PDA

View Full Version : Gun Laws



road kill
12-20-2012, 07:12 AM
I am just curious as to the general opinion here.

If "assault weapons" were restricted (as Obama is demanding now), how would the events of last week been different?

Jason Glavich
12-20-2012, 07:23 AM
They wouldn't have been different. The guns were already owned, just like all the rest already out there. Unless they confiscate all of them...

Ken Bora
12-20-2012, 07:25 AM
well...... everything else the same right?
so instead of taking two semi-auto handguns and a semi-auto rifle, from his Mom.
That she had laying about in his reach for whatever reason.
he would have grabbed two revolvers and a lever action rifle.
Mom would still be the first killed, school door still be busted and, well...........
no need to keep typin' :(

Bryan Manning
12-20-2012, 07:29 AM
There was already had a ban on what people call "assault rifles" in Connecticut. Which is the most ridiculous term I have ever heard.

mngundog
12-20-2012, 07:31 AM
There was already had a ban on what people call assault rifles. Which is the most ridiculous term I have ever heard.

Are you talking about the Romney assault rifle ban or the Brady bill?

road kill
12-20-2012, 07:37 AM
Are you talking about the Romney assault rifle ban or the Brady bill?

Maybe this:
Federal Assault Weapons BanFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons". The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[1] but no bill has reached the floor for a vote.

mngundog
12-20-2012, 07:50 AM
Maybe this:
Federal Assault Weapons BanFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons". The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[1] but no bill has reached the floor for a vote.

I thought he meant this one:

During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney had been a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban, and had also said he believed "in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms."[128] On July 1, 2004, Romney signed a permanent state ban on assault weapons, saying at the signing ceremony for the new law, "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."[129] The law extended a temporary measure that had been in effect since 1998 and covered weapons such as the AK-47, Uzi, and MAC-10.[129] The same law also modified some other aspects of general firearms licensing regulations.[129]

Bryan Manning
12-20-2012, 07:57 AM
Are you talking about the Romney assault rifle ban or the Brady bill?

Would be the Romney I assume. From what I understand of it though it is not an outright ban. I understand they actually have a state compliant rifle but I don't know what that intells. Firearm was purchased legally but it was an illegal weapon at the time of this horrific tragedy. Nobody knows what happened in that house his mother could very well have been trying to stop him when he shot her.

road kill
12-20-2012, 08:02 AM
I thought he meant this one:
Help me out here, when did Romney sign anything that was a law in CT??
What you posted was relevant to MA.

.................what effect would these laws have on what happened last week?

Bryan Manning
12-20-2012, 08:04 AM
Hear it is there is a lot to it but under glossary of terms it defines "assault weapons". Connecticut obviously has very strict gun laws. and no not Romney bill it is Connecticut law.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/firearms.htm



Criminal Jury Instructions

ASSAULT WEAPON

"Assault weapon" means any one of the following:

1. Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: Algimec Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2; Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and ARM; Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 Carbien type; Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only; Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 Series; Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3; Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; USI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson "Linda" Pistol.

2. A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (1) or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (1) may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

3. Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) that meets the following criteria:

(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

i. a folding or telescopic stock;

ii. a pistol grip;

iii. a bayonet mount;

iv. a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

v. a grenade launcher.

(B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

i. an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

ii. a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;

iii. a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

iv. a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

v. a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

(C) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:

i. a folding or telescoping stock;

ii. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

iii. a fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and

iv. an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

4. A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3), or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3), may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

Source: General Statutes § 53-202a (a) (applies to §§ 53-202b -- 202k).

Commentary: The term "assault weapon" does not include any firearm modified to render it permanently inoperable. General Statutes § 53-202a (b).

Glossary

road kill
12-20-2012, 08:11 AM
August 14, 2012
2012-R-0362

ASSAULT WEAPONS LEGISLATION



By: Christopher Reinhart, Chief Attorney


You asked for a summary of legislation pertaining to assault weapons since 1993.

SUMMARY

In 1993, the legislature prohibited possessing, selling, or transporting assault weapons, with limited exceptions. The 1993 act also gave those who lawfully possessed an assault weapon before October 1, 1993, nine months to apply for a certificate of possession to continue to possess the weapon. The act made a number of other changes regarding assault weapons (PA 93-306).

Since 1993, only five acts addressed assault weapons.

1. A 1994 act extended the deadline for those who lawfully possessed an assault weapon before October 1, 1993 to apply for a certificate of possession.

2. A 1998 act established a mechanism for the Department of Public Safety (DPS, now the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection) to exchange information with the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS) about people committed to psychiatric hospitals who also have permits to sell or carry handguns, handgun eligibility certificates, or certificates to possess assault weapons.

3. A 2001 act expanded the definition of assault weapons.

4. A 2002 act exempted possession of certain types of assault weapons from the ban.

5. A 2007 act required the lawful owner of an assault weapon to report its loss to police in the same way the law already required him or her to report its theft. The act also added penalties for failing to report a weapon's loss or theft.

Below we describe the major provisions of each of these acts.

PA 93-306—ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

This act generally banned possessing and transferring assault weapons. It created a number of crimes related to assault weapons, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Assault Weapon and Related Crimes Created by PA 93-306


Crime
Penalty

Possessing an assault weapon
● Class D felony (up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $5,000, or both) with a one-year mandatory minimum sentence

● Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in prison, a fine of up to $2,000, or both) if the person proved lawful possession before October 1, 1993 and otherwise complied with the act

Distributing, transporting, keeping, offering for sale, or giving an assault weapon
Class C felony (up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both) with a two-year mandatory minimum and an additional six-year mandatory minimum sentence for selling, transferring, or giving the weapon to a minor under age 18

Buying a firearm intending to transfer it to someone he of she knows or has reason to believe is prohibited from purchasing the firearm
Up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $1,000, or both



I can't find Romney's name on here.

It appears these laws didn't help much.

mngundog
12-20-2012, 08:12 AM
Help me out here, when did Romney sign anything that was a law in CT??
What you posted was relevant to MA.

Maybe you could stop the "he started it" routine and answer the question.

Or not.................
Road Kill, I was disappointed that the Republican party tried to send an anti-gun guy to the white house, I even posted a thread about it and the right defended him, now here we go looking at another possible ban. I am very interested to see if the Republicans will stand fast with this. To answer your question neither the Obama plan nor the Romney plan what have had an effect on the outcome.

road kill
12-20-2012, 08:12 AM
The rest........



Person prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm soliciting, employing, or assisting someone to engage in an illegal firearm transfer

● Class B misdemeanor (up to six months in prison, a fine of up to $1,000, or both)

● Class A misdemeanor if the violation involves the transfer of more than one firearm

● Class D felony if the person had been convicted of a felony in the five-year period prior to any of these violations

Using, threatening to use, displaying, or purporting to have an assault weapon while committing a class A, B, or C felony
Mandatory minimum eight-year sentence in addition and consecutive to any imprisonment for the felony


The act also added the use of an assault weapon in a crime punishable by death to the list of aggravating circumstances justifying a death sentence.

Definition of Assault Weapon

The act designated as an assault weapon:

1. any of a list of named firearms;

2. selective-fire firearms capable of fully automatic, semi-automatic, or burst fire at the option of the user; and

3. parts either designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon or from which an assault weapon may be rapidly assembled if they are in one person's possession.

The act exempted permanently inoperable firearms.

Certificates of Possession

The act allowed anyone who lawfully possessed an assault weapon before October 1, 1993 to apply by July 1, 1994 to DPS for a certificate of possession. A certificate of possession allowed the owner of an assault weapon to possess it:

1. at (a) his or her residence, business, or property or (b) another person's property with permission;

2. at certain target ranges or licensed shooting clubs;

3. while attending certain types of firearms exhibitions, displays, or educational projects; or

4. while transporting it, in accordance with the act, between any of the places mentioned above or to a licensed dealer for servicing or repair.

When an assault weapon is being transported between these locations, the act prohibited (1) carrying it loaded and concealed from view or (2) knowingly carrying it in a vehicle when it was (a) loaded or (b) unloaded unless it was in the vehicle's trunk or a container inaccessible to the vehicle's occupants. The act punished violations with up to three years in prison, up to a $500 fine, or both.

Beginning January 1, 1994, the act prohibited anyone with a certificate from selling an assault weapon to anyone in the state except a licensed firearm dealer or otherwise transferring it except by bequest or intestate succession or to DPS or a police department. The act required an assault weapon owner who sells or transfers the weapon to a licensed gun dealer to execute a certificate of transfer at the time of sale or transfer and send it to DPS.

Exceptions

The act included a number of exceptions to the ban on possession and transfer of assault weapons. It allowed:

1. someone to transfer by bequest or intestate succession an assault weapon for which a certificate had been issued;

2. anyone who inherited an assault weapon for which a certificate had been issued or an estate executor or administrator to possess and dispose of the assault weapon as specified in the act;

3. the Department of Correction (DOC), DPS, police departments, and the military forces to purchase assault weapons for official use and their employees or members to possess the weapons; and

4. licensed gun dealers to (a) accept assault weapons for servicing from anyone with a certificate for the weapon; (b) transfer assault weapons for servicing under certain circumstances; and (c) transport lawfully possessed weapons between dealers or out-of-state, display them at gun shows licensed by a state or local government entity, or sell them to out-of-state residents.

The act also:

1. allowed an individual to arrange to relinquish an assault weapon to a police department or DPS;

2. allowed temporary transfer or possession of an assault weapon for which a certificate had been issued for certain out-of-state events; and

3. required anyone who moved into the state in lawful possession of an assault weapon to sell it to a licensed gun dealer, make it permanently inoperable, or take it out of state.

Manufacturers

The act specified that its provisions should not be construed to prohibit manufacturers from manufacturing or transporting the weapons in the state for sale (1) out-of-state or (2) in-state to agencies which are allowed to purchase assault weapons.

Stolen Weapons

The act required anyone whose assault weapon was stolen to report the theft to a law enforcement agency within 72 hours after he or she discovered or should have discovered the theft.

The act took effect on October 1, 1993.

PA 94-1, JULY SPECIAL SESSION—EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR CONTINUED POSSESSION

This act:

1. extended, from July 1 to October 1, 1994, the deadline for someone who lawfully possessed an assault weapon before October 1, 1993 to apply for a certificate of possession to keep the firearm legally;

2. gave people in the military, who could not apply by the deadline because they were away on official duty, 90 days after returning to the state to apply for a certificate; and

3. gave people in the military, who legally possessed an assault weapon and transferred into the state after October 1, 1994, 90 days to apply for a certificate.

PA 98-129—EXCHANGING INFORMATION REGARDING MENTAL HEALTH

This act established a mechanism for DPS to exchange information with DMHAS about people committed to psychiatric hospitals who have permits to sell or carry handguns, handgun eligibility certificates, or certificates to possess assault weapons.

Among other things, the act required:

1. probate courts committing someone to a hospital for psychiatric disabilities after May 31, 1998 to, within three business days, provide a copy of the order to the DMHAS commissioner;

2. the DMHAS commissioner to provide information from commitment orders to DPS;

3. the DMHAS commissioner to (a) obtain from the DPS commissioner the permit, certificate, or application status of everyone subject to a commitment order and (b) inform the DPS commissioner of the commitment status of any of these individuals;

4. DMHAS to inform psychiatric hospitals of any information from DPS about the permit or certificate status of anyone committed to the hospital in order to help the hospital consider treatment options; and

5. the DPS commissioner to verify, with information from DMHAS, whether anyone who applied after September 30, 1998 to get or renew a permit or certificate was committed by the probate court to a psychiatric hospital during the preceding 12 months.

The act took effect on October 1, 1998.

PA 01-130—BANNING ADDITIONAL WEAPONS

This act added the following to weapons designated as assault weapons:

1. semiautomatic rifles and pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have certain features;

2. semiautomatic shotguns with certain features; and

3. part or parts in one person's possession either designed or intended to convert any firearm into one of the newly covered assault weapons or from which one may be assembled rapidly.

The act banned any of the newly designated assault weapons manufactured after September 12, 1994. It allowed the transfer and possession of those legally manufactured before September 13, 1994 by stipulating that it must not be construed to limit their transfer or require their registration.

The act took effect on October 1, 2001.

PA 02-120—EXCEPTIONS TO THE BAN

This act added to the exceptions to the assault weapons ban. It exempted possession (but not other transactions) of Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; and MAC-10, MAC-11, and MAC-11 Carbine type assault weapons by anyone who:

1. purchased legally and in good faith, or otherwise obtained title to, any of these weapons between October 1, 1993 and May 8, 2002;

2. was not otherwise disqualified or prohibited from possessing them;

3. notified DPS that he or she possessed the weapon by sending the department a copy of the proof of purchase for the weapon; and

4. provided DPS with a state or federal form for the weapon or a sworn affidavit that it was purchased or acquired legally.

