Details on the proposed gun ban Jan 3rd

[vort3xr6]

If this doesn't get your blood boiling, I don't know what will.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/feinstein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-ban-bill.aspx

[Ghosty]

OMFG! Hopefully the Republicans in congress can stop this insanely OVERREACHING bill!!! For fucks sake!

[TFOGGuys]

Not a revelation. Swinestain has proposed this crap every year since 1995. What I do find interesting is that she, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi all have concealed handgun permits. Fucking hypocrites.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/19/Sen-Feinstein-in-1995-I-know-the-urge-to-arm-yourself-because-that-s-what-I-did?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BreitbartFeed+%28Breitbart+Fe ed%29

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10104

[vort3xr6]

For those that don't want to click and read.


Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)—author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004—has announced that on the first day of the new Congress—January 3rd— she will introduce a bill to which her 1994 ban will pale by comparison. On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, “I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.” Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.

According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:

Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.

Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.

Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill carries goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.

Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:
Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.

Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.

Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.

Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.

Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.

Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.

Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. Other than for the 11 detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and one other semi-automatic rifle included in the list, however, the list appears to be pointless, because a separate provision of the bill exempts “any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.”

The Department of Justice study. On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”

“Assault weapon” numbers and murder trends. From the imposition of Feinstein's “assault weapon” ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of “assault weapons” has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an “assault weapon” is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE’s firearm manufacturer reports, availablehere. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s—all models of which Feinstein’s new bill defines as “assault weapons”—rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation's murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.


Traces: Feinstein makes several claims, premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (relatively infrequent) use of “assault weapons” in crime. However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime. As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced. Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing “assault weapons” were exempted from the 1994 ban and new “assault weapons” continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by “assault weapons” during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade.


Call Your U.S. Senators and Representative: As noted, Feinstein intends to introduce her bill on January 3rd. President Obama has said that gun control will be a “central issue” of his final term in office, and he has vowed to move quickly on it.

Contact your members of Congress at 202-224-3121 to urge them to oppose Sen. Feinstein’s 2013 gun and magazine ban. Our elected representatives in Congress must hear from you if we are going to defeat this gun ban proposal. You can write your Representatives and Senators by using our Write Your Representatives tool here: http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx


Millions of Americans own so-called “assault weapons” and tens of millions own “large” magazines, for self-defense, target shooting, and hunting. For more information about thehistory of the “assault weapon” issue, please visit www.GunBanFacts.com.

[Hoot]

Well I'm gonna be busy making some phone calls and writing letters.

[vort3xr6]

She is going to use fear and the death of children as a catapult for this bill. If she guilts congress into acting, this could very well pass.

[Hoot]

She is going to use fear and the death of children as a catapult for this bill. If she guilts congress into acting, this could very well pass.

It's already being labeled as political suicide. Not only for her but even other democrats.

[Ghosty]

If people actually care, do what I just did. I just wrote ALL FIVE of the Democratic congressman & women, using this tool:

http://www.contactingthecongress.org/cgi-bin/newseek.cgi?site=ctc2011&state=co

My letters referenced Feinstein's proposed bill and included threat to never vote for them again if they approved this bill. I will check the list of yays and nays when this bill gets submitted for review. My letters also were written in a mature intelligent fashion that listed many common sense reasons why this bill is ludicrous.

I suggest ALL you responsible gun owners do the same. Even if you are for gun-control, realize this bill is totally out of bounds.

[Repsol a095]

This makes me happy.

[The Black Knight]

Funny how us crazy NRA extremist are always right when it comes to predicting that the government wants to disarm the populace. I'm just going to come right out and say it... I told you so...

[Ghosty]

Four years of nothing on gun-control, that's why. And extremist gun-nuts still look extreme. This bill will probably never get passed in it's current form. And the response is expected considering how many 'incidents' since Columbine.

Petitions to shaft Feinstein, as well as deport Piers Morgan, LOL!:

http://www.infowars.com/petition-try-dianne-feinstein-for-treason/

There will be MANY more bills proposed, so it's gonna be a long year...

[Hoot]

This makes me happy.

Nice to have the right to free speech.

How upset would you be if they were trying to basically completely take that right away from you?

This is why it is so upsetting to so many people. Even persons who are in favor of the 2nd amendment will tell you they think that there should be some better control measures in place as well as better enforcement of current laws. To be so close minded only makes others think less of your opinion, in my opinion.

[Hoot]

Four years of nothing on gun-control, that's why. And extremist gun-nuts still look extreme. This bill will probably never get passed in it's current form. And the response is expected considering how many 'incidents' since Columbine.

