapon at Dick’s before 2018??  (See article).  They must have kept those behind the counter or something because I never saw one in any of my visits to that chain.


----------



## Kaldak (Sep 29, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> You could get an automatic weapon at Dick’s before 2018??  (See article).  They must have kept those behind the counter or something because I never saw one in any of my visits to that chain.



I caught that too. Another article written by someone who doesn't know squat about firearms.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 29, 2022)

Kaldak said:


> I caught that too. Another article written by someone who doesn't know squat about firearms.


“Full semi-automatic”


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 29, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> You could get an automatic weapon at Dick’s before 2018??  (See article).  They must have kept those behind the counter or something because I never saw one in any of my visits to that chain.


Yeah, as @AWP stated, there are definitely issues with some of the details in that article.  

Then again, maybe Dick's really did sell automatic weapons and I didn't know about it either (I've actually never shopped there for firearms and avoid that trash store now like the plague for any other sporting goods items).


----------



## Raptor (Sep 29, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> It's a clever strategy, as much as I despise it.  Can't pass laws, pressure businesses.  They did it with Visa/MC. They're doing it with UPS.  They achieve their objective in quiet fashion, bit by bit, without the hassle of legislation.


In some ways, Corps have even more power to suppress our rights than the government. And we have less direct influence over them than we do politicians.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 29, 2022)

Eff these fools.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 5, 2022)

Meanwhile in Minneapolis, our Attorney General (Keith Ellison) is hard at work going after the businesses that legally sell guns to bad guys…

AG Ellison's lawsuit alleges Fleet Farm negligently sold firearms that ended up trafficked

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison announced Wednesday that his office has filed a complaint against Fleet Farm for, they claim, negligently selling firearms and other charges tied to gun trafficking.

Ellison -- along with Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter, and Richfield Mayor Maria Gonzales -- addressed the media as he filed the lawsuit in District Court.

Ellison says in selling close to 40 guns to two people in the span of a just few months, the company should have known they were being resold.

In one instance, Ellison says Fleet Farm sold 24 guns to one individual in a four-month span in 2021. Seven of these guns have been traced to crimes or suspected crimes, Ellison said.


----------



## pardus (Oct 5, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> “Full semi-automatic”


They’re found between the single shot machine guns and bolt action flamethrowers. 

This article is well written…

Why UPS Has Strict New Rules for Shipping Firearms


----------



## Muppet (Oct 8, 2022)

Wait for it. I bet the Weavers would agree....


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 14, 2022)

This will stoke the gun control fire a bit.  Happened about 40 miles from me, five miles from my nephew's house, made Fox:

North Carolina shooting leaves 5 dead, including off-duty police officer; suspect in custody


----------



## AWP (Oct 14, 2022)

1787: You can own cannons.
2022: A rifle should hold no more than 5 rounds and must be registered with the government. For the children.

Motherfuckers telling me to trust the science when their understanding of science comes from social media, government press conferences, and a media so biased Helen Keller can FEEL the bullshit. Scientists are jerking off on national TV while historians look like a 7 year old when they realize their deadbeat dad isn't picking them up that weekend so he can spend time with his girlfriend:


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 14, 2022)

AWP said:


> 1787: You can own cannons.
> 2022: A rifle should hold no more than 5 rounds and must be registered with the government. For the children.
> 
> Motherfuckers telling me to trust the science when their understanding of science comes from social media, government press conferences, and a media so biased Helen Keller can FEEL the bullshit. Scientists are jerking off on national TV while historians look like a 7 year old when they realize their deadbeat dad isn't picking them up that weekend so he can spend time with his girlfriend:



How dare you use that kitty picture; it is a logical fallacy, a pictorial appeal to emotion.  Now I have no choice but to be believe you.


----------



## AWP (Oct 14, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> How dare you use that kitty picture; it is a logical fallacy, a pictorial appeal to emotion.  Now I have no choice but to be believe you.



My meme game is strong, for the children of course.