The act required DPS to issue a certificate of possession for these weapons, gave military personnel stationed out-of-state on official duty 90 days after returning to the state to file the required notice, and provided an affirmative defense from prosecution for possessing any of these weapons under certain circumstances.

The act took effect on October 1, 2002.

PA 07-163—LOST OR STOLEN WEAPONS

This act required the lawful owner of an assault weapon to report its loss to police in the same way the law already required him or her to report its theft. As for a theft, the act required the owner to report a weapon's loss to police within 72 hours after he or she discovered or should have discovered the loss. The act also extended these provisions to lawful owners of any firearm.

The act added penalties for failing to report a weapon's loss or theft, making:

1. a first-time unintentional failure to report within the deadline an infraction, punishable by a fine of up to $90;

2. a subsequent unintentional failure a class D felony; and

3. an intentional failure to report a class C felony.

The act specified that a first-time violator does not lose the right to get or possess a permit to possess or sell handguns.

The act took effect October 1, 2007.

CR:ro

Didley
12-20-2012, 08:13 AM
What is being WIDELY over-looked is the fact that Connecticut HAS an ACTIVE assault weapons ban (following the same form as the Clinton era's ban). The gun was still legally purchased in the state by his mother.

It is foolishness. There have been extensive studies that showed the the previous assault weapon's ban did nothing. I hope it is not news to anyone here that the term "assault weapon" was coined by gun-grabbers in the 90s to create fear and confusion about guns that "look" like assault weapons, but are not actually assault weapons. They feed off people's fear and ignorance to the truth and the unwitting masses eat it up.

As always, the problem is the mentally-ill. And, unless this is another piece of misinformation, the mother of the shooter. She was about to have her son forcibly committed and her son found out about it. Why you leave THREE guns accessible to someone you know is mentally unstable is beyond me.

mngundog
12-20-2012, 08:28 AM
Romney's name was on this one, another state the same believe:

The definition of “assault weapon” is the same as the federal law that went into effect on September 13, 1994. Specific guns are banned by name, and guns with certain combinations of features are banned:

a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon ;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;

a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip,
or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits
the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--"

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'“

A “large capacity feeding device” is defined the same as in federal law, or:
“a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells; ... The term “large capacity feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with,.22 caliber ammunition.”

A “large capacity weapon” is basically any firearm, rifle or shotgun that is semi-automatic with a fixed large capacity feeding device or that is capable of accepting any detachable large capacity feeding device; or an “assault weapon.”

Ban on recently-manufactured “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines.” State law clearly limits possession to pre-1994 items and exempts out only law enforcement and retired law enforcement:

“No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.”

Transportation of “Large Capacity Weapons:” No person possessing a large capacity rifle or shotgun under a Class A or Class B license issued under section 131 or 131F shall possess the same in a vehicle unless such weapon is unloaded and contained within the locked trunk of such vehicle or in a locked case or other secure container. Whoever violates the provisions of this subsection shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000.

References: Mass General Law C.140 §§121, 131C, 131M and 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30)

Bryan Manning
12-20-2012, 08:28 AM
What is being WIDELY over-looked is the fact that Connecticut HAS an ACTIVE assault weapons ban (following the same form as the Clinton era's ban). The gun was still legally purchased in the state by his mother.

It is foolishness. There have been extensive studies that showed the the previous assault weapon's ban did nothing. I hope it is not news to anyone here that the term "assault weapon" was coined by gun-grabbers in the 90s to create fear and confusion about guns that "look" like assault weapons, but are not actually assault weapons. They feed off people's fear and ignorance to the truth and the unwitting masses eat it up.

As always, the problem is crazy people. And, unless this is another piece of misinformation, the mother of the shooter. She was about to have her son forcibly committed and her son found out about it. Why you leave THREE guns accessible to someone you know is mentally unstable is beyond me.

x10! The term "assault weapon" is ignorant.

road kill
12-20-2012, 08:38 AM
What is being WIDELY over-looked is the fact that Connecticut HAS an ACTIVE assault weapons ban (following the same form as the Clinton era's ban). The gun was still legally purchased in the state by his mother.

It is foolishness. There have been extensive studies that showed the the previous assault weapon's ban did nothing. I hope it is not news to anyone here that the term "assault weapon" was coined by gun-grabbers in the 90s to create fear and confusion about guns that "look" like assault weapons, but are not actually assault weapons. They feed off people's fear and ignorance to the truth and the unwitting masses eat it up.

As always, the problem is crazy people. And, unless this is another piece of misinformation, the mother of the shooter. She was about to have her son forcibly committed and her son found out about it. Why you leave THREE guns accessible to someone you know is mentally unstable is beyond me.
If you could, take a moment and review the thread, the entire CT bill (sans Romney:rolleyes:) is posted above.
It did NOTHING!!!!!

Didley
12-20-2012, 08:46 AM
If you could, take a moment and review the thread, the entire CT bill (sans Romney:rolleyes:) is posted above.
It did NOTHING!!!!!

Not sure if being sarcastic...? I have read it.

It did nothing. Under an active assault weapons ban, this gun was still used to massacre 30 people. While it DID create a bunch of stupid rules, it did nothing to prevent this atrocity.

The thought at the moment by many people who don't know better is that if there had been an AW ban, this wouldn't have happened. Nope, there was one, and it still happened.

But please clarify what exactly you are trying to say.

road kill
12-20-2012, 08:55 AM
Not sure if being sarcastic...? I have read it.

It did nothing. Under an active assault weapons ban, this gun was still used to massacre 30 people. While it DID create a bunch of stupid rules, it did nothing to prevent this atrocity.

The thought at the moment by many people who don't know better is that if there had been an AW ban, this wouldn't have happened. Nope, there was one, and it still happened.

But please clarify what exactly you are trying to say.
CT already has these laws.
The laws that Joe Biden is going to hand to Obama in "concrete" form, to then be rammed down our throats.

The point is, outlaws won't even read the law, let alone obey it.

The progressives in the Whitehouse are using this tragedy and emotion to get another "increment" towards disarming the citizenry.
That is the ultimate goal, and eventual they will chip away and get there.

While the willing accomplces say "they will NEVER do that...." all the while they are doing it!!

Like I have said many times, in the end, the liberals will hate us for letting them have their way.

Didley
12-20-2012, 08:59 AM
CT already has these laws.
The laws that Joe Biden is going to hand to Obama in "concrete" form, to then be rammed down our throats.

The point is, outlaws won't even read the law, let alone obey it.

The progressives in the Whitehouse are using this tragedy and emotion to get another "increment" towards disarming the citizenry.
That is the ultimate goal, and eventual they will chip away and get there.

While the willing accomplces say "they will NEVER do that...." all the while they are doing it!!

Like I have said many times, in the end, the liberals will hate us for letting them have their way.


Ah. I agree completely.

mngundog
12-20-2012, 08:59 AM
CT already has these laws.
The laws that Joe Biden is going to hand to Obama in "concrete" form, to then be rammed down our throats.

The point is, outlaws won't even read the law, let alone obey it.

The progressives in the Whitehouse are using this tragedy and emotion to get another "increment" towards disarming the citizenry.
That is the ultimate goal, and eventual they will chip away and get there.

While the willing accomplces say "they will NEVER do that...." all the while they are doing it!!

Like I have said many times, in the end, the liberals will hate us for letting them have their way.
So Romney was a secular progressive?

road kill
12-20-2012, 09:03 AM
So Romney was a secular progressive?
Romney is not in the Whitehouse.
Nor was he Governor of CT.
Where have you been??

Buzz
12-20-2012, 09:04 AM
What is being WIDELY over-looked is the fact that Connecticut HAS an ACTIVE assault weapons ban (following the same form as the Clinton era's ban). The gun was still legally purchased in the state by his mother.

It is foolishness. There have been extensive studies that showed the the previous assault weapon's ban did nothing. I hope it is not news to anyone here that the term "assault weapon" was coined by gun-grabbers in the 90s to create fear and confusion about guns that "look" like assault weapons, but are not actually assault weapons. They feed off people's fear and ignorance to the truth and the unwitting masses eat it up.

As always, the problem is crazy people. And, unless this is another piece of misinformation, the mother of the shooter. She was about to have her son forcibly committed and her son found out about it. Why you leave THREE guns accessible to someone you know is mentally unstable is beyond me.

The part I highlighted is the issue. Although I don't like your term "crazy people" much. I have a sister who has manic depression. To make sure she doesn't get access to his guns, my dad keeps his in a gun safe with trigger locks on them. When we go hunting he takes off the trigger lock, when we are done he replaces it. I have followed his example. I have been lax this year however, I need to stay vigilant. I have like 10 guns. They are locked up AND have trigger locks on them. I always felt that if we had kids around and one got its hands on one of my guns and a tragedy happened, it would be MY FAULT. Same thing if my guns were stolen and used to perpetrate a crime. This kid's mom paid the ultimate price for being irresponsible. So did a lot of innocent people.

Maybe we need to have guns registered and start holding people responsible for their guns being misused? I HATE the idea of registration, and I doubt it would make a difference in the SHORT TERM. But in the long term it might make a difference.

And as far as having more people carrying, take a look at the other thread I started - "This is what happens when you let liberals carry guns."

I have put a lot of thought into this over the years. I have had a permit to carry for many years. The first time I sat down to fill out the paperwork it occurred to me that you don't want drunks, drug users, hotheads, dumbarses, mentally ill, or those who can't keep a level head under trying circumstances walking around with loaded weapons. Does the process of getting a permit weed those folks out? Well it does the "documented ones."

Marvin S
12-20-2012, 09:05 AM
So Romney was a secular progressive?

In case you missed it - Romney lost & is no longer relevant. Which by his actions is exactly what he wants to be :o!

mngundog
12-20-2012, 09:10 AM
Romney is not in the Whitehouse.
Nor was he Governor of CT.
Where have you been??
Where have I been? :confused: Where have you been? A month ago the Republicans ran a candidate who wanted to ban assault weapons, today they are whining about a President who wants to ban assault weapons.

Marvin S
12-20-2012, 09:11 AM
Maybe we need to have guns registered and start holding people responsible for their guns being misused? I HATE the idea of registration, and I doubt it would make a difference in the SHORT TERM. But in the long term it might make a difference.

As per usual, I do not believe you have done your research prior to pressing SUBMIT - check out the countries, all of them that had gun registatrion, NAZI germany comes to mind as one example.

Didley
12-20-2012, 09:12 AM
The part I highlighted is the issue. Although I don't like your term "crazy people" much. I have a sister who has manic depression. To make sure she doesn't get access to his guns, my dad keeps his in a gun safe with trigger locks on them. When we go hunting he takes off the trigger lock, when we are done he replaces it. I have followed his example. I have been lax this year however, I need to stay vigilant. I have like 10 guns. They are locked up AND have trigger locks on them. I always felt that if we had kids around and one got its hands on one of my guns and a tragedy happened, it would be MY FAULT. Same thing if my guns were stolen and used to perpetrate a crime. This kid's mom paid the ultimate price for being irresponsible. So did a lot of innocent people.

Maybe we need to have guns registered and start holding people responsible for their guns being misused? I HATE the idea of registration, and I doubt it would make a difference in the SHORT TERM. But in the long term it might make a difference.

And as far as having more people carrying, take a look at the other thread I started - "This is what happens when you let liberals carry guns."

I have put a lot of thought into this over the years. I have had a permit to carry for many years. The first time I sat down to fill out the paperwork it occurred to me that you don't want drunks, drug users, hotheads, dumbarses, mentally ill, or those who can't keep a level head under trying circumstances walking around with loaded weapons. Does the process of getting a permit weed those folks out? Well it does the "documented ones."

Right. If they have a felony record, they are weeded out. But that's the thing with constitutionally protected rights. You have to prove yourself unable to handle the responsibility before the right may be taken away.

Also, I am sorry if my use of the term "crazy person" offended you. Not my intent and insensitive of me. I should have used mentally ill.

I also have a permit to carry as does my wife. It's not for everyone, certainly. I've taken my wife to the range several times, sent her to two private training classes, and encourage her to practice at home. However, none of this preparation matters if she can't be responsible with the firearm. The woman in the article you posted is a good and clear example of someone who has no right to be near a firearm.

Dustin D
12-20-2012, 09:35 AM
The AWB is the absolute most stupid and useless bill. it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to keep ANYONE Safer.

I'm not exaggerating, I'm not blowing things out of proportion. That's the COLD HARD FACT!