Petitions to shaft Feinstein, as well as deport Piers Morgan, LOL!:

http://www.infowars.com/petition-try-dianne-feinstein-for-treason/

It got 100 signatures in the time it took me to create an account. It will be we'll beyond 25,000 signatures today alone.

[Repsol a095]

Nice to have the right to free speech.

How upset would you be if they were trying to basically completely take that right away from you?

This is why it is so upsetting to so many people. Even persons who are in favor of the 2nd amendment will tell you they think that there should be some better control measures in place as well as better enforcement of current laws. To be so close minded only makes others think less of your opinion, in my opinion.

Ok. That is your opinion.

[asp_125]

Petitions to shaft Feinstein, as well as deport Piers Morgan, LOL!:


The hypocrisy, people using their first amendment rights to defend the second amendment, and then wanting to deport others for their opinions under the same first amendment rights.

[The Black Knight]

Four years of nothing on gun-control, that's why. And extremist gun-nuts still look extreme. This bill will probably never get passed in it's current form. And the response is expected considering how many 'incidents' since Columbine.

Petitions to shaft Feinstein, as well as deport Piers Morgan, LOL!:

http://www.infowars.com/petition-try-dianne-feinstein-for-treason/

There will be MANY more bills proposed, so it's gonna be a long year...

I'll remember you said this when the bill passes.

[Hoot]

The hypocrisy, people using their first amendment rights to defend the second amendment, and then wanting to deport others for their opinions under the same first amendment rights.

In all seriousness. Do our rights apply to citizens of other countries? Obviously saying he can't speak his mind is absurd, but are we stifling a right he has?

[TFOGGuys]

Ok. That is your opinion.

And explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights. And the opinion of the US supreme Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[asp_125]

In all seriousness. Do our rights apply to citizens of other countries? Obviously saying he can't speak his mind is absurd, but are we stifling a right he has?

While parts of the constitution specifically mention citizens; the right to vote or to hold a federal job for example, other parts of the constitution apply to "peoples" of the United States. The document makes a distinction between the two.

For instance I can legally go and buy a gun and hold a CCW, even though I am not a US citizen but a legal resident alien. The steps are more restrictive in a background check, but the end result is the same.

By inference the first amendment also refers to people, thus free speech is protected. You can say Piers Morgan is a twat, but he can say the same to you.

[Ghosty]

I'll remember you said this when the bill passes.
I hope you're wrong, hence writing my congressman, have you? My guess is it would fail the House with enough Republicans voting against. Then it would need 2/3 of the Senate which they couldn't get, right?

So the key is how many Republicans try to vote for it...

Otherwise it would need to be another bill, or this one reworked, right?...

[Ezzzzy1]

This reeks of Nazi Germany....

[I`m Batman]

This makes me happy.

Where can I get one of these signs?
:bday:

http://patrick.net/forum/content/uploads/2012/11/neighbor-sign.jpg

[Repsol a095]

Where can I get one of these signs?
:bday:

http://patrick.net/forum/content/uploads/2012/11/neighbor-sign.jpg

Yup, go ahead because so many home invasions that are going on now. No wait, I see that everyone is hanging their guns in the back of their trucks in my neighborhood, so the thieves just look for my Prius.

Here is the thing: I have many buddies who have guns in their homes that have led to trouble ( accidents, injury, and one death). My neighbor has a giant gun safe in his garage that is left wide open all the time. Many times, his garage door is then left open all night. Are they idiots? Maybe? Are others more careful? Sure. However, I don't want to sort through all of them in the meantime

In the end, there are no statistics that prove that more guns are the answer or that they keep us safe. There are a ton of stats that show death from firearms that were handled or used improperly. There is no answer here; otherwise, this wouldn't be a conversation or debate on this forum.

The second amendment was not created for the purpose that "we" are discussing here. I can't think of one person that I know that has actually used their guns to defend themselves, but I am sure that some have been used that way. Owning ar15s and other semiautomatic rifles are a little extreme in my opinion.

In the end, have your guns, and be happy, but these deaths will continue because there are too many unstable people who need mental health instead of easy access to guns.

[I`m Batman]

Ban all cars too while they're at it. Cars kills a lot more people per year than guns. There are a lot of idiots on the road everyday that put my life and my family's lives in danger everyday. Ban all cars that can go over 25mph. Because it's dangerous.
Ban Apple too, NY crimes has increased because of Apple.

I'm just thinking like them politicians.


Maybe they need to concentrate on the criminals instead of the law abiding citizens.

[TFOGGuys]

Yup, go ahead because so many home invasions that are going on now. No wait, I see that everyone is hanging their guns in the back of their trucks in my neighborhood, so the thieves just look for my Prius.