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 14, 2022)




----------



## Muppet (Oct 14, 2022)

AWP said:


> 1787: You can own cannons.
> 2022: A rifle should hold no more than 5 rounds and must be registered with the government. For the children.
> 
> Motherfuckers telling me to trust the science when their understanding of science comes from social media, government press conferences, and a media so biased Helen Keller can FEEL the bullshit. Scientists are jerking off on national TV while historians look like a 7 year old when they realize their deadbeat dad isn't picking them up that weekend so he can spend time with his girlfriend:



Said it better than me.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 22, 2022)

Meanwhile in Canada…

Trudeau orders an immediate freeze on the sale of handguns in Canada


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 22, 2022)

Dear Mr. Trudeau;

Wanna make a bet?

Respectfully,

The Guerrilla Economy


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 22, 2022)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Meanwhile in Canada…
> 
> Trudeau orders an immediate freeze on the sale of handguns in Canada
> 
> View attachment 40776


Saw this yesterday and was waiting to see @RackMaster's take on it.

Didn't look at it real closely but my initial thought was, "Good luck with that".  Then again, there's a lot of sheeple out there and Canada has been doing some pretty crazy things lately.


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 22, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> Saw this yesterday and was waiting to see @RackMaster's take on it.
> 
> Didn't look at it real closely but my initial thought was, "Good luck with that".  Then again, there's a lot of sheeple out there and Canada has been doing some pretty crazy things lately.



It's done.  Legally we can't do anything about it without an election. He is letting anti-gun groups dictate policy and they are pushing for more.  Any purchases prior to yesterday are being processed but they are now useless.  They are coming for all guns.

 He's doing the same with oil and gas, our Environment Minister was a former director of Greenpeace.

Here's a good source, they are our largest firearms rights group and only registered lobbyist.

"The newer, uglier C-21 - Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights" The newer, uglier C-21 - Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 22, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> It's done.  Legally we can't do anything about it without an election. He is letting anti-gun groups dictate policy and they are pushing for more.  Any purchases prior to yesterday are being processed but they are now useless.  They are coming for all guns.
> 
> He's doing the same with oil and gas, our Environment Minister was a former director of Greenpeace.
> 
> ...


How does Canada regulate sales between private sellers?


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 22, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> How does Canada regulate sales between private sellers?



All handguns and restricted firearms, like the AR; have been registered with the government from the manufacturer or importer, for decades.  The seller has to call their Provincial firearms office to verify the buyers license and initiate the sale.  Once verified an authorization to transport (ATT) is given to the buyer and it's typically straight home.  If they then want to take it to a gunsmith or range, they then need to call and initiate a new ATT.  It also has restrictions on how it's stored/locked for transport.  But just like AR's and anything they defined as "assault style"; you will never get an ATT.  I expect before or during the next election, Trudeau will push for buy backs on handguns.  Although the buyback on "assault style" guns hasn't started yet and we're up to 5 provinces refusing to allow their police assets used for enforcement of the buyback. It's all a fucking mess.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 23, 2022)

AWP said:


> This thread is really going off the rails...



Moving mass shooting discussion out of Gun Control thread and over to here:

School/Mass shootings are now part of our culture.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 23, 2022)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Moving mass shooting discussion out of Gun Control thread and over to here:
> 
> School/Mass shootings are now part of our culture.



Oh god, they put you in charge of something again?😋😆😉


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 27, 2022)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Oh god, they put you in charge of something again?😋😆😉


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 27, 2022)

Well Trudeau, for the third time has added to the list of banned firearms.  They let an anti-gun advocy group dictate policy by advising them on defining "assault-style weapon".   Attached is the current list, I'm sure it will get longer before it becomes law.

They should just be honest and go for what they want, which is full disarmament.  I'm fucking tired of these piecemeal hits, using tragedies and manipulating major police investigations to push their agenda.
At least then, all the fucking morons that vote for the Left in Canada and think their hunting rifles are safe; will see the truth.  The Left is trying to vilify and destroy anyone that does not believe their bullshit 'utopian' view.  Whether it's gun violence or an overdose epidemic, they attack law abiding citizens, seize firearms and let the epidemic fester, simultaneously destroying whole neighborhoods with junkies at safe injection site's.