Personally if another 10 yr ban is all they wanted to do, FINE! Let them think it does something to help them sleep at night.

Ridiculous.

See the AWB explained here;



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6R5VxAebCng

MooseGooser
12-20-2012, 09:40 AM
MnGundog your argument about Romney Vs Obama is just old news.
You guys own this now. Its YOUR guy in there driving the agenda.
Its Your senate that will support him.

Quit the banter about Romney being just as bad. YOUR guy is out to take YOUR gun away...

What I dont understand,,, is if you listened to what Obama had to say yesyerday in his press conference,, most of the points he has appointed Biden to address,, are things we already do.

felons cant own guns,
Domestic violence offenders cant own guns
Under aged kids cant purchse guns
mentally ill cant own guns
There ARE already background checks being done at gun shows.
In some instances there is a time restriction before the sale becomes final.
all sales followed by law are registered.

I am more concerned about his comment he will use what ever power his office holds to make sure something like this doesnt happen again...
A gun is useless,, if ammunition,, or the components to make it, are extreamly expensive due to regulation on manufactuers which will be passed on to consumers,, or the possibility that ammo and components will also be regulated to the gun buying public in an unrealistic, oppressive way..

The feds have regulated ammo before... Non Tox shot.... there has been talk of Non Tox bullets,, studys done as to how much lead is in big game meat after an animal has been shot with a typical lead bullet...

There has been talk of taggants in Powder... There has been talk of restrictions on Quantity of components AND a private citizens requirement to keep records of every round he loads,, and that record keeping being subject to federal inspection..

Of course,, all this would require youto have a license of manufacture, that would require background information, and a heavy licence fee.

I am more concerned that the left has realised the gun is pratically impossible to remove from its dream of utopia,, but they are working on backdoor measure to render the gun as an artifact...

I am concerned that measures like these are what Obama talks about when he says He will do everything in his offices powerto make sure this doesnt happen again...

I reload quite a bit.. I have seen instances where components are short in supply due to panic Hoarding, or manufacturing troubles.. It can make them hard and expensive to purchase.. All it would take is oppressive regulation of stuff like this and the gun becomes increasingly,, incrementally,, useless...

Gooser

Didley
12-20-2012, 09:41 AM
Not fine. I sold mine :(. And don't have the money for another. Plus I want an mk18 for home defense, but am not going to pay for one and then start the paperwork just so it can take 9 months to get approved then be banned....

Pointless legislation is pointless.

Dustin D
12-20-2012, 09:42 AM
Not fine. I sold mine :(. And don't have the money for another. Plus I want an mk18 for home defense, but am not going to pay for one and then start the paperwork just so it can take 9 months to get approved then be banned....

Pointless legislation is pointless.

Yes I mean I'd fight it as much I could but if it passes for another 10 years and expires Oh Well let them be stupid in thinking it actually did something.

Didley
12-20-2012, 09:44 AM
You know they will never see the fact that it is doing nothing to help gun crime. They see it as a victory against an enemy (us).

Dustin D
12-20-2012, 09:58 AM
You know they will never see the fact that it is doing nothing to help gun crime. They see it as a victory against an enemy (us).

and one step closer to confiscation.

DSemple
12-20-2012, 10:26 AM
MnGundog your argument about Romney Vs Obama is just old news.

I am more concerned about his comment he will use what ever power his office holds to make sure something like this doesnt happen again...
A gun is useless,, if ammunition,, or the components to make it, are extreamly expensive due to regulation on manufactuers which will be passed on to consumers,, or the possibility that ammo and components will also be regulated to the gun buying public in an unrealistic, oppressive way..


Gooser

I agree and I think we can fully expect to see graduated licenses for gun owners, liability insurance requirements for gun ownership, household registration requirements and yearly reregistration fees, way higher taxes on ammunition and new guns. And, the liberals will make sure to slip language into the bill that will allow some liberal left wing judge to interpret that law abiding gun owners will be held libel for crimes committed if our guns are stolen. The lawyers are going to have a field day.

And they will justify all their actions and new taxes by spending money for gun buy back programs and mental health funding.


Great post Gooser.

Don

Bryan Manning
12-20-2012, 10:29 AM
Gooser that has to be the most sense I have heard anybody make.:)

Gerry Clinchy
12-20-2012, 10:42 AM
I don't know much about guns. I don't own one. I don't shoot. I don't hunt. So, I listen carefully to what you fellas have to say because most of you DO know about guns. Here are some of the things I have learned, and maybe what the general public needs to know:

I had did not know what the term "semi-automatic" could mean any weapon that could fire more than one shot without re-loading; thus, making a revolver such a weapon.

The term "AR-15" sounds very intimidating ... to the unlearned ear, it sounds a lot like AK-47; and the difference is a HUGE one.

IF ...
... all law-abiding citizens registered all their guns ... it sure would be easier to find them if some law were made to confiscate them. This seems like a far-fetched proability, yet it has happened before historically. We already have an inkling that our lawmakers think they are smarter and know better how to protect the "great unwashed masses", so even in our country we are getting closer to a "big brother" mentality.

... nobody in their right mind would put guns (or even sharp objects!) in the hands of the mentally ill; alcoholic; or someone having previously demonstrated violent behaviors (domestic violence, for example). Background checks are reasonable. If they take a week, the law-abiding citizen will wait. Even a couple of weeks would be reasonable. If they take 6 months, who is not doing their job?

... criminals have never, and will never, follow the gun laws.

... the first right listed in our human rights: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". To deprive anyone of the right to defend their own life seems to deny the most basic right. If a thug accosts someone on the street with a knife or brute force that could endanger the victim's life, why shouldn't that victim be able to defend themselves? The weak and defenseless are often chosen over those who appear capable of defending an assault, even when guns are not involved. A 110# woman with a small gun gets a great equalizer if attacked by a 190# man with knife. Just talking about levelling the playing field for the weaker victims ... "giving everyone a fair shot", as our POTUS would say (pun intended!)

... it has been proven, over and over again, that even the most restrictive gun laws do not prevent crimes using guns. I have no doubt that this nutcase in Newtown would have found some way to vent his violence. He was a bright guy, so it might have taken him a little while longer, but he would have vented his violence on another day.

... I think there is some merit in having a teacher (or more than one), who is willing, to carry a weapon or to have access to a weapon stored in a safe place in the school (a vault or safe; which could even be in that teacher's classroom). I don't think you need to arm every teacher in the school. Put a safe in every classroom, let the perp wonder which one has a gun in it.

It occurs to me that these nutcases choose schools that are defenseless ... how often do schools in inner cities have an incident like this (wonder if there is a study for that?) Such a perp wouldn't be afraid of the teachers taking him down; he'd have to worry more about some of the students doing it! Of course, a lot of those inner city schools already have armed guards. I think "armed" is the operative word there.

Extending that thought further, these nutcases tend to choose locations where return fire is highly unlikely. Tells me that these people are insane, but they are not stupid. Even the guy in Norway, where guns are highly restricted, chose a children's camp where resistance would be least likely.

I apologize in advance for my very random thoughts.

road kill
12-20-2012, 10:45 AM
I don't know much about guns. I don't own one. I don't shoot. I don't hunt. So, I listen carefully to what you fellas have to say because most of you DO know about guns. Here are some of the things I have learned, and maybe what the general public needs to know:

I had did not know what the term "semi-automatic" could mean any weapon that could fire more than one shot without re-loading; thus, making a revolver such a weapon.

The term "AR-15" sounds very intimidating ... to the unlearned ear, it sounds a lot like AK-47; and the difference is a HUGE one.

IF ...
... all law-abiding citizens registered all their guns ... it sure would be easier to find them if some law were made to confiscate them. This seems like a far-fetched proability, yet it has happened before historically. We already have an inkling that our lawmakers think they are smarter and know better how to protect the "great unwashed masses", so even in our country we are getting closer to a "big brother" mentality.

... nobody in their right mind would put guns (or even sharp objects!) in the hands of the mentally ill; alcoholic; or someone having previously demonstrated violent behaviors (domestic violence, for example). Background checks are reasonable. If they take a week, the law-abiding citizen will wait. Even a couple of weeks would be reasonable. If they take 6 months, who is not doing their job?

... criminals have never, and will never, follow the gun laws.

... the first right listed in our human rights: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". To deprive anyone of the right to defend their own life seems to deny the most basic right. If a thug accosts someone on the street with a knife or brute force that could endanger the victim's life, why shouldn't that victim be able to defend themselves? The weak and defenseless are often chosen over those who appear capable of defending an assault, even when guns are not involved. A 110# woman with a small gun gets a great equalizer if attacked by a 190# man with knife. Just talking about levelling the playing field for the weaker victims ... "giving everyone a fair shot", as our POTUS would say (pun intended!)

... it has been proven, over and over again, that even the most restrictive gun laws do not prevent crimes using guns. I have no doubt that this nutcase in Newtown would have found some way to vent his violence. He was a bright guy, so it might have taken him a little while longer, but he would have vented his violence on another day.

... I think there is some merit in having a teacher (or more than one), who is willing, to carry a weapon or to have access to a weapon stored in a safe place in the school (a vault or safe; which could even be in that teacher's classroom). I don't think you need to arm every teacher in the school. Put a safe in every classroom, let the perp wonder which one has a gun in it.

It occurs to me that these nutcases choose schools that are defenseless ... how often do schools in inner cities have an incident like this (wonder if there is a study for that?) Such a perp wouldn't be afraid of the teachers taking him down; he'd have to worry more about some of the students doing it! Of course, a lot of those inner city schools already have armed guards. I think "armed" is the operative word there.

Extending that thought further, these nutcases tend to choose locations where return fire is highly unlikely. Tells me that these people are insane, but they are not stupid. Even the guy in Norway, where guns are highly restricted, chose a children's camp where resistance would be least likely.

I apologize in advance for my very random thoughts.

Your thoughts are anything but random!!


Does anyone find the dichotomy interesting that Obama sells and gives guns to Mexican drug cartels and Syrian Islamists but wants to take them away from YOU!!!:cool:

MooseGooser
12-20-2012, 10:57 AM
Well Mr Clinchy.

It looks like you get it!!:):)

I think you should take advantage of your second ammendment right,, and explore the world of resposible gun ownership.

Its a wonderful hobby,, ties in nicely with your dogs,, and there ARE guns that are truly works of art and craftsmanship.
Those are the jewels that anyone should be proud to own..

The Irresposible,,uneducated, and agendites,, are the ones we need to deal with...

Complacency will destroy those efforts..

Gooser

mngundog
12-20-2012, 11:17 AM
MnGundog your argument about Romney Vs Obama is just old news.
You guys own this now. Its YOUR guy in there driving the agenda.
Its Your senate that will support him.

Quit the banter about Romney being just as bad. YOUR guy is out to take YOUR gun away...

Gooser

Gooser, ONE MONTH AGO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY RAN AN ANTI-GUN CANDIDATE, sorry that is not old news. I was one of the few vocal people about that fact, yet here we are now, I hope that the people on this board remember that next election. I have always been a conservative and guns rights have always been big in my political views maybe someday they will play a larger part in the Republican party. In my opinion the Republican party (and NRA) embracing a anti-gun guy is bigger news now than its ever been, not old news. Sorry, if that fact gets to some of the so so "conservatives" on this board. As far as gun control I feel as you do about all of it, I was a police officer at the time of the last one, when I purchased a new handgun I had to spend $68 a clip (x4) to get issued "law enforcement issue" clips, keeping in mind there are already around a million +10 clips available that had already been legally issued. We are on the same side in this fight, Obama was never my guy, during the election the Republican party abandoned people like us, lets hope they step up to the plate now.

road kill
12-20-2012, 11:23 AM
Gooser, ONE MONTH AGO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY RAN AN ANTI-GUN CANDIDATE, sorry that is not old news. I was one of the few vocal people about that fact, yet here we are now, I hope that the people on this board remember that next election. I have always been a conservative and guns rights have always been big in my political views maybe someday they will play a larger part in the Republican party. In my opinion the Republican party (and NRA) embracing a anti-gun guy is bigger news now than its ever been, not old news. Sorry, if that fact gets to some of the so so "conservatives" on this board. As far as gun control I feel as you do about all of it, I was a police officer at the time of the last one, when I purchased a new handgun I had to spend $68 a clip (x4) to get issued "law enforcement issue" clips, keeping in mind there are already around a million +10 clips available that had already been legally issued. We are on the same side in this fight, Obama was never my guy, during the election the Republican party abandoned people like us, lets hope they step up to the plate now.
IF....and I say IF Romney would have been elected and advocated what Obama is trying to do, I would be on him like I am Obama.