Here is the thing: I have many buddies who have guns in their homes that have led to trouble ( accidents, injury, and one death). My neighbor has a giant gun safe in his garage that is left wide open all the time. Many times, his garage door is then left open all night. Are they idiots? Maybe? Are others more careful? Sure. However, I don't want to sort through all of them in the meantime

In the end, there are no statistics that prove that more guns are the answer or that they keep us safe. There are a ton of stats that show death from firearms that were handled or used improperly. There is no answer here; otherwise, this wouldn't be a conversation or debate on this forum.

The second amendment was not created for the purpose that "we" are discussing here. I can't think of one person that I know that has actually used their guns to defend themselves, but I am sure that some have been used that way. Owning ar15s and other semiautomatic rifles are a little extreme in my opinion.

In the end, have your guns, and be happy, but these deaths will continue because there are too many unstable people who need mental health instead of easy access to guns.

So, if fewer guns equals more safety, why are "important people" protected by guns?

Why, when threatened by a criminal, do you call people with guns to come protect you(police)?

What you and other antigun folks can't seem to fathom is that the criminals DON'T CARE what new laws are going to be passed, as they will continue to ignore them.

If you don't like guns, don't own any.

If you choose to let others be responsible for your safety, don't compromise my right to defend myself.

99% of the time the job of the police is to investigate crimes that have already occurred, and they are under no legal obligation to protect you.

If you factor out gang on gang violence and suicides by gun, firearms account for roughly 4000 deaths a year in the US. Cars kill approximately 10 times as many. Tobacco rings in at almost 40 times as many. Alcohol? Implicated in as many as 200,000 deaths a year. Our society has a lot of things that beg more of our attention than gun laws that will affect crime NOT ONE BIT, but may render a significant portion of our society criminals.

[Jmetz]

However, I don't want to sort through all of them in the meantime

In the end, there are no statistics that prove that more guns are the answer or that they keep us safe. There are a ton of stats that show death from firearms that were handled or used improperly.

Surely as someone that rides a dangerous device of death only good for riding wheelies in traffic, high speed chases, running from the police, and getting people killed you can see the problem with that line of thinking.

[Repsol a095]

Jim,

Who exactly have you "protected" with your arsenal? Tell us your romantic stories about how many times you have "protected" the masses.

Wait, they had a armed guard at Columbine. Did that work? Nope, bring in more guns.

I can't remember when i ever had to call the cops to my house to have the pull their guns for me. However, I have seen the cops called when someone else had guns and full body armor back in LA in the mid nineties, and oh yea, the cops kept bringing more guns out yet two men killed and injured about one hundred people. But, I am sure that if everyone would have brought out their guns, it would have ended earlier. That's always the argument: if everyone had a gun, things like this wouldn't happen. Where were all those gun totting citizens?

Cars are dangerous, but they, unlike guns, are a necessity. I would rather take my chances with a car that everyone uses almost everyday; whereas, guns are not. The last time I checked a bike nor a car was used to create 61 mass killings over the past 50 years, but I haven't checked recently.

[Hoot]

Jim,

Who exactly have you "protected" with your arsenal? Tell us your romantic stories about how many times you have "protected" the masses.

Wait, they had a armed guard at Columbine. Did that work? Nope, bring in more guns.

I can't remember when i ever had to call the cops to my house to have the pull their guns for me. However, I have seen the cops called when someone else had guns and full body armor back in LA in the mid nineties, and oh yea, the cops kept bringing more guns out yet two men killed and injured about one hundred people. But, I am sure that if everyone would have brought out their guns, it would have ended earlier. That's always the argument: if everyone had a gun, things like this wouldn't happen. Where were all those gun totting citizens?

Cars are dangerous, but they, unlike guns, are a necessity. I would rather take my chances with a car that everyone uses almost everyday; whereas, guns are not. The last time I checked a bike nor a car was used to create 61 mass killings over the past 50 years, but I haven't checked recently.


You quote the mass killings of unarmed civilians to defend your viewpoint of its a good thing the government would like to take our guns or limit our availability to them?

[Repsol a095]

Nope, what I am saying, is if the guns weren't readily available, these killings may not have happened. However, if they do, more guns will not solve them.

[I`m Batman]

You quote the mass killings of unarmed civilians to defend your viewpoint of its a good thing the government would like to take our guns or limit our availability to them?

+1

And I would be willing to give up my guns right after they can magically take ALL the guns away from CRIMINALS and everyone else. And there's NO WAY that any criminals can get their hands on one. Then it's all baseball bats and swords.