LILLEY: Trudeau targets hunters with gun bill changes that assault Canadian heritage

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-control-assault-firearm-1.6661936


----------



## Gunz (Nov 27, 2022)

That’s how they ban guns, one bite at a time. They bite bigger in Canada because they can. Not as many firearms in circulation, probably a higher percentage of liberal wankers than here, but it’s always more restrictions, never less.

I feel your pain.


----------



## Kraut783 (Nov 27, 2022)

Jeeez....so, what can you have there?


----------



## AWP (Nov 27, 2022)

Kraut783 said:


> Jeeez....so, what can you have there?



Communism, eventually.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 27, 2022)

AWP said:


> Communism, eventually.


"You can vote your way into socialism, but you'll have to shoot your way out."


----------



## Muppet (Nov 27, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> "You can vote your way into socialism, but you'll have to shoot your way out."



But, but, but, you can't fight the military. They have tanks, drones, blah, blah, blah. ;)

Laughs in historical partisan...


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 27, 2022)

Muppet said:


> But, but, but, you can't fight the military. They have tanks, drones, blah, blah, blah. ;)
> 
> Laughs in historical partisan...


I heard that argument for the first time in grad school, from a woman who never served in any military and never handled a weapon before in her life.  It was a shocking display of self-assured arrogant ignorance.  One example of several during that time.


----------



## policemedic (Nov 27, 2022)

Muppet said:


> But, but, but, you can't fight the military. They have tanks, drones, blah, blah, blah. ;)
> 
> Laughs in historical partisan...





Marauder06 said:


> I heard that argument for the first time in grad school, from a woman who never served in any military and never handled a weapon before in her life.  It was a shocking display of self-assured arrogant ignorance.  One example of several during that time.



Canadians know better.  See also, Mohawks. See also, Oka crisis.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 27, 2022)

Kraut783 said:


> Jeeez....so, what can you have there?



Sadly after this, we're down to modern bolt actions, pump and lever with 5 round magazine. Or single shots.  With the wording they used for magazines on the semi-auto's, the legal opinion of almost all firearms lawyers; it essentially bans them all.  There is still time before it becomes law but once it's done, it sets precedent to supercede our Bill of Rights and they can confiscate property without compensation.  

The attitudes from the Liberal politicians and government lawyers, when asked questions in committee; is pure arrogance.  They know better and don't give a shit about any of us because they'd never get our vote.  They do not care about killing an industry.


----------



## AWP (Nov 27, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> They know better and don't give a shit about any of us because they'd never get our vote.  They do not care about killing an industry.



Tyrants destroy whatever they must in order to subjugate people.


----------



## Muppet (Nov 27, 2022)

AWP said:


> Tyrants destroy whatever they must in order to subjugate people.



But, kids safety!


----------



## AWP (Nov 27, 2022)

Muppet said:


> But, kids safety!


It's always for the children and that's how you know it is bullshit.


----------



## pardus (Nov 27, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> Sadly after this, we're down to modern bolt actions, pump and lever with 5 round magazine. Or single shots.  With the wording they used for magazines on the semi-auto's, the legal opinion of almost all firearms lawyers; it essentially bans them all.  There is still time before it becomes law but once it's done, it sets precedent to supercede our Bill of Rights and they can confiscate property without compensation.
> 
> The attitudes from the Liberal politicians and government lawyers, when asked questions in committee; is pure arrogance.  They know better and don't give a shit about any of us because they'd never get our vote.  They do not care about killing an industry.


So a Lee Enfield for example will be banned? I guess a Ross is OK because it has a 5rd mag correct?


----------



## Gunz (Nov 28, 2022)

How do they plan to deal with existing listed firearms? Grandfather in or outright confiscation? Buy-backs, LOL? You'll know the end has come when they start going after bows and crossbows.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 28, 2022)

pardus said:


> So a Lee Enfield for example will be banned? I guess a Ross is OK because it has a 5rd mag correct?


So far, I haven't seen them on the list.  We already have to have the magazines blocked to 5 if you use them for hunting.  But I could see at least having them all blocked to 5.



Gunz said:


> How do they plan to deal with existing listed firearms? Grandfather in or outright confiscation? Buy-backs, LOL? You'll know the end has come when they start going after bows and crossbows.