But alas, he is NOT, so it's hypotheticasl and doesn't exist.

BTW---though not a secularist, Romney is certainly a Harvard progressive.

MooseGooser
12-20-2012, 11:34 AM
Gooser, ONE MONTH AGO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY RAN AN ANTI-GUN CANDIDATE, sorry that is not old news. I was one of the few vocal people about that fact, yet here we are now, I hope that the people on this board remember that next election. I have always been a conservative and guns rights have always been big in my political views maybe someday they will play a larger part in the Republican party. In my opinion the Republican party (and NRA) embracing a anti-gun guy is bigger news now than its ever been, not old news. Sorry, if that fact gets to some of the so so "conservatives" on this board. As far as gun control I feel as you do about all of it, I was a police officer at the time of the last one, when I purchased a new handgun I had to spend $68 a clip (x4) to get issued "law enforcement issue" clips, keeping in mind there are already around a million +10 clips available that had already been legally issued. We are on the same side in this fight, Obama was never my guy, during the election the Republican party abandoned people like us, lets hope they step up to the plate now.

But what you fail to realise,, is you, if voting for Romney ( and it is very much a moot point) wouldnt have been voting for a King.. You WOULD have been voting for the Constituency Romney brought along with him,, that is absolutly POLAR to what we have today..
I personally right now would fell better with a republican controlled house and Senate whern it comes to gun issues...
You can now see the TRUE Agenda with the left.. Its VERY apparent!!! They OWN it now!!! They will be resposible!!!! Obama has brought along with him HIS constituency.... I dont feel comfortable with a democrat controlled Senate when it comes to gun or FINANCIAL issues...
But,,,, The majority Voted....... Think about that!!!
To the Majority..... What are you celebrating????

Buzz
12-20-2012, 11:34 AM
As per usual, I do not believe you have done your research prior to pressing SUBMIT - check out the countries, all of them that had gun registatrion, NAZI germany comes to mind as one example.


Germany in the early 1930s was reeling from the global depression, increasingly bitter over the outcome of World War I and the punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles, and overrun by extremist parties with their own paramilitary wings brawling in the streets and shooting at each other outside political rallies. Anti-Semitism was widespread, everyone hated the Weimar government, and nostalgia for the heady days of the Kaiser led most people to actually yearn for a dictatorship of some form. And in this toxic political environment, the Nazis managed to prevail over the other extremist groups -- largely due to popular support, but also through conspiracy and outright intimidation.

MooseGooser
12-20-2012, 11:34 AM
I get the second ammendment. I absolutly undeerstand it isnt about guns and hunting.
Its not really about home protection.

Its really most about protection from oppression and tiereny from Government.

I own mostly collectable guns. Most of those I rarely shoot.
I own guns for recreation. Clays shooting,, Hunting,,, and trying to improve my riflemanship.

I do NOT own guns that are referred to as assault weapons... (But I can assault you with all of the ones I have) I absolutly will defend the RIGHTS of thos who have the desire to own one.

I dont not believe for one minute that the ownership of a . bushmaster, ar15 or the like, would give you much comfort to defend yourself very long, in the event that the U.S. Government ever decided to give orders to come after you with lethal force!:):)

Think (Waco) and tank Turrets:):)
I cant Imagine takin a .223 bushmaster and shootin the Tank turret stuck through my kitchen window... And yet I do sometimes, find myself on regular occation,, pissin in the wind..:)
It will help you to defend yourself from anarchy and simple thugs in the event of a catastrophy of any sort. (Think Katrina)
But,, I seriously believe my Browning .22 auto plinking rifle will do the same.. I wouldnt want to be shot several times in the upper body with a .22..
If the American way of life has come to the point that I have to fear a Thug ( or crazy person who should be incarcerated)showing up on my door step dressed in body armour toatin a fully automatic weapon, representin thuggery,,, religion,,, or Government,,, civil rights,, oppresive costs of bus passes,, disdane for S.U.V's,, regular light bulbs,, My Christmas manger,, well ,, I guess i have lived long enough..

There is more to the Governments desire to regulate guns than safty,, and level headedness..

They do NOT see or care in the difference between any of them...(Guns) Their intent is CONTROL,, and POWER,, and restricting our ability to resist that..
But I truly believe the real reason is Ignorance,,,, and emotion.. Pure and simple..
But mostimportantly an Agenda.. We VOTED that AGENDA into office didnt we???

dixidawg
12-20-2012, 11:36 AM
The term "AR-15" sounds very intimidating ... to the unlearned ear, it sounds a lot like AK-47; and the difference is a HUGE one.


Gerry,

GREAT post, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by the line above.

AK-47 is essentially the Russian version of an AR-15. There really is no difference in the functioning of the two. It is a magazine fed semi-auto rifle. No more. No less.

TY 4
12-20-2012, 11:38 AM
I am just curious as to the general opinion here.

If "assault weapons" were restricted (as Obama is demanding now), how would the events of last week been different?
ABSOLUTELY NOT! That was my point in yesterday's post. The psychopath would of came up with something else. These people seem to be smart and put a lot of thought into their actions. I guarantee theirs some other nut job planning something to top CT.

Franco
12-20-2012, 11:43 AM
Gooser, ONE MONTH AGO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY RAN AN ANTI-GUN CANDIDATE, sorry that is not old news. I was one of the few vocal people about that fact, yet here we are now, I hope that the people on this board remember that next election. I have always been a conservative and guns rights have always been big in my political views maybe someday they will play a larger part in the Republican party. In my opinion the Republican party (and NRA) embracing a anti-gun guy is bigger news now than its ever been, not old news. Sorry, if that fact gets to some of the so so "conservatives" on this board. As far as gun control I feel as you do about all of it, I was a police officer at the time of the last one, when I purchased a new handgun I had to spend $68 a clip (x4) to get issued "law enforcement issue" clips, keeping in mind there are already around a million +10 clips available that had already been legally issued. We are on the same side in this fight, Obama was never my guy, during the election the Republican party abandoned people like us, lets hope they step up to the plate now.

Correct.
As governor of Massachusetts, Romney had been able to tack a mostly pro-gun-control course. Not entirely—the NRA had still given him a "B" during his gubernatorial run in 2002, and he did support a few modest NRA-approved initiatives. But overall, Massachusetts voters were rather predictable on guns, and in 2004 Romney signed (http://www.iberkshires.com/story/14812/Romney-signs-off-on-permanent-assault-weapons-ban.html) what the AP would later call “one of the toughest assault weapons laws in the country.” The Bay State had long had sturdy gun-control laws, and its residents liked them."

Had this tragedy of last Friday not occured, I doubt the Obama Administration would be persuing putting the Assault Weapons ban back on the books. Just too much pressure from both the Repubs and the Dems to do so now.




Can't wait to hear what the NRA is going to say about it tomorrow with their statement.

Only ONE political party, as a party, has stood up for the Rights of gun owners to defend themselves and oppose the coming assault weapons ban.
You guessed it;-)

BonMallari
12-20-2012, 11:46 AM
Gooser, ONE MONTH AGO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY RAN AN ANTI-GUN CANDIDATE, sorry that is not old news. I was one of the few vocal people about that fact, yet here we are now, I hope that the people on this board remember that next election. I have always been a conservative and guns rights have always been big in my political views maybe someday they will play a larger part in the Republican party. In my opinion the Republican party (and NRA) embracing a anti-gun guy is bigger news now than its ever been, not old news. Sorry, if that fact gets to some of the so so "conservatives" on this board. As far as gun control I feel as you do about all of it, I was a police officer at the time of the last one, when I purchased a new handgun I had to spend $68 a clip (x4) to get issued "law enforcement issue" clips, keeping in mind there are already around a million +10 clips available that had already been legally issued. We are on the same side in this fight, Obama was never my guy, during the election the Republican party abandoned people like us, lets hope they step up to the plate now.

I will play along since you seem to want to go there...Where did the 2nd Amendment rank as far as the litmus test on which candidate you preferred..was it in your Top 5 ? Top 3 ?

I know for me it was not in the Top 5 and I consider myself a staunch pro 2nd Amendment person, but I adhere to the mode of thinking proposed by Gov. Mitch Daniels, where you play to win the general election and you fight the moral and social issues in the courts (abortion,gun rights,same sex marriage)

I am not going to tell you with a straight face that Mitt was a pro gun guy, but I do think he would have governed as one IF elected....but we will never know

mngundog
12-20-2012, 12:15 PM
I will play along since you seem to want to go there...Where did the 2nd Amendment rank as far as the litmus test on which candidate you preferred..was it in your Top 5 ? Top 3 ?

I know for me it was not in the Top 5 and I consider myself a staunch pro 2nd Amendment person, but I adhere to the mode of thinking proposed by Gov. Mitch Daniels, where you play to win the general election and you fight the moral and social issues in the courts (abortion,gun rights,same sex marriage)

I am not going to tell you with a straight face that Mitt was a pro gun guy, but I do think he would have governed as one IF elected....but we will never know
In terms of the Presidential election it had no ranking for the fact that both candidates had the same view.

Gerry Clinchy
12-20-2012, 12:20 PM
Your thoughts are anything but random!!


Does anyone find the dichotomy interesting that Obama sells and gives guns to Mexican drug cartels and Syrian Islamists but wants to take them away from YOU!!!:cool:

So, I guess our govt understands that if a despot or tyrant needs to be overthrown, the citizens should have arms. Of course, Assad doesn't believe he's a "bad guy". I'm pretty sure none of the bad guys in history believed they were the bad guys who needed to be replaced. Why would the US consider itself immune to this seemingly universal disease of tyranny?

Hmm ... we really don't think of the probability of an armed ground invasion of the US since we have had friendly arrangements with our land neighbors of Mexico and Canada for many years. However, it seems we are not on such good terms with the Mexican drug cartels ... and they pretty much have their way with the Mexican govt ... so maybe we ought to think more carefully about which forms an armed invasion can take. It may not mean by a "formal" govt ... can understand why people in border towns would want to protect themselves, as the Fed govt hasn't been a big help. Curious what the laws about citizen gun ownership are in Mexico?

MooseGooser
12-20-2012, 12:27 PM
Lets play "What If"

What if after the investigation led by Biden.,, a decision was made, that the government issued '"concealed carry" permits issued will be deemed illegal? No longer valid

It will be deemed illegal,,, to set a precidence,, that we as a society, believe posession of guns is not the answer,, but the problem???

This enactment will happen as promised ,,quickly ,,,,before the end of January...

That "Permit" was "issued" by the government. I belive the Government can just as easily take it away....

What could stop this from happening???

What LAW do we have that guarantees us the right???

Gooser

Jason Glavich
12-20-2012, 12:29 PM
Gerry,

GREAT post, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by the line above.

AK-47 is essentially the Russian version of an AR-15. There really is no difference in the functioning of the two. It is a magazine fed semi-auto rifle. No more. No less.

One works when dirty,muddy,sandy,etc the other doesn't. Piston vs gas driven. One is designed for target saturation, one is made to be accurate for well aimed shots. But they are not the same and do not have the same ideas going into the designs. They both are good at certain things but they are usually used for different purposes.

Marvin S
12-20-2012, 01:00 PM
Lets play "What If"

What if after the investigation led by Biden.,, a decision was made, that the government issued '"concealed carry" permits issued will be deemed illegal? No longer valid

It will be deemed illegal,,, to set a precidence,, that we as a society, believe posession of guns is not the answer,, but the problem???

This enactment will happen as promised ,,quickly ,,,,before the end of January...

That "Permit" was "issued" by the government. I belive the Government can just as easily take it away....

What could stop this from happening???

What LAW do we have that guarantees us the right???

Gooser

Gooser - I paid $52.50 for the permit, obtained from local LE - I personally don't expect goofy Joe's committee to come up with anything useful - you know it will not be in the best interests of the nation nor solve anything.

Eliminating Gun Free Zones is not bureaucratic enough ;).

Didley
12-20-2012, 01:08 PM
Lets play "What If"

What if after the investigation led by Biden.,, a decision was made, that the government issued '"concealed carry" permits issued will be deemed illegal? No longer valid

It will be deemed illegal,,, to set a precidence,, that we as a society, believe posession of guns is not the answer,, but the problem???

This enactment will happen as promised ,,quickly ,,,,before the end of January...

That "Permit" was "issued" by the government. I belive the Government can just as easily take it away....

What could stop this from happening???

What LAW do we have that guarantees us the right???

Gooser

in Louisiana we just passed state legislation to make it much more difficult to take away an individual's gun rights.