But until that day comes, I'll keep mine please.

[Hoot]

How about alcohol Repsol? What is alcohols purpose other than first aid? Why should we still be allowed to drink? Alcohols only use is to be abused. Lets prohibit that too!

Or anyone else who views guns sole purpose in the world as killing devices. Not only direct at you Repsol, we've just been having a good dialogue.

[Ghosty]

The gubbin'ment is raping our 2nd & 4th amendments AS WE SPEAK. Can't believe some of the lines of thinking by some in this thread.

And I'm moderate, not even one of those "Don't tread on me" TeaParty libert fruitcakes!

[Hoot]

Nope, what I am saying, is if the guns weren't readily available, these killings may not have happened. However, if they do, more guns will not solve them.
Now that 200 million or so guns are already in circulation in just the US (I think that's the correct figure, but not 100% sure) how do you come to some sort of resolution besides taking them away from the persons who don't use them to hurt, maim, or kill for no justifiable reason?

[I`m Batman]

Motorcycles are dangerous too. There's no need for them. We need to ban them too. Drive cars because its safer.

[~Barn~]

:lol: The CSC should shutter its doors during the Winter, except for threads related to skiing and the person-to-person sales of sports cars.

[I`m Batman]

There's also no need to drive over 25mph either. Lets limit all the cars to the top speed of 25mph.

Only certain transport vehicle like semi trucks can travel faster because they need to transport goods.

[TFOGGuys]

Now that 200 million or so guns are already in circulation in just the US (I think that's the correct figure, but not 100% sure) how do you come to some sort of resolution besides taking them away from the persons who don't use them to hurt, maim, or kill for no justifiable reason?

More like 350 million. And less than .00002 percent are ever used in a crime.

[Hoot]

:lol: The CSC should shutter its doors during the Winter, except for threads related to skiing and the person-to-person sales of sports cars.

Nah, I don't think anyone is getting upset. Just some good discussion. I really like hearing others perspective. Sometimes it helps me realize scenarios I never thought of.

I attended a meeting in my community last night put on by another citizen and was amazed how well 30 or so people of differing viewpoints were able to get together and discuss what we thought were some reasons behind violence in our society. Very nice to see people come together for a common cause even if they didn't agree on how best to get there.

[TFOGGuys]

Jim,

Who exactly have you "protected" with your arsenal? Tell us your romantic stories about how many times you have "protected" the masses.

Wait, they had a armed guard at Columbine. Did that work? Nope, bring in more guns.

I can't remember when i ever had to call the cops to my house to have the pull their guns for me. However, I have seen the cops called when someone else had guns and full body armor back in LA in the mid nineties, and oh yea, the cops kept bringing more guns out yet two men killed and injured about one hundred people. But, I am sure that if everyone would have brought out their guns, it would have ended earlier. That's always the argument: if everyone had a gun, things like this wouldn't happen. Where were all those gun totting citizens?

Cars are dangerous, but they, unlike guns, are a necessity. I would rather take my chances with a car that everyone uses almost everyday; whereas, guns are not. The last time I checked a bike nor a car was used to create 61 mass killings over the past 50 years, but I haven't checked recently.

A firearm for personal protection is much like a fire extinguisher: You hope and pray that you never need it, but if the time comes, you want the most effective one you can get, and it does no good locked in a closet somewhere.

I personally have never used a gun in self defense, but law abiding citizens use them roughly 2.5 million times a year (http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm) to prevent crime. This includes a vast majority of instances when no rounds were fired, but the mere presence of an armed citizen made the criminal rethink their choice of targets/careers.

As far as citizens preventing mass shootings:

http://www.volokh.com/2012/12/14/do-civilians-armed-with-guns-ever-capture-kill-or-otherwise-stop-mass-shooters/

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html


However, I have seen the cops called when someone else had guns and full body armor back in LA in the mid nineties, and oh yea, the cops kept bringing more guns out yet two men killed and injured about one hundred people. But, I am sure that if everyone would have brought out their guns, it would have ended earlier.


Actually, the 2 bank robbers were the only ones killed. The wounded 18 others, none critically.
The responding police were so poorly armed that they went to a local sporting goods store to obtain AR-15s and ammo to end the rampage. the same exact guns that the antigunners are trying to ban. This incident, rare as it was, sparked a revolution in the though process of how to arm police. As a result, most police have access to an AR-15 rifle in the trunk of their patrol car, instead of just a handgun or shotgun.