The original ban on "assault-style" firearms was supposed to be a buy-back but they recently admitted they don't know how to implement it. We're also up to 4 provinces officially refusing to let any resources be used for the buy-back or confiscation. 
The way this amendment is written, once it's law they don't have to offer a buyback; straight confiscation.   


Here's a good explanation from one of our top lawyers.


> 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐮'𝐬 𝐒𝐞𝐦𝐢-𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐨 𝐑𝐢𝐟𝐥𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐬 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐞 - 𝐀 𝐋𝐚𝐰𝐲𝐞𝐫 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬
> Criminal Defence & Firearms Lawyer, Ian Runkle, explains what the Liberal's are doing with this new hunting gun ban amendment to Bill C-21, and why PM Justin Trudeau is so DESPERATE to distract Canadians from his many scandals, failed Canadian economy, and HUGE rise in violence and crime in our communities.
> 
> Just a reminder that since Trudeau took office:
> ...


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 28, 2022)

Biden has been talking the talk, but according to democrat senator, not enough votes.

Sen. Chris Murphy pops Biden’s hopes for assault weapons ban, says the votes aren’t there

Biden's comments about gun owners not winning him any friends:

Critics erupt on Biden after ‘sick’ comment on semi-automatic gun purchases: 'Sheer ignorance'


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 28, 2022)

Nine months just to get an appointment for a fingerprinting for a pistol permit.  Not to carry, just to have one.  Probably going to be a year or more until I can legally own a pistol inside of my own home in NY State.

I have many, many more thoughts on this, but since "social media accounts" are now part of the licensing/permitting process, I think I'll keep them to myself.

Nine.  Months.  To get fingerprinted.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 28, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> Nine months just to get an appointment for a fingerprinting for a pistol permit.  Not to carry, just to have one.  Probably going to be a year or more until I can legally own a pistol inside of my own home in NY State.
> 
> I have many, many more thoughts on this, but since "social media accounts" are now part of the licensing/permitting process, I think I'll keep them to myself.
> 
> Nine.  Months.  To get fingerprinted.



There are things I just don't talk about on social media.  

Guns are great.  I'd like to own one some day.


----------



## Muppet (Nov 28, 2022)

I don't believe in guns. I believe the police will protect me. I firmly believe the state and federal governments will protect me. I know they have my welfare as their priority. Guns are for cops and military only. Words and emotions can fix any issue.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 28, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> Nine months just to get an appointment for a fingerprinting for a pistol permit.  Not to carry, just to have one.



You could have a baby while you wait.


----------



## AWP (Nov 28, 2022)

Muppet said:


> I don't believe in guns. I believe the police will protect me. I firmly believe the state and federal governments will protect me. I know they have my welfare as their priority. Guns are for cops and military only. Words and emotions can fix any issue.



Practice conflict resolution and empathizing with others. You would not believe how safe my family is because of those techniques.


----------



## AWP (Nov 28, 2022)

Gunz said:


> How do they plan to deal with existing listed firearms? Grandfather in or outright confiscation? Buy-backs, LOL? You'll know the end has come when they start going after bows and crossbows.



Or eat one. Take a child about 4-6 months old, fry 'em up and dust them with confectioner's sugar. I call it the Monte Kiddo.


----------



## Muppet (Nov 28, 2022)

AWP said:


> Or eat one. Take a child about 4-6 months old, fry 'em up and dust them with confectioner's sugar. I call it the Monte Kiddo.



I love babies. I dont think I can eat a whole one.


----------



## AWP (Nov 28, 2022)

I meant to quote @Gunz but the mistake is too perfect to fix.


----------



## pardus (Nov 28, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> Nine months just to get an appointment for a fingerprinting for a pistol permit.  Not to carry, just to have one.  Probably going to be a year or more until I can legally own a pistol inside of my own home in NY State.
> 
> I have many, many more thoughts on this, but since "social media accounts" are now part of the licensing/permitting process, I think I'll keep them to myself.
> 
> Nine.  Months.  To get fingerprinted.


What county are you in?


----------



## Gunz (Nov 29, 2022)

Amerika, komrad.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 29, 2022)




----------



## AWP (Nov 29, 2022)

Now I want to go watch Spider-Man for some reason…


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 30, 2022)

Our only gun rights organization, with a registered lobbyist; held a press conference today.