Franco
12-20-2012, 01:10 PM
Lets play "What If"

What if after the investigation led by Biden.,, a decision was made, that the government issued '"concealed carry" permits issued will be deemed illegal? No longer valid

It will be deemed illegal,,, to set a precidence,, that we as a society, believe posession of guns is not the answer,, but the problem???

This enactment will happen as promised ,,quickly ,,,,before the end of January...

That "Permit" was "issued" by the government. I belive the Government can just as easily take it away....

Permits are issued and regulated by the individual states. Obama has already stated that he has no problem with citizens having the Right to protect themselves. You need to stop listening to the extreme right media, seems that have you all worked up with misinformation.

What could stop this from happening???

The Supreme Court!

What LAW do we have that guarantees us the right???

It is called The Bill Of Rights.

Gooser


My responces are in red.

Didley
12-20-2012, 01:13 PM
My responces are in red.



Have you paid attention to the SC Justices Obama has placed in his first term? He will likely appoint two more during this term, giving those whack jobs the majority on the biggest decisions in America.

Golddogs
12-20-2012, 01:16 PM
I am just curious as to the general opinion here.

If "assault weapons" were restricted (as Obama is demanding now), how would the events of last week been different?

Local editorial:
Editorial

Americans draw on a deep well of compassion in times of trouble.

Gun laws: Resist the rush to just ‘do something’

Our desire to “do something” runs deep. We light a candle, leave a flower, give a dollar.

On a larger scale, we organize, mobilize and strategize to solve problems and rush to help those in need.

That rush, however, shouldn’t extend to “quick fixes” and immediate changes to gun laws in Minnesota and elsewhere in the nation in the aftermath of the Connecticut elementary school shootings. Public policy issues as complex as those involved with Americans’ Second Amendment rights require a thoughtful, deliberative process based on facts.

Some Minnesota political leaders are saying it’s time for a serious examination of the state’s gun laws, the Pioneer Press’ Megan Boldt reported this week. And such study seems a reasonable first step, considering the need to gather information broadly and include a broad range of implications, from mental health issues to school security.

But just days after the tragedy, gun-rights advocates are concerned that “hysteria in the aftermath of this shooting will ultimately result in bad laws that do nothing to protect the public,” the report said.

Concern about gun laws is justified, and incoming DFL public safety committee chairs were among those speaking out this week.

“I think the federal government and every state in this nation has the responsibility to evaluate their gun laws in the aftermath of this horrific shooting,” Rep. Michael Paymar of St. Paul said in Boldt’s report.

Sen. Scott Dibble of Minneapolis was quoted saying that calls from constituents about the issue began after a September incident in a Minneapolis workplace in which a former employee killed six people before turning the gun on himself.

“I do sense there’s a shifting attitude on this issue,” Dibble said. “This latest tragedy is just so appalling and heinous, it begs a host of questions about our gun laws and our state of mental health services.”

Meanwhile, Republican Rep. Tony Cornish of Vernon Center got attention for a proposal to allow teachers with permits to arm themselves in their classrooms.

Gov. Mark Dayton was among those critical of the concept. The governor, who said he has no plan to present immediate changes in gun laws to the 2013 Legislature, also touched on an important caution for lawmakers: He’s not sure what additional gun regulations the state could impose without infringing on Second Amendment rights to bear arms.

Some have suggested, however, that addressing loopholes that allow people to buy firearms at gun shows without background checks is among measures that might be considered.

Whatever they do, DFL leaders, who won control of the state Legislature in the election just past, will need to craft proposals that will win broad support that includes members of their own party from greater Minnesota — and also address deep divisions on the issue among Minnesotans, evidenced perhaps by a spike this week in applications for firearms permits in some metro-area counties.

As they proceed, lawmakers surely will realize that urgency borne by compassion is one thing, but a rush to quick solutions is quite another. Doing “something” often solves nothing.

MooseGooser
12-20-2012, 01:16 PM
Seems like my COLORADO CC ,,would not be honored in Conneticut?

http://www.usacarry.com/colorado_concealed_carry_permit_information.html


Also as per Francos respose ,, the Bill of rights already gives me the right of possesion.. Whats Concealed carry all about,, The concealment??

Ok... I wont conceal it!!
Also note in the Colorado law OPEN carry is permitted in some jurisdictions..

Use to be common place here in Colorado during a Big game season.. Many would wear a side arm when hunting... Go into resturants while it was openly present on their belts??

Dont see that much anymore...

Gooser

Franco
12-20-2012, 01:23 PM
Have you paid attention to the SC Justices Obama has placed in his first term? He will likely appoint two more during this term, giving those whack jobs the majority on the biggest decisions in America.

Do you know what it takes to change an Amendment? It would only go to the SC only after an Amendment were altered and challenged. There aren't enough Dems in Congress to change an Amendment. In regards to the SC, what does Liberal or Conservative mean today? Todays Conservative isn't what yesterday's definition of Conservative meant. The SC has always ebbed and flowed with Justices of different opinions. Presidents have always appointed Justices of their political leaning. What has changed?

MooseGooser
12-20-2012, 02:04 PM
So,, as Franco pointed out, my gun rights are primarily protected under such laws as the bill of rights constitution, and are enforced by the Supreme Court.

Tell me why then, folks in certain cities have protected themselves in their own homes, and then had to resort to legal representation and in one case had to spend time and money to take the case to the Supreme Court to keep himself from prosecution? (Chicago case)
Explain to me why there is such thing as a "concealed Carry permit required?
Explain to me why some places open carry is permitted, But in others it's against the law?

I f the constitution is truly the law of the land, why the discrepancies???

Franco
12-20-2012, 02:36 PM
So,, as Franco pointed out, my gun rights are primarily protected under such laws as the bill of rights constitution, and are enforced by the Supreme Court.

Tell me why then, folks in certain cities have protected themselves in their own homes, and then had to resort to legal representation and in one case had to spend time and money to take the case to the Supreme Court to keep himself from prosecution? (Chicago case)
Explain to me why there is such thing as a "concealed Carry permit required?
Explain to me why some places open carry is permitted, But in others it's against the law?

I f the constitution is truly the law of the land, why the discrepancies???

It's called States' Rights.

The President can direct the AG to attempt to stop whatever the President feels he has a right to under Federal Law. Could be Arizona and thier immigartion laws, Co and Wa and thier MJ laws or Mississippi and their Abortion laws. Any challenge to States' Rights can be tied up in the variuos courts for eternity.

Conceal Carry are state laws and not challenged by any Federal Laws except for Gun Free Zones.

However, if Joe Biden and the rest of the Repubs and Dems that wish to infringe on our Rghts to defend ourselves were really serious about preventing violent deaths, maybe they should look at banning booze! Lets ban all booze and offer folks a nice cold Chai tea instead!

Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years, a U.S. government study suggested Thursday. Looks like to me that booze, Big Macs and smokes killed more than twice as many folks than any firearm!

Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States after tobacco use and poor eating and exercise habits.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which published the study, estimated that 34,833 people in 2001 died from cirrhosis of the liver, cancer and other diseases linked to drinking too much beer, wine and spirits.
Another 40,933 died from car crashes and other mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use.

dixidawg
12-20-2012, 02:41 PM
One works when dirty,muddy,sandy,etc the other doesn't. Piston vs gas driven. One is designed for target saturation, one is made to be accurate for well aimed shots. But they are not the same and do not have the same ideas going into the designs. They both are good at certain things but they are usually used for different purposes.

Not so sure about all of this. Many of the newer AR's are piston driven.

They are both mag fed semi auto rifles, and I have read that the select fire ones in use in the middle east have held up well under those conditions.

dixidawg
12-20-2012, 02:47 PM
It's called States' Rights.

The President can direct the AG to attempt to stop whatever the President feels he has a right to under Federal Law. Could be Arizona and thier immigartion laws, Co and Wa and thier MJ laws or Mississippi and their Abortion laws. Any challenge to States' Rights can be tied up in the variuos courts for eternity.

Conceal Carry are state laws and not challenged by any Federal Laws except for Gun Free Zones.

However, if Joe Biden and the rest of the Repubs and Dems that wish to infringe on our Rghts to defend ourselves were really serious about preventing violent deaths, maybe they should look at banning booze! Lets ban all booze and offer folks a nice cold Chai tea instead!

Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years, a U.S. government study suggested Thursday. Looks like to me that booze, Big Macs and smokes killed more than twice as many folks than any firearm!

Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States after tobacco use and poor eating and exercise habits.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which published the study, estimated that 34,833 people in 2001 died from cirrhosis of the liver, cancer and other diseases linked to drinking too much beer, wine and spirits.
Another 40,933 died from car crashes and other mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use.


Although I agree that these things could be held up in courts for an eternity, I'm not so sure about the states rights. Do states have the authority to put differing restrictions on the 1st amendment? Then why do they have authority to put restrictions on the 2nd?

luvmylabs23139
12-20-2012, 02:58 PM
Seems like my COLORADO CC ,,would not be honored in Conneticut?

http://www.usacarry.com/colorado_concealed_carry_permit_information.html


Also as per Francos respose ,, the Bill of rights already gives me the right of possesion.. Whats Concealed carry all about,, The concealment??

Ok... I wont conceal it!!
Also note in the Colorado law OPEN carry is permitted in some jurisdictions..

Use to be common place here in Colorado during a Big game season.. Many would wear a side arm when hunting... Go into resturants while it was openly present on their belts??

Dont see that much anymore...

Gooser

CT honors very few if any other states CC's. As a result many states refuse to honor CT's.

dixidawg
12-20-2012, 03:01 PM
CT honors very few if any other states CC's. As a result many states refuse to honor CT's.


Similar to Mass, except NO other states honor the Mass CCW permit.

mngundog
12-20-2012, 03:10 PM
CT honors very few if any other states CC's. As a result many states refuse to honor CT's.
Michigan does it right. :D
http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/d_ccwrec.asp

Didley
12-20-2012, 03:16 PM
Do you know what it takes to change an Amendment? It would only go to the SC only after an Amendment were altered and challenged. There aren't enough Dems in Congress to change an Amendment. In regards to the SC, what does Liberal or Conservative mean today? Todays Conservative isn't what yesterday's definition of Conservative meant. The SC has always ebbed and flowed with Justices of different opinions. Presidents have always appointed Justices of their political leaning. What has changed?


Yes it has. And these are the ones we have to put up with for the present. The SC rules if something is constitutional. Like how they just said it was constitutional for the government to tell you you have to buy something because it is just a tax.

Don't sit there and tell me all they do is alter amendments.

Didley
12-20-2012, 03:18 PM
It's called States' Rights.

The President can direct the AG to attempt to stop whatever the President feels he has a right to under Federal Law. Could be Arizona and thier immigartion laws, Co and Wa and thier MJ laws or Mississippi and their Abortion laws. Any challenge to States' Rights can be tied up in the variuos courts for eternity.

Conceal Carry are state laws and not challenged by any Federal Laws except for Gun Free Zones.

However, if Joe Biden and the rest of the Repubs and Dems that wish to infringe on our Rghts to defend ourselves were really serious about preventing violent deaths, maybe they should look at banning booze! Lets ban all booze and offer folks a nice cold Chai tea instead!

Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years, a U.S. government study suggested Thursday. Looks like to me that booze, Big Macs and smokes killed more than twice as many folks than any firearm!

Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States after tobacco use and poor eating and exercise habits.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which published the study, estimated that 34,833 people in 2001 died from cirrhosis of the liver, cancer and other diseases linked to drinking too much beer, wine and spirits.
Another 40,933 died from car crashes and other mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use.


A lot of people died because of prohibition.

Franco
12-20-2012, 03:35 PM
A lot of people died because of prohibition.

Yea, bootleggers.

I'm just pointing out that Gun Control Laws are nothing moer than hysteria by people that don't like guns. That we have other problems that kill more people as mentioned above.

Franco
12-20-2012, 03:39 PM
Yes it has. And these are the ones we have to put up with for the present. The SC rules if something is constitutional. Like how they just said it was constitutional for the government to tell you you have to buy something because it is just a tax.

Don't sit there and tell me all they do is alter amendments.

When we don't agree with their rulings, we accuse then of being activist judges and when we do agree, we call them good. Like I said, the court changes over time according to who does the appointing and often, there are surprises. Some think Justice Thomas is an idiot and some love him. They are not going to please anyone all of the time! You are also assuming that Romeny, given the opportunity would pick wiser judges.

Franco
12-20-2012, 03:47 PM
Although I agree that these things could be held up in courts for an eternity, I'm not so sure about the states rights. Do states have the authority to put differing restrictions on the 1st amendment? Then why do they have authority to put restrictions on the 2nd?