Local patrol officers at the time were typically armed with their personal 9 mm or .38 Special pistols, with some having a 12-gauge shotgun available in their cars. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic AKMs and an AR-15 rifle with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor. They also wore body armor of their own. Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers' body armor, the patrol officers' bullets were ineffective. SWAT eventually arrived with rifles powerful enough to penetrate the body armor. Several officers also appropriated AR-15 rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. The incident sparked debate on the need for patrol officers to upgrade their capabilities in similar situations in the future.

The fact is, gun control laws have a negative effect on crime. Cities with the strictest gun control policies(DC, NYC, Chicago) have the HIGHEST incidence of murders, including gun murders. Chicago just had their 500th murder of the year. They also have the highest rates of assault, rape, burglary, and armed robbery, because the criminals know they can operate with relative impunity.

I'm not saying everyone should carry. But if one is a law abiding citizen without a history of mental health issues, it should be an option.

Addressing the "if you have a gun and get into an argument" fallacy, CCW holders are responsible for a statistically insignificant portion of overall violent crime, and in fact are substantially underrepresented in crime statistics overall.


The number of permits revocations is typically small.[2][6][7] The grounds for revocation in most states, other than expiration of a time-limited permit without renewal, is typically the commission of a gross misdemeanor or felony by the permit holder. While these crimes are often firearm-related (including unlawful carry), a 3-year study of Texas crime statistics immediately following passage of CHL legislation found that the most common crime committed by CHL holders that would be grounds for revocation was actually DUI, followed by unlawful carry and then aggravated assault. The same study concluded that Texas CHL holders were always less likely to commit any particular type of crime than the general population, and overall were 13 times less likely to commit any crime.[8]

[~Barn~]

Nah, I don't think anyone is getting upset. Just some good discussion. I really like hearing others perspective. Sometimes it helps me realize scenarios I never thought of.

I attended a meeting in my community last night put on by another citizen and was amazed how well 30 or so people of differing viewpoints were able to get together and discuss what we thought were some reasons behind violence in our society. Very nice to see people come together for a common cause even if they didn't agree on how best to get there.

Touche`... I was probably just being 'selfish' to some degree, jesting about it. I have some strong thoughts about this issue (and honestly we've covered it more than once over the years on this forum), but it's an ongoing exercise for me to temper myself and basically just bite my tongue.

I think as I've continued to age and mature, I pay more attention to not disenfranchising people by being so agressively outspoken. For the sake of getting it off my chest though, I am a gun owner, but I'm not a hunter. I like to shoot recreationally, but I'm not formally trained in CQB. I understand the fundamental purpose of the crafting of the Second Amendment, but I'm also not naive enough to pretend we'd stand a chance against Sam, if they wanted to drop the hammer. In short I think it's pretty obvious that in the year 2012, the blanket existence of guns has been far more "problem", than they have been "answer", but I don't discount why some people hold their need so closely. If the magic lamp fell in my lap tomorrow, I think it's safe to say that I'd happily vanish all of mine, if I could vanish everybody elses along with them. Knives, pool cues, staplers, mechanical pencils, and cars that can exceed 25 MPH, I'd probably go ahead leave alone, but I'm not going to try and convince any of you that I think guns are a good thing; I know that they're not. We're already at the deep end of the pool though, so do I have the answer? No, I can't say that I do without reverting back to fantasy. Maybe they do need to be harder to get with tighter restrictions, I dunno..? Maybe mental illness within ones family needs to be considered, and not just the buyer themself, I dunno..? Maybe lots of things.... But one thing I do know for sure, is that guns are not snake bites. You don't cure a gun shot by adding more gun shots to the mix. But it never fails to surprise me how far humans will go to embarrass themselves at the expense of their own logic.

Sigh... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMMp_llzBT4)

[I`m Batman]

I am OK with alcohol ban though.

[vort3xr6]

I am OK with alcohol ban though.

BLASPHEMY!!!!

[Ghosty]

And I would be willing to give up my guns right after they can magically take ALL the guns away from CRIMINALS and everyone else. And there's NO WAY that any criminals can get their hands on one. Then it's all baseball bats and swords.

But until that day comes, I'll keep mine please.
I STILL think I should have the right to have a sporting rifle (including "scary" looking black ones), because it's a damn HOBBY, it's FUN, it lets off steam, it's sporting, it's COOL. Why do people play COD, BF3, and every other FPS? Guns aren't only for hunting and home defense, obviously


Nope, what I am saying, is if the guns weren't readily available, these killings may not have happened. However, if they do, more guns will not solve them.
So by your logic, less guns means our social and mental health issues will be magically solved, really?

[I`m Batman]

I have a friend that ruin his life because of alcohol. Tried to kill himself because of alcohol. I'm sure that a lot more people die every year because of alcohol related incidents than guns. Why not ban alcohol?