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 14, 2022)

Good thing they're banning hunting rifles and shotguns.

LILLEY: Don't expect harsh sentences for those convicted of gun smuggling


----------



## “The Old Man” (Dec 14, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> Good thing they're banning hunting rifles and shotguns.
> 
> LILLEY: Don't expect harsh sentences for those convicted of gun smuggling


Have you considered relocating?


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 14, 2022)

“The Old Man” said:


> Have you considered relocating?



I have.  But with senior parents that can't travel, we're stuck here.   And frankly, I still want to fight for the country; even if it's only by voting assholes out.


----------



## “The Old Man” (Dec 14, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> I have.  But with senior parents that can't travel, we're stuck here.   And frankly, I still want to fight for the country; even if it's only by voting assholes out.


Quite understandable. 
If you ever change your mind. It is very nice here in Missouri👍


----------



## Gunz (Dec 14, 2022)

You can't get this kind of law enforcement in Missouri.


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 14, 2022)

“The Old Man” said:


> Quite understandable.
> If you ever change your mind. It is very nice here in Missouri👍



No offense but if we're leaving the country, we want to leave the possibility of wet and cold behind.  My body hates it.


----------



## Muppet (Dec 14, 2022)

Wieambilla police killers obsessed with guns, father says

Not the US but, great example on how strict gun laws don't matter, as you know. It's almost like assholes don't follow gun laws.


----------



## “The Old Man” (Dec 14, 2022)

Muppet said:


> Wieambilla police killers obsessed with guns, father says
> 
> Not the US but, great example on how strict gun laws don't matter, as you know. It's almost like assholes don't follow gun laws.


Yeah, I would like to know what weapons were used. 
Idiots like the ones in the article have no moral compass. So it wouldn't matter if they were flintlocks. 
All the buybacks and bans in the world. Will never stop a psychopath/sociopath. 

Now we the chief nincompoop telling US. That we are to blame for everything since sandy hook. 
This emtire narrative is a bunch of billshit. That I personally will NEVER conform to. 

I pray for the families of the slain officers🙏🏽


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 18, 2022)

Oh damn.


----------



## Muppet (Dec 18, 2022)

As a reminder....


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 19, 2022)

"Mass" shooting in Ontario:

Six dead including suspect in shooting near Canada's Toronto


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 19, 2022)

This isn't good in the middle of fighting Trudeau's gun bans.  At first it sounded like a gang shooting gone bad but a 73 year old man, makes that not likely.   Could be an honour killing but they'll don't report those any more.


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 19, 2022)

Crazy guy "ending" feud with condo board.

Canadian man accused of killing 5 had feud with condo board


----------



## Muppet (Dec 21, 2022)




----------



## Blizzard (Dec 22, 2022)

It's not guns those crazy Canucks need to be worried about:
8 teen girls charged with murder in 'swarming' attack on man in Canada

Seems like I hear about more crazy knife attack stories coming out of Canada than I do anywhere else.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Dec 22, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> It's not guns those crazy Canucks need to be worried about:
> 8 teen girls charged with murder in 'swarming' attack on man in Canada
> 
> Seems like I hear about more crazy knife attack stories coming out of Canada than I do anywhere else.


It's not about safety, its about control.


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 22, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> It's not guns those crazy Canucks need to be worried about:
> 8 teen girls charged with murder in 'swarming' attack on man in Canada
> 
> Seems like I hear about more crazy knife attack stories coming out of Canada than I do anywhere else.



It's not a new "phenomenon" here, just making news because it's Toronto.  I know of a similar incident but only 1 girl was charged.   

Society is fucked.  We need to start holding parents/guardians accountable.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 22, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> Society is fucked. We need to start holding parents/guardians accountable.


I genuinely think it might be too late. The people in power to make those decisions are the people who raised this current generation of parents who don’t hold their own children accountable.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 22, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> This isn't good in the middle of fighting Trudeau's gun bans.