No, they do not have the right to place restrictions on any Amendment. However, they do have the right to pass laws they feel aren't covered. Then, it is up to the Fed Gov on whether to challenge. ie Conceal Carry where we have a Right to defend outrselves and the states expand the interpretation.

luvmylabs23139
12-20-2012, 03:48 PM
Michigan does it right. :D
http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/d_ccwrec.asp

Interesting in that I had no idea NC now honors CT. As of Dec 1, 2011 they now recognize all states.

mngundog
12-20-2012, 03:56 PM
Interesting in that I had no idea NC now honors CT. As of Dec 1, 2011 they now recognize all states.
No that's Michigan's Reciprocity, they are the one the are leading the way in reciprocity, they went out and got it done with every state that would do it, but that map is only Michigan's reciprocity.

luvmylabs23139
12-20-2012, 05:22 PM
No that's Michigan's Reciprocity, they are the one the are leading the way in reciprocity, they went out and got it done with every state that would do it, but that map is only Michigan's reciprocity.

You can click on your state and it brings up their current laws, thus how I found out NC now honors CT and the date they decided to honor all states. NC used to be if you honor ours we will honor yours.

Gerry Clinchy
12-20-2012, 06:18 PM
Gerry,

GREAT post, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by the line above.

AK-47 is essentially the Russian version of an AR-15. There really is no difference in the functioning of the two. It is a magazine fed semi-auto rifle. No more. No less.

Thanks for clarifying ... I was thinking that the AK-47 was fully automatic with a high-capacity clip.

Moosegooser, I have to paraphrase Murral here ... I am a girl! not yelling at you Gooser just trying to copy Murral's typing :-)

luvmylabs23139
12-20-2012, 06:37 PM
Hey does anyone if "I'm not a girl" self banned himself again or did the clown actually get banned?

Dan Storts
12-20-2012, 06:45 PM
10167From what I have been told you are not allowed to have guns in federal prisons and the murder rate as of 2009 was 3 per 100k, which really does not concern me. However, it does help because there are not guns allowed and the overall rate the United States is 4.2 per 100k. Am I missing something.

MooseGooser
12-20-2012, 06:57 PM
It's called States' Rights.

The President can direct the AG to attempt to stop whatever the President feels he has a right to under Federal Law. Could be Arizona and thier immigartion laws, Co and Wa and thier MJ laws or Mississippi and their Abortion laws. Any challenge to States' Rights can be tied up in the variuos courts for eternity.

Conceal Carry are state laws and not challenged by any Federal Laws except for Gun Free Zones.

However, if Joe Biden and the rest of the Repubs and Dems that wish to infringe on our Rghts to defend ourselves were really serious about preventing violent deaths, maybe they should look at banning booze! Lets ban all booze and offer folks a nice cold Chai tea instead!

Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years, a U.S. government study suggested Thursday. Looks like to me that booze, Big Macs and smokes killed more than twice as many folks than any firearm!

Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States after tobacco use and poor eating and exercise habits.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which published the study, estimated that 34,833 people in 2001 died from cirrhosis of the liver, cancer and other diseases linked to drinking too much beer, wine and spirits.
Another 40,933 died from car crashes and other mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use.


My point is this!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

So,, when we see STATES put restriction on Americans as to their right to "keep and bear arms"...

By either saying Illegal to conceal carry,, illegal to Open carry,,

Illegal to have non registered in your Home (as above) the supreme court has ruled that particular law unconstitutional.. Hasnt it???


The Constitution gives All Americans the right to keep and bear arms.


Civilian usage meaningThe right to keep and bear arms, which is protected under the second amendment,[36] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-36) is often presented in the context of military service and the broader right of self defense (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Self-defense_(theory)). Whether this right pertains to individuals acting independently or the people acting collectively has been the topic of several Supreme Court decisions. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States), in a 5-4 decision, held that residents of the District of Columbia have an individual right to handguns for self-defense within the home in the case District of Columbia v. Heller (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) while at the same time reaffirming a broad range of federal restrictions on firearms as being constitutional. Also, the large body of state based law regarding the right to firearms and restrictions on firearms remain largely unchanged, though the Supreme Court ruled in the 2010 case McDonald v. Chicago (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago) that the right to keep and bear arms applies to state governments via the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.[37] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-37)




Where am I wrong??
Do I not have the right to uneqivically protect myself???

Where does the U.S.constitution say anything about having to be licenced or trained?? in order to bear arms?


Gooser

Franco
12-20-2012, 07:57 PM
My point is this!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

So,, when we see STATES put restriction on Americans as to their right to "keep and bear arms"...

By either saying Illegal to conceal carry,, illegal to Open carry,,

Illegal to have non registered in your Home (as above) the supreme court has ruled that particular law unconstitutional.. Hasnt it???

YES!

The Constitution gives All Americans the right to keep and bear arms.

Some exceptions like felons but generally, yes.


Civilian usage meaningThe right to keep and bear arms, which is protected under the second amendment,[36] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-36) is often presented in the context of military service and the broader right of self defense (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Self-defense_(theory)). Whether this right pertains to individuals acting independently or the people acting collectively has been the topic of several Supreme Court decisions. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States), in a 5-4 decision, held that residents of the District of Columbia have an individual right to handguns for self-defense within the home in the case District of Columbia v. Heller (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) while at the same time reaffirming a broad range of federal restrictions on firearms as being constitutional. Also, the large body of state based law regarding the right to firearms and restrictions on firearms remain largely unchanged, though the Supreme Court ruled in the 2010 case McDonald v. Chicago (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago) that the right to keep and bear arms applies to state governments via the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.[37] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-37)




Where am I wrong??
Do I not have the right to uneqivically protect myself???

Yes you do and if you think a law infringes on your Right, you have every Right to sue the government. States are given a certain leeway. The Supreme Court doesn't have the time to hear every case. They have their priorites and though the state may infringe somewhat on your Right, it may not be enough for the SC to prioritize over other cases. Therefore, you could get in trouble with the state though your Right was infringed.

Where does the U.S.constitution say anything about having to be licenced or trained?? in order to bear arms?

It doesn't. Those would be state laws.


Gooser

My responce in blue.

MooseGooser
12-20-2012, 08:23 PM
My responce in blue.

And hasnt the state law with regards to Chicago in particular,,,, been ruled unconstitutional, per the case I gave as an example?

My original question.. was what if Biden panel comes forward and dismisses concealed carry?

Wouldnt that be challengable? be questioned as unconstitutional?

Other laws are forced onto states.. federal money withheld if there is non compliance...

Many states dont want Obama care..... But it seems as though it will happen!!!

Arizona wants different immigration policy than what Washinton does..

Isnt the Gold standard the constitution???

I can carry in the National forest to protect myself.... I cannot do the same in the city without licencing and training. (gun control)

Feds MAY regulate my gun away from me (Gun Control)

Constitution saays I have the absolute right to keep and BEAR an Arm (No gun control intended)

MooseGooser
12-20-2012, 08:32 PM
Don't forget the amount of time folks spent in Chicago obeying oppressive gun laws until someone had the where with all to fight it.

they lived under an unconstitutional law for quite some time

Franco
12-20-2012, 09:08 PM
The Constitution doesn't require you to have a Driver's License to operate a vehicle. But, you state does. All of us live with many unConstituional Laws. The Constution requires that Congress sets Monetary Policy. Yet, we allow a central bank controlled by foreign banking to do so. And guess what, not many so-called Conservatives are very concerned about it!

If Biden's gang decides that Conceal Carry should be banned, the Feds would have a major fight on their hands with many states. Just as they do now with Obamacare.

I predict that Biden's gang will go after semi-auto AR15 type guns and large capacity magazines/clips. Which I am against a ban and certain to be fought by many groups and states beyond the NRA. They will get an Assault Weapons ban like the one we had before.

Having been in two large sporting goods stores this week, the AR15 type rifles are flying off the racks. This is happening all across the country so if you ever wanted one, now is the time.

huntinman
12-20-2012, 09:39 PM
Biden's task force will a total waste of time. They are there to cover Obama's butt with the anti's till the heat cools down... Then the task force will be about as important as Obama's Jobs panel.

dixidawg
12-20-2012, 09:54 PM
Don't forget the amount of time folks spent in Chicago obeying oppressive gun laws until someone had the where with all to fight it.

they lived under an unconstitutional law for quite some time


And after the 7th circuit's ruling last week that the Illinois ban on carry was unconstitutional, the whole carry outside the home" issue likely end up at SCOTUS sooner rather than later.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/12/53066.htm

MooseGooser
12-20-2012, 11:36 PM
Franco
your PRIVILEGE to drive isn't an amendment to the constitution Your RIGHT to keep and bear arm is.


So we see that the states have power over the Federal government at least if they have to will to stand up against them.
We see states like Illinoos that have enacted oppressive laws people lived under for some time, until someone or some occur ace happened that gave a person courage to fight . Now those laws have been deemed unconstitutional.Think of the number of peopl that lived under that rule!


So, lets say Biden does decree that conceal carry laws are now illegal, and future of the states programs banned.
What IF those fly over red states had the leadership and courage from their elected leaders to refuse to obay the ruling?


Pot was legalized in Colorado. Everybody is doin the happy Hemp dance. It's been said it will take YEARS for the powers to work out the details.


obama is on record saying he feels he has much more important business to address that to worry about federal law in Colorado when talking Pot.


what IF there was a president and admin,who demanded FEDERAL law was to be enforced????
You COULD still be arrested under Fedral laws.


Your Pot would be confiscated, and you may go to jail
thats Pot though,,,,, No amendment in the constitution specifically addressing it.
hope the cell is comfy.


Guns Are addressed by the second amendment .
how many state leaders who have been elected because of maybe their stance on gun control, would have the onions to confront the FEDS?

Jason Glavich
12-21-2012, 07:17 AM
Not so sure about all of this. Many of the newer AR's are piston driven.

They are both mag fed semi auto rifles, and I have read that the select fire ones in use in the middle east have held up well under those conditions.

Some newer ones are piston, gas assisted. I am referring to the guns as they were designed. The AK was made to have a sloppy fit and fire no matter what, but it was never designed to be a super accurate weapon, it was made for the saturate the enemy type fighting force. The AR was a much cleaner, tight tolerance gun. We had many M16s fair ok in the desert, but they still jammed easily if there was any cleaning oil left for the sand to stick to. The AK caked in mud works great.

MooseGooser
12-21-2012, 09:03 AM
Let me say again!!

I am Pro Gun!!!

But,,


This is YOU!


http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q211/Moosegooser/assulttaticle.jpg

Do you guys that have AK's Ar's and own them for protection from Oppression, Tiereny ect, think that gun will help you much if the picture below ,, was your compound??

They do though,,, work well in the mud!!

But to me,,,reminds me of Pissin in the wind.



http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q211/Moosegooser/Waco.jpg

Waco texas.

MooseGooser
12-21-2012, 09:23 AM
But,,

Then again,,

A guy like this....

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q211/Moosegooser/gooserbeach.jpg



Needs something to protecthimself from scary thugs like this.


http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q211/Moosegooser/wrestlers.jpg


:):)


Merry Christmas All!!

Today is shopping day for Mrs Gooser... It will take us all day!:)

BIG Rock!!! Upgrade!

dixidawg
12-23-2012, 08:58 AM
This is an outstanding essay on "assault weapons"

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

smillerdvm
12-23-2012, 01:47 PM
Let me say again!!

I am Pro Gun!!!

But,,


This is YOU!


http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q211/Moosegooser/assulttaticle.jpg

Do you guys that have AK's Ar's and own them for protection from Oppression, Tiereny ect, think that gun will help you much if the picture below ,, was your compound??

They do though,,, work well in the mud!!

But to me,,,reminds me of Pissin in the wind.



http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q211/Moosegooser/Waco.jpg

Waco texas.Mike, I have had this same discussion with some of my friends and family. Most of them like me are pro gun and hunting dog folks.
Most are in agreement that we dont need ARs for hunting as the risk of them being in circulation in the wrong hands is too great.
There is one who adamantly feels we do need ARs in order to amongst other things be prepared to fight our own military.

I agree with you that that would just be as you so eloquently put it...Pissin in the wind.
Hopefully your picture of Waco may show him how ridiculous his point is

MooseGooser
12-23-2012, 02:50 PM
Again

If it is the last resort,, everything else has been tried,, no other choice,,,, Gooser is absolutly prepared to "Piss into the wind",, but,,, I definiatly understand the mess and dangers it entails...:)

Gooser

BonMallari
12-23-2012, 03:57 PM
One thing for sure.....gun and ammo manufacturers have never seen a spike in sales like this before, I have seen water disappear off the shelves during a hurricane, but I have never witnessed something as simple as .22 LR rimfire ammo be out of stock before...if the anti gun crowd wanted to keep guns from the public, they just helped put a buttload of them in circulation

I would even guess that the sale of guns/ammo in the last ten days equaled if not surpassed those of the iPad/iPhone

road kill
12-23-2012, 04:05 PM
Here is an excellent idea......let's negotiate.