[TFOGGuys]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zgTlnXmA1lE/UN31zD4YDgI/AAAAAAACPhg/VPCp5hlW6iM/s1600/idiots.jpg

[asp_125]

I think the problem isn't guns per se. It's the irresponsible owners who let their guns get stolen, or supply them to unstable people, or somehow let their guns get into the wrong hands. I'm sure responsible gun lovers here can agree with me on this.

I think they should charge a gun owner with accessory to murder or with some other felony if their guns somehow are involved in a crime. That ought to make owners a bit more careful with their guns. Too harsh? They don't do that with stolen cars? Tough shit, your gun just got kids killed.. deal with it. You have to take the bad with the good. If you're responsible and keep your guns in your possession, well then you don't have anything to worry about, right?

[willb003]

:lol: The CSC should shutter its doors during the Winter, except for threads related to skiing and the person-to-person sales of sports cars.

Agreed. Hell, I dont even remember more than two big rides that went on this entire year. What a waste.

[The Black Knight]

I hope you're wrong, hence writing my congressman, have you? My guess is it would fail the House with enough Republicans voting against. Then it would need 2/3 of the Senate which they couldn't get, right?

So the key is how many Republicans try to vote for it...

Otherwise it would need to be another bill, or this one reworked, right?...
I'm not going to write my congressman. My vote should have taken care of the fact that I elected a Pro-Gun representative to speak on my behalf(besides I don't believe that writing them actually works).

However, I'd much rely on my affiliation to the NRA as a Life Member and in the support I give to the NRA. I'd much rather rely on the NRA exert immense amount of pressure on Washington(like they've done in the past) to help block such legislation. Fighting anti-gun legislation is what they do.

The problem is, an Assault Weapons Ban has already been passed once before. What's to stop history from repeating itself?? Because we all know, history does repeat itself. And usually when it does, it repeats itself in much greater magnitude.

the Bill Feinstein got passed wasn't the first. Joe Biden originally authored the Assault Weapons Ban and it then was re-worked(like you say) in order to pass down the road. But in light of recent tragic events, what's to stop them from just using that as ammunition(pun intended) to force this current iteration of the Bill through, playing off the emotions of the public.



Remember:
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security, deserve neither and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin




I think the problem isn't guns per se. It's the irresponsible owners who let their guns get stolen, or supply them to unstable people, or somehow let their guns get into the wrong hands. I'm sure responsible gun lovers here can agree with me on this.

I think they should charge a gun owner with accessory to murder or with some other felony if their guns somehow are involved in a crime. That ought to make owners a bit more careful with their guns. Too harsh? They don't do that with stolen cars? Tough shit, your gun just got kids killed.. deal with it. You have to take the bad with the good. If you're responsible and keep your guns in your possession, well then you don't have anything to worry about, right?

Then how about we charge you "the parent" when your kid goes on said rampage, steals someone's guns and then uses those guns to kill someone else.

Hey, tough shit right?? You're the stupid bastard that can't control you kids, right?? Maybe we need to put your ass behind bars or give you the death penalty for something your teenage or grown kids do. Right?? after all, it's your fault for giving birth to some S.O.B that just wiped out a whole classroom, bank, building full of people. Or how about when your reject of a child gets behind the wheel of a car intoxicated to high heaven and kills someone while drunk driving??

Oh what's that you say?? You can't be held accountable for someone else and their actions??

Then how can you hold a lawful gun owner accountable if their firearms were ripped off from their home because the thieves broke into their gun cabinet or managed to get into their safe.

God forbid my weapons are ever stolen. Mine are in a 1000lb safe and in the lower level of my home. But like the old saying goes, "where there's a will, there's a way." And I'm sure if someone were desperate enough they could someone how haul my safe off. After they broke the bolt that holds it to the floor, or better yet. Brought a plasma cutter with them and just cut through the door. It can be done, and if you're at work. They have the whole day to work on it right??

So then I'm to blame because someone burglarized my home, made off with weapons and then used them?? Even though I went through every precaution I could, in order to stop the theft??? How is it my fault?? Not like I invited them in for an afternoon rampage through my house.

Oh I get it, it's just my fault because I had the guns right?? What do you want me to stay at home 24/7 just so I can guard my guns?? Just camp out next to my safe with a gun in hand, by the off chance someone is going to come by and break in to my home??

Please tell me, this isn't your mentality....

[I`m Batman]

Ban sports bikes because there's no need for that kind of performance on public roads only race professionals could ride them on race tracks. Same goes for sport cars. We should all be driving mopeds and econoboxes.