RackMaster said:


> This is going to do nothing but fuck up the already fucked automotive industry.  I can imagine it's only a matter of time before some of them pull out of the Canadian market altogether.
> 
> Canada moves to mandate electric vehicle sales starting in 2026



Jesus. And to think we tried to invade you in 1775. What the fuck were we thinking???


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 22, 2022)

Gunz said:


> Jesus. And to think we tried to invade you in 1775. What the fuck were we thinking???



I don't recognize this country anymore.


----------



## JedisonsDad (Dec 22, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> It's not guns those crazy Canucks need to be worried about:
> 8 teen girls charged with murder in 'swarming' attack on man in Canada
> 
> Seems like I hear about more crazy knife attack stories coming out of Canada than I do anywhere else.


We should just make murder and assault illegal, and then no one will do it. We all know that rules and punishment will prevent criminals from gaining access to illegal substances/items, and will prevent these acts from happening. It worked for alcohol during prohibition, and continues to work with drugs. I’ve never seen anyone underage drink or smoke tobacco.


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 22, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> It's not a new "phenomenon" here, just making news because it's Toronto.  I know of a similar incident but only 1 girl was charged.
> 
> Society is fucked.  We need to start holding parents/guardians accountable.



I don't if you all caught this in the article but...

"In a police news conference Tuesday, Detective Sgt. Terry Browne provided more information on the case offering that the girls met on social media and were involved in a separate altercation on Dec. 17 before the alleged deadly assault of the 59-year-old man.

The girls are from different parts of the city, Brown noted, adding that *he wouldn’t describe them as a gang but said the girls allegedly were involved in what police call "swarming-type behavior."* "

This yo-yo won't even call a gang a gang!  What do you call a group of criminals?! 

That's a huge part of the problem these days -- this soft touch approach to everything.  The refusal to call things what they are is a failure to recognize a problem.


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 22, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> I don't if you all caught this in the article but...
> 
> "In a police news conference Tuesday, Detective Sgt. Terry Browne provided more information on the case offering that the girls met on social media and were involved in a separate altercation on Dec. 17 before the alleged deadly assault of the 59-year-old man.
> 
> ...



Oh, I caught that.  It's happening all over, major cities like Toronto and in small rural town's.  When did potentially offending someone become more important, than actual lives?   

I'm grateful we live in the country and rarely go to the city.


----------



## JedisonsDad (Dec 22, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> Oh, I caught that.  It's happening all over, major cities like Toronto and in small rural town's.  When did potentially offending someone become more important, than actual lives?
> 
> I'm grateful we live in the country and rarely go to the city.


Well then you have to admit your city has a “gang-problem” and that affects funding, and donors, and doesn’t reflect well on government officials going up for election. It might also come with mandatory minimums with conviction, that reflects negatively on the DA.


----------



## Muppet (Dec 22, 2022)

A mix of cunts with the masks/CDC, add in anticipation 2A bullshit via CDC.


----------



## AWP (Dec 23, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> The girls are from different parts of the city, Brown noted, adding that *he wouldn’t describe them as a gang but said the girls allegedly were involved in what police call "swarming-type behavior."* "
> 
> This yo-yo won't even call a gang a gang!  What do you call a group of criminals?!
> 
> That's a huge part of the problem these days -- this soft touch approach to everything.  The refusal to call things what they are is a failure to recognize a problem.



Isn't the legal definition of a gang something like an ongoing criminal organization with shared dress, symbols, colors, whatever? Unless they did this multiple times and agreed to all wear blue shirts or Dallas Cowboys hats or whatever, they legally wouldn't be a gang, just trash ass human beings.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 23, 2022)

Maybe not a gang by US definition, and depending on the state, but definitely conspiracy to commit murder, and murder, or whatever laws they have. Which in Texas would just be Capital murder and seek the death penalty.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 31, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> Our only gun rights organization, with a registered lobbyist; held a press conference today.



Appears homie is struggling with his attempt to disarm you. 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1609251808290938885


----------



## RackMaster (Friday at 2:58 PM)

Radio interview with the head of the CCFR, our only gun rights organization with an official registered lobbyist.


----------



## Marauder06 (Saturday at 9:22 AM)

Federal court strikes down Trump-era bump stock ban

Federal court strikes down Trump-era bump stock ban


----------