I'll give you 30 round "clips" (magazines), you give us voter ID!!!!!

That way we both get something!!!!

DEAL??????http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x41/Gary789/oie_overlay33.gif


(and I bet I stop more voter fraud than you stop crimes with assault weapons!!!!)

Brad Turner
12-23-2012, 08:34 PM
I thought the meet the press interview this morning was pretty much more of the same from the msm.

We had an assault weapons ban, IT DID NOT WORK! Why can't these people admit this?

M.Schmidt
12-24-2012, 01:19 AM
"assault weapon" or not People wanting to do harm WILL....

5 round 10 round or 30 round mag. ban does nothing IMOP the people wanting to do harm will just carry more.

Golddogs
12-24-2012, 09:09 AM
"assault weapon" or not People wanting to do harm WILL....

5 round 10 round or 30 round mag. ban does nothing IMOP the people wanting to do harm will just carry more.

Yes but, if limited in capacity, and forced to reload sooner, is it possible a window of opportunity could present itself for action against the shooter? I practice quick reoading on our range and even in a structured environment have jams and misloads. Juat pondering.

( welcome to RTF M. Love Red Wing, had family there and Mom born there. )

dixidawg
12-24-2012, 09:29 AM
Yes but, if limited in capacity, and forced to reload sooner, is it possible a window of opportunity could present itself for action against the shooter? I practice quick reoading on our range and even in a structured environment have jams and misloads. Juat pondering.

( welcome to RTF M. Love Red Wing, had family there and Mom born there. )


I suppose it is possible. But then it would also be just as possible for a duly authorized citizen trying to protect themselves to have the same predicament. Good guy gets killed when reloading.

Golddogs
12-24-2012, 09:47 AM
I suppose it is possible. But then it would also be just as possible for a duly authorized citizen trying to protect themselves to have the same predicament. Good guy gets killed when reloading.

Yes, but, good guy has but 1 target and is in a defensive position, ( hopefully) and his actions would be disrupting the shooter from doing more harm. Interupt the mayham and maybe save lives? Argument both ways works. Just pondering.

dixidawg
12-24-2012, 09:54 AM
That is a HUGE assumption.

Only 1 bad guy? And the good guy is behind COVER (not concealment)?

Because that MIGHT happen the good guys can be restricted in mag size?

Golddogs
12-24-2012, 10:45 AM
That is a HUGE assumption.

Only 1 bad guy? And the good guy is behind COVER (not concealment)?

Because that MIGHT happen the good guys can be restricted in mag size?

Good point, but I would hope that any person allowed to carry concealed would not need more than a clip(s) to intervene in a positive way. And most carry guns are maxed at 10-13 rds per mag.

4 inch group at 25yds rapid fire Regards

dixidawg
12-24-2012, 12:03 PM
Not sure about that. MANY, (maybe most) of the newer striker fired double stack pistols come standard with 15+ mags (depending on caliber)

and I want much more than HOPE in both my self defense and presidential strategies. ;)

Gerry Clinchy
12-25-2012, 01:10 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/12/new_york_newspaper_publishes_names_and_addresses_o f_gun_permit_holders.html
Stunning! Local NY paper (Westchester County area) publishes the addresses of all handgun permit holders! It's legal ... freedom of information. How dumb is this? Let me count the ways ...

Fortunately the bad guys may not stop to think that long guns don't need a permit in NYS (according to the article), so if they consider the non-handgun-permit homes easy pickins, they might just meet a shotgun they didn't know about.

road kill
12-25-2012, 05:26 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/12/new_york_newspaper_publishes_names_and_addresses_o f_gun_permit_holders.html
Stunning! Local NY paper (Westchester County area) publishes the addresses of all handgun permit holders! It's legal ... freedom of information. How dumb is this? Let me count the ways ...

Fortunately the bad guys may not stop to think that long guns don't need a permit in NYS (according to the article), so if they consider the non-handgun-permit homes easy pickins, they might just meet a shotgun they didn't know about.
I like to keep a Stoeger 3500 with 5 rounds of 3.5" #2 Prairie Storm right next to the bed.

That will leave a mark.................

Cody Covey
12-26-2012, 10:37 AM
Yes but, if limited in capacity, and forced to reload sooner, is it possible a window of opportunity could present itself for action against the shooter? I practice quick reoading on our range and even in a structured environment have jams and misloads. Juat pondering.

( welcome to RTF M. Love Red Wing, had family there and Mom born there. )

Virginia Tech shooter disagrees, he only used pistols and reloading in a gun free zone isn't really an issue...who is going to confront you when you have a gun?

Golddogs
12-27-2012, 09:49 AM
Virginia Tech shooter disagrees, he only used pistols and reloading in a gun free zone isn't really an issue...who is going to confront you when you have a gun?

Another voice and perspective ;

Regulation

A judge’s case for an ‘assault weapons’ ban

By Larry Alan Burns

Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.

Loughner deserved his punishment. But during the sentencing, I also questioned the social utility of high-capacity magazines like the one that fed his Glock. And I lamented the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of certain particularly deadly guns, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The ban wasn’t all that stringent — if you already owned a banned gun or high-capacity magazine you could keep it, and you could sell it to someone else — but at least it was something.

And it says something that half of the nation’s deadliest shootings occurred after the ban expired, including the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. It also says something that it has not even been two years since Loughner’s rampage, and already six mass shootings have been deadlier.

I am not a social scientist, and I know that very smart ones are divided on what to do about gun violence. But reasonable, good-faith debates have boundaries, and in the debate about guns, a high-capacity magazine has always seemed to me beyond them.

Bystanders got to Loughner and subdued him only after he emptied one 31-round magazine and was trying to load another. Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, chose as his primary weapon a semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines. And we don’t even bother to call the 100-rounder that James Holmes is accused of emptying in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater a magazine _ it is a drum. How is this not an argument for regulating the number of rounds a gun can fire?

I get it. Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the “mass” out of “mass shooting,” or at least make the perpetrator’s job a bit harder.

To guarantee that there would never be another Tucson or Sandy Hook, we would probably have to make it a capital offense to so much as look at a gun. And that would create serious 2nd Amendment, 8th Amendment and logistical problems.

So what’s the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and highcapacity magazines. Don’t let people who already have them keep them. Don’t let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don’t care whether it’s called gun control or a gun ban. I’m for it.

I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia v. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for selfdefense. (That’s why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state. I even say it as someone whose feelings about the NRA mirror the left’s feelings about Planned Parenthood: It has a useful advocacy function in our deliberative democracy, and much of what it does should not be controversial at all.

And I say it, finally, mindful of the arguments on the other side, at least as I understand them: that a high-capacity magazine is not that different from multiple smallercapacity magazines; and that if we ban assault weapons and highcapacity magazines one day, there’s a danger we would ban guns altogether the next, and your life might depend on you having one.

But if we can’t find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure.

There is just no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high- capacity magazines. Gun enthusiasts can still have their venison chili, shoot for sport and competition, and make a home invader flee for his life without pretending they are a part of the SEAL team that took out Osama bin Laden.

It speaks horribly of the public discourse in this country that talking about gun reform in the wake of a mass shooting is regarded as inappropriate or as politicizing the tragedy. But such a conversation is political only to those who are ideologically predisposed to see regulation of any kind as the creep of tyranny. And it is inappropriate only to those delusional enough to believe it would disrespect the victims of gun violence to do anything other than sit around and mourn their passing. Mourning is important, but so is decisive action.

Congress must reinstate and toughen the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Larry Alan Burns is a federal district judge in San Diego. He wrote this column for the Los Angeles Times.

Gerry Clinchy
12-27-2012, 10:50 AM
Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, chose as his primary weapon a semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines.
Was it finally determined that Lanza actually did use this type of weapon?

cotts135
12-27-2012, 02:34 PM
This is an outstanding essay on "assault weapons"

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

This article is by far the best one I have read on Gun regulations period. I don't agree with everything he says but this is well thought out and suberply reasoned article. I encourage everyone to read it.

Gerry Clinchy
12-28-2012, 11:11 AM
I keep thinking about an exchange I heard on the radio the other day. A liberal was saying that armed guards in the schools of high-profile (or rich) people required them because of the parents' high-profile positions or wealth. That was not the same as putting armed guards in all schools.

Occurs to me that these shooting tragedies PROVE exactly the opposite. It doesn't mean much that the parents of the children in these schools (where shootings occurred) were not well-known or wealthy.

If none of these types of shootings occurred in schools KNOWN to have armed guards ... then does that actually prove that the armed guards DO present a deterent? Same would go for the other public shootings.

If there were responsible teachers in schools who would want to have a gun for protection of themselves and their students, and they are properly trained (as they are doing in Utah), then I would have as many as possible in each school apply for the appropriate permit ... and, as I mentioned before, put a gun safe in ALL the rooms, so that the nutcases would never know which rooms contained the guns. Even have the unarmed teachers apply for permits, to further add to the criminals' confusion. Only those teachers who wished to would actually be armed.

I would further suggest that maybe ALL rooms should have a gun in their safe; and it should be embedded in the building so that it could not be removed by a thief. If teachers rotate rooms, the trained teachers would then have access to a weapon regardless of which room they were in ... but the weapons would not be subject to theft or access by the kids.

I'd say that this would be pretty expensive ... how much is one child's life worth? Which of the parents who lost a child at Newtown would consider spending the extra money?

Eric Johnson
12-28-2012, 12:55 PM
The shooter at the Denver theater drove past several theaters showing the same film to get to the one that he selected. The difference? The chosen theater was a "gun free zone" whereas the by-passed theaters all allowed "concealed carry."

Eric

HPL
12-28-2012, 01:40 PM
The shooter at the Denver theater drove past several theaters showing the same film to get to the one that he selected. The difference? The chosen theater was a "gun free zone" whereas the by-passed theaters all allowed "concealed carry."

Eric


If that is indeed true, that seems pretty telling to me.

Jim Danis
12-28-2012, 04:06 PM
I've heard this a number of times.

Breck
12-28-2012, 05:56 PM
At a gun buy back event in Los Angles today someone turned in LAW Light Anti-Tank rockets. Not sure which model probably old M-72's and not AT-4s.

Brad Turner
12-28-2012, 08:24 PM
At a gun buy back event in Los Angles today someone turned in LAW Light Anti-Tank rockets. Not sure which model probably old M-72's and not AT-4s.

Probably a little much for home defense.;)

mjh345
12-28-2012, 08:35 PM
At a gun buy back event in Los Angles today someone turned in LAW Light Anti-Tank rockets. Not sure which model probably old M-72's and not AT-4s.
Saw that on the news and it just doesnt pass the smell test. My guess is that some well conected antis with an agenda did this in order to foment shock & fear, in order to stimulate an emotional outcry for gun control/

HPL
12-28-2012, 08:45 PM
At a gun buy back event in Los Angles today someone turned in LAW Light Anti-Tank rockets. Not sure which model probably old M-72's and not AT-4s.

Seriously? How in the world does a civilian get hold of something like that? Did they actually buy it back or just confiscate it and arrest the "owner"? If they did buy it back, what do you get for anti tank rockets these days?

charly_t
12-28-2012, 09:29 PM
Saw that on the news and it just doesnt pass the smell test. My guess is that some well conected antis with an agenda did this in order to foment shock & fear, in order to stimulate an emotional outcry for gun control/

Agree 100%.

Gerry Clinchy
12-29-2012, 11:55 AM
The success of ban of guns in the UK, from an article in Wall Street Journal, via Townhall.com:

Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of George Mason University has a column in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html), looking at the impact of anti-gun policies in the United Kingdom.

…the Firearms Act of 1998…instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison. The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time.

By the way, it’s not just gun crime that has gone up. The U.K. has become a much more dangerous and violent society (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html) – almost surely in part because the thugs don’t have to worry about armed resistance.

Heck, if you are one of the few legal gun owners in the nation and you shoot a burglar, you get arrested (http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/the-u-k-s-upside-down-approach-to-crime-shoot-a-burglar-go-to-jail/) instead of a pat on the back.

The U.K.’s draconian restrictions on individual liberty lead to some Orwellian consequences. Professor Malcolm offers up two examples.

Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the judge noted: “In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant.” Mr. Clarke was sentenced to five years in prison. A public outcry eventually won his release. In November of this year, Danny Nightingale, member of a British special forces unit in Iraq and Afghanistan, was sentenced to 18 months in military prison for possession of a pistol and ammunition. Sgt. Nightingale was given the Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had been training. It was packed up with his possessions and returned to him by colleagues in Iraq after he left the country to organize a funeral for two close friends killed in action. Mr. Nightingale pleaded guilty to avoid a five-year sentence and was in prison until an appeal and public outcry freed him on Nov. 29.

Why are we obsessed by copying Euro policies that do not work: Brit gun control & healthcare control) ... Greek spending; French taxation ... and not copying something like the Swiss requiring all men to own and know how to use it?

charly_t
12-29-2012, 02:13 PM
The success of ban of guns in the UK, from an article in Wall Street Journal, via Townhall.com:

Why are we obsessed by copying Euro policies that do not work: Brit gun control & healthcare control) ... Greek spending; French taxation ... and not copying something like the Swiss requiring all men to own and know how to use it?

Gerry, I stole your whole post. Am going to print it to send to a relative who has no computer ( she says she can't learn to use one at her age ).

road kill
12-29-2012, 02:53 PM
Seriously? How in the world does a civilian get hold of something like that? Did they actually buy it back or just confiscate it and arrest the "owner"? If they did buy it back, what do you get for anti tank rockets these days?

Maybe from a Mexican drug cartel person??

God only knows where they got it from??!!??!!:cool:

HPL
12-29-2012, 03:23 PM
I wonder if law enforcement is checking serial numbers against stolen guns and if they find guns that have been reported stolen if they are returning them to the rightful owner. With $100,000.00 out there for turned in guns, that might be an inducement to steal some if you knew where they were easily accessible.

road kill
12-29-2012, 03:26 PM
I wonder if law enforcement is checking serial numbers against stolen guns and if they find guns that have been reported stolen if they are returning them to the rightful owner. With $100,000.00 out there for turned in guns, that might be an inducement to steal some if you knew where they were easily accessible.
Funny stuff, publish the addresses of people that own guns, then offer a buy back program.

That could never happenn.....right????

charly_t
12-29-2012, 03:45 PM
Funny stuff, publish the addresses of people that own guns, then offer a buy back program.

That could never happenn.....right????

I used scratch my head when trying to reason some of this stuff out............found out it was happening so much that my hair was getting thin. ;-) :-)

Buzz
12-29-2012, 09:02 PM
The success of ban of guns in the UK, from an article in Wall Street Journal, via Townhall.com:

Why are we obsessed by copying Euro policies that do not work: Brit gun control & healthcare control) ... Greek spending; French taxation ... and not copying something like the Swiss requiring all men to own and know how to use it?

I would like to know who is telling the truth here.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384

road kill
12-30-2012, 06:35 AM
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others
who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
-------------------------
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens' Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun-control message to all of your friends.
The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either.
The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET. I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!


HMMMMMMM..............interesting read & perspective.:cool:

HPL
12-30-2012, 10:01 AM
HMMMMMMM..............interesting read & perspective.:cool:


Who wrote this?

BuddyJ
01-04-2013, 01:39 PM
Good lord, that covers about all semi-auto anything doesn't it.?

Gerry Clinchy
01-06-2013, 11:13 AM
Did y'all see that a mother in GA emptied a .38 revolver into a home intruder ... it was enough to take him down, but not enough to kill him. She was at home with her twin 8-yr-old boys, huddled in a closet with them, trying to hide from the intruder. When the intruder found the closet, he was facing a mom with her gun. She had called her husband at work, and he told her to hide, and he called 911. The police arrived shortly after the mom had downed the intruder ... who, it turned out, had a long rap sheet. The article did not mention whether the intruder was armed, with a gun or otherwise.

PamK
01-06-2013, 12:33 PM
Did y'all see that a mother in GA emptied a .38 revolver into a home intruder ... it was enough to take him down, but not enough to kill him. She was at home with her twin 8-yr-old boys, huddled in a closet with them, trying to hide from the intruder. When the intruder found the closet, he was facing a mom with her gun. She had called her husband at work, and he told her to hide, and he called 911. The police arrived shortly after the mom had downed the intruder ... who, it turned out, had a long rap sheet. The article did not mention whether the intruder was armed, with a gun or otherwise.

Yes I just read it.

http://myfox8.com/2013/01/06/ga-mom-shoots-intruder-5-times-saves-children/

huntinman
01-06-2013, 12:57 PM
Did y'all see that a mother in GA emptied a .38 revolver into a home intruder ... it was enough to take him down, but not enough to kill him. She was at home with her twin 8-yr-old boys, huddled in a closet with them, trying to hide from the intruder. When the intruder found the closet, he was facing a mom with her gun. She had called her husband at work, and he told her to hide, and he called 911. The police arrived shortly after the mom had downed the intruder ... who, it turned out, had a long rap sheet. The article did not mention whether the intruder was armed, with a gun or otherwise.

It did say he had a crowbar... thats plenty enough for me... actually just the fact that he broke into the house is plenty for me. She did the right thing, except for letting him live.

HPL
01-06-2013, 01:41 PM
It did say he had a crowbar... thats plenty enough for me... actually just the fact that he broke into the house is plenty for me. She did the right thing, except for letting him live.

Center of mass, center of mass, center of mass!!!

BonMallari
01-06-2013, 01:52 PM
Did y'all see that a mother in GA emptied a .38 revolver into a home intruder ... it was enough to take him down, but not enough to kill him. She was at home with her twin 8-yr-old boys, huddled in a closet with them, trying to hide from the intruder. When the intruder found the closet, he was facing a mom with her gun. She had called her husband at work, and he told her to hide, and he called 911. The police arrived shortly after the mom had downed the intruder ... who, it turned out, had a long rap sheet. The article did not mention whether the intruder was armed, with a gun or otherwise.

she needed more knockdown power...either .40 cal or .357mag....kudos to her for keeping wits about herself and making direct hits

Golddogs
01-06-2013, 05:31 PM
she needed more knockdown power...either .40 cal or .357mag....kudos to her for keeping wits about herself and making direct hits

I don't agree. For a woman, a 9mm with PDF loads, at the range she shot at, would have made huge points of entry. A 38 or .380 just pisses them off. Wife has a LC9 and can put a 3 inch group @ 21 feet in rapid fire mode. A drop dead beauty and a dead on shot. I hope to heaven she never has to use it.

And if you really want knockdown power, a .45 is hands down more effective than a high power .357 or .40, even in a hardball load.

JMHO

huntinman
01-06-2013, 08:10 PM
Center of mass, center of mass, center of mass!!!

This is the correct answer... If she was shooting him in the face.... He's probably gonna be eating soup from now on, but she obviously missed his very small brain and his spine with the shot to the neck.

.38 would kill him plenty dead if it hit the right spot from 5 feet away... Jeez

mngundog
01-07-2013, 09:19 AM
I don't agree. For a woman, a 9mm with PDF loads, at the range she shot at, would have made huge points of entry. A 38 or .380 just pisses them off. Wife has a LC9 and can put a 3 inch group @ 21 feet in rapid fire mode. A drop dead beauty and a dead on shot. I hope to heaven she never has to use it.

And if you really want knockdown power, a .45 is hands down more effective than a high power .357 or .40, even in a hardball load.

JMHO
Just interested in what type of data you are using to back up your claim? A 9mm and .38 are going to be about identical size projectiles putting out about the same energy, and .40 cal and a .357 are both going to put out more ft # of energy than a 45. So how are you calculating knock down power? If a .38 is just going to piss someone off a 9mm is going to do the same, IMO both are pretty effective rounds.

Gerry Clinchy
01-08-2013, 10:06 PM
Just came across one of the articles about the big ammo purchases by govt agencies last Sept. Staggering ... Homeland Security purchased 28,000 TONS of ammo ... that is enough to fill 1200 tractor trailers, which placed end to end would be 14 miles long!

Included in that ammo were a bunch of hollow points that have long been outlawed for warfare. What?

I remember, also, that the SS Administration bought a bunch of ammo ... I guess those senior citizens can be dangerous sorts.

It seems like every Fed agency is VERY well armed ...

gmhr1
01-09-2013, 04:36 PM
Get ready........Biden says Obama may use his executive powers to take action to reduce gun violence.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/politics/gun-control-battle/index.html

Doug Main
01-09-2013, 04:53 PM
Get ready........Biden says Obama may use his executive powers to take action to reduce gun violence.

Yea right. Now I'm starting to see why the Department of Homeland Security is going to need that 1.4 billion rounds of ammo it purchased in the last 6 months.

Gerry Clinchy
01-09-2013, 05:42 PM
Get ready........Biden says Obama may use his executive powers to take action to reduce gun violence.
Heck, who needs Congress if you've got a POTUS who can issue executive orders?

How does the Supreme Court review executive orders? Guess somebody would have to sue?

BonMallari
01-09-2013, 05:51 PM
Yea right. Now I'm starting to see why the Department of Homeland Security is going to need that 1.4 billion rounds of ammo it purchased in the last 6 months.

not going to be enough because according to the FBI statistics there were 2.8 million background checks( Brady ck) last month, so lots of guns got sold

Gerry Clinchy
01-12-2013, 11:36 AM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/dangerous_old_men_comments.html#disqus_thread
Contained in this American Thinker post are two American Revolution stories about citizens resisting the British forces before the actual war started in earnest. They are about citizens defending what they believed was oppressive colonialsim. It would appear that the citizens had individual weapons equal to those of the British soldiers. They may not have had the cannons, but their individual weapons were likely equal. (Feel free to disagree if I'm incorrect on that assumption.)

One of the comments also was kind of interesting.


Rothbard's "Conceived in Liberty" recounts the American colonies, the swinging pendulum of self-rule and Imperial Governors, the conflicts and the final stages in New England where Governors appointed by the King called out the Militia to control the populace. The problem for the Crown and the Imperial Governors was that the Militia was also organized as freedom loving "Sons of Liberty." So when push came to shove, the Militia told the Governor that they would give him a head start to get to the British ship in the Harbor.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/dangerous_old_men_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz 2HmRGnujU

What is to prevent govt/POTUS from calling upon the Fed agencies that have weapons to use those armed (civilian) people against citizens? We can hope that at least 49% of those people would resist such orders.

I also watched the film clip of Ben Shapiro (gun ownership supporter) on the Piers Morgan show. First time I've actually watched Morgan; and I was unimpressed. Another Brit who is living in NYC said he feels safer in taking a NYC subway at midnight than he did in his home of Manchester UK attempting the same thing. At least law enforcement in NYC is still armed :-) He said he has not yet been mugged in NYC, but has been mugged 3X in Manchester. Manchester has also developed a gang culture, which it did not have before gun control there. Yes, it's the bad guys that haven't given up their guns. The statistics released on UK violence, that Brit says, are not as representative of the "success" of gun control as might be the reality.

No, I have not fact-checked this, so feel free to present the opposing facts.

dixidawg
01-13-2013, 06:29 PM
http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Very good info.

Gerry Clinchy
01-13-2013, 07:27 PM
Of course, why didn't I think of this (from American Thinker)



WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:Eliminate armed guards for the President, Vice-President, and their families, and establish Gun Free Zones around themGun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians

HPL
01-13-2013, 08:04 PM
http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Very good info.

You are going to have to summarize this as I can't get it to work.

dixidawg
01-13-2013, 08:10 PM
Use your "right arrow" or "Page down'" key once to move to the next slide.

HPL
01-13-2013, 10:16 PM
Well, that's what the instructions said, and if you visit POTUS very often you would probably get the impression that I am at least moderately literate, so, as I said previously, it's not working for me, perhaps because i'm on a MAC.

Julie R.
01-14-2013, 07:50 PM
Just came across one of the articles about the big ammo purchases by govt agencies last Sept. Staggering ... Homeland Security purchased 28,000 TONS of ammo ... that is enough to fill 1200 tractor trailers, which placed end to end would be 14 miles long!

Included in that ammo were a bunch of hollow points that have long been outlawed for warfare. What?

I remember, also, that the SS Administration bought a bunch of ammo ... I guess those senior citizens can be dangerous sorts.

It seems like every Fed agency is VERY well armed ...


"Hey look! I just caught a terrorist, quick, someone come hold her at gunpoint!" Said no TSA agent, ever.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1140/1418632004_db82f4d635_o.jpg

huntinman
01-14-2013, 08:15 PM
"Hey look! I just caught a terrorist, quick, someone come hold her at gunpoint!" Said no TSA agent, ever.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1140/1418632004_db82f4d635_o.jpg

Notice head scarf on TSA agent...:rolleyes:

gmhr1
01-15-2013, 09:02 AM
The white house plan for gun control will include 19 Executive orders.