What else can we ban?

[MRA 32]

I can certainly understand ones opinion that guns are bad. But that is an opinion and we are entitled for our opinions.

I am more interested in facts though...My fore fathers died for my rights to bare arms. Just like they died for others to have the right to speak their opinions. We don't speak Japanese as our language today because the Japanese knew every American was armed after they bombed us in '41!

Here is the facts: We protect our financial institutions with armed security, we protect our politicians with armed security, we protect the judicual system with armed security, college campuses for the most part have their own police force, For heavens sake we have armed security at sporting events....But mention protecting our children at school with armed security and the fucking world is coming to an end!!!

More facts: these armed gunmen should be just that! Take away their 5 minutes of fame! Who cares about them, they are no longer a good part of our society. If no one gives them their fame then they will stop trying to one up each other.

More facts: Rational people are the only ones effected by laws. Irrrational people could give two shits about gun control. They will kill regardless, did gun control stop the Oklahoma City bombing? Did gun control save the World Trade Center? No, it didn't because these were actions committed by irrational people.

I will write my representatives and express my opinion about gun control as it is the best way to stop this stupidity with out arming ourselves and doing the unthinkable...It will be a cold day in hell before I give up my guns.

[dirkterrell]

I can't think of one person that I know that has actually used their guns to defend themselves

I had to point a gun at someone once to thwart a burglary. I gave the guy the choice of getting off my property or getting shot. I think the world record for the 100 yard dash was set that night. And this was right in the middle of a series of murders of college students in Gainesville, FL back in 1990 (Google Gainesville student murders for the details). I learned that evening that if I felt I had to, I would pull the trigger on someone. Nothing romantic at all about it.

[ThorsTwin]

This country went through a similar event several years ago. It was called Prohibition. Look at how the black market for alcohol grew and got out of control. Does anyone in their right mind think that confiscating firearms will be a peaceful event? There are plenty of folks out there who will sell an AR-15 to an enterprising criminal for 5 to 10 times what they paid for it. You will see an unprecedented black market for guns if they are banned. And criminals and criminal organizations will be ready and able to buy a large number of them up. We can what if this to death. Facts are guns will always be here. Stiffen the penalties for gun crimes. Put these shitheads to death that get caught and are convicted of gun crimes. More legislation will not work. Most folks will turn up their middle finger to the government wanting firearms. I will be among them.

[asp_125]

Fact is, gun ownership is not bad. It's the assholes that spoil it for the rest of us that's bad. Get rid of the assholes and you solve the problem. But the NRA doesn't want to address that side of the problem, instead they want to proliferate a fortress mentality.

We have anti drunk driving campaigns for cars, crackdowns for squids and pipes for bikes. Both address the source of the problem without affecting our ownership and enjoyment of them. Why can't there be a similar solution here?

[Monster]

If you don't want guns in your home then don't have them. I don't care what the law says I will have them in mine. Stupid liberals are always telling everyone else how to live their lives.:sniper:

[~Barn~]

If you don't want guns in your home then don't have them. I don't care what the law says I will have them in mine. Stupid liberals are always telling everyone else how to live their lives.:sniper:

:lol: Dude, you totally seem calm and balanced enough to be a gun owner!

[~Barn~]

I had to point a gun at someone once to thwart a burglary. I gave the guy the choice of getting off my property or getting shot. I think the world record for the 100 yard dash was set that night. And this was right in the middle of a series of murders of college students in Gainesville, FL back in 1990 (Google Gainesville student murders for the details). I learned that evening that if I felt I had to, I would pull the trigger on someone. Nothing romantic at all about it.

It doesn't sound romantic, Dirk.
A few questions though, just out of my curiosity:
- Was the guy you needed "off your property" armed and threatening you with a gun or knife or similar?
- Had the burglary already been commited? Like aside from actually trespassing, had this person actually commited any actual portion yet, of the crime of burglary or theft or menacing (related)?
- Was he with others or was he alone? And aside from yourself, were you also in the company of others. Protecting others for instance?
- If push came to shove, do you feel you would have been able to successfully fight him off, if he would have attacked you, assuming neither of your had an advantage of a weapon?
- Was there ever an opportunity for you to reasonably seek defense from this person in any sort of "domain" per se.. Inside a house for example. WITH an opportunity to request help from the police?

You'll pardon my line of questioning if it's too personal or none of my business, but you did tell us the story and it's obviously a very open ended scenario. I'm just trying to come to terms with my own sensibilities and what (I think) I know about you, to weigh justification of drawing down on another human being. I'm not going to comment either way or try to publicaly pass judgement at you, so don't feel like these are too loaded of questions to reply to (excuse the pun...). Obviously it was your life and time and decision, but rather I trully would like to know these things, so I can pose the question toward myself and again try to see if I can justify the action. Again though, if it's not any of my business, please don't be compelled to answer me; I am curious though. :dunno:

[Ezzzzy1]

Serious question, tell me why anyone would HAVE to have an "assault rifle" over a shotgun or pistol?

If we are talking about protection then why would anyone need anything more than those two?

Maybe I am missing something but unless you really think that we will be combat fighting on US soil you shouldnt really need anything more than that.

And for what its worth, thats what the founding father were trying to give everyone. Capable means to protect themselves and what was theirs.

[asp_125]

#Because WOLVERINES!!!!

[TFOGGuys]

Serious question, tell me why anyone would HAVE to have an "assault rifle" over a shotgun or pistol?

If we are talking about protection then why would anyone need anything more than those two?

Maybe I am missing something but unless you really think that we will be combat fighting on US soil you shouldnt really need anything more than that.

And for what its worth, thats what the founding father were trying to give everyone. Capable means to protect themselves and what was theirs.

Borrowed. Concise.


To assume all articles of the Bill of Rights grant personal rights to the individual with the exception of the Second Amendment demonstrates a logical disconnect. It is as if you are saying that the numbers one through nine are all numbers except number two, which is a letter. Do you also propose to alter the old saying that “all men are created equal”, with the caveat that a man may be included, provided he can purchase and produce a government issued permit to prove that he is in fact part of the larger group you will now redefine as men as a whole?

Now, I shall divide, define and clarify it for you.
"A well-regulated”:
I cite the following examples courtesy of Brian T. Halonen (halonen@csd.uwm.eduand) (reprinted here http://chezjacq.com/well.htm): The following were taken from the Oxford English Dictionary and bracket in time the writing of the Second Amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it." It can, does and has been used to indicate something "of appropriate caliber” or "to be sufficiently armed".

Now let us move on:
"Militia": mi·li·tia n.

An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Courtesy: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Well now, how do you define “ordinary citizens” or “not part of a regular army”? Perhaps “civilians” is the best term. There you have it, the term Militia does not refer to the National Guard, and the National Guard was not established until The National Defense Act of 1916. Just so we are on the same page here, The National Guard serves both the state and nation in times of need, and soldiers and airmen in the Guard swear an oath to protect and defend not just the Constitution of the United States, but also of the State in which they serve. Remember the Constitution, you know, the one that has that pesky Bill of Rights? Let us not forget that most State Constitutions also guarantee a right to arms, clearly a conflict. Perhaps we should redefine what the term militia means. Shall we now define what "is" is?

And then:
"being necessary to the security of a free State":
I do not think even you can twist this to mean anything else other than what it plainly says. Only properly armed men are able defend the State at any time.

And of course:
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”:
This clearly signifies that “the people” should have access to the same common "Arms" as the organized military. In fact, the security of a free State requires it must be the same “Arms” as the common military arm, by which I mean up to and including the most common of military arm used by the U.S. armed forces; the M16A2 5.56mm rifle or the M4 5.56mm carbine. To truly guarantee a free State, you must make available the same common Arms as the military.

And finally:
“shall not be infringed”:
No authority can redefine or invalidate that which is reserved to be a right of the people. It is what you and many others are attempting to do. Will you next attack Americans freedom of religion?

Many I know use their ARs for target practice, hunting, and tactical training. An AR can also be a very effective close quarters defense weapon.

[ThorsTwin]

Hell, if you can afford one & pass the background you can have an automatic weapon in this country. If somebody wants an assault rifle and they are responsible with it, who cares? I coulda poisoned 16 people at my house with a doctored christmas turkey if I wanted to. You gonna ban turkeys now? Fact is there are some fucked up people out there. Utopian societies are a sham. Folks have been killing other folks for several thousands of years. You can't stop somebody who is determined to do what they're gonna do with whatever weapon they choose. Besides, too many people just sit back and watch or even video bad acts occur. Maybe if they had taken action, they could have prevented or minimized the bad act. It's tragic when anyone gets murdered. Some ass clown just pushed another person in front of a New York subway, killing that person. That's two this month. An object is just that....an object. Bad people making bad decisions kill people.

[dirkterrell]

It doesn't sound romantic, Dirk.
A few questions though, just out of my curiosity:


Keep in mind what was going on in Gainesville at the time: Several college students ( 4 women and one pretty big guy, football player in high school) had been brutally murdered and mutilated. I had two female roommates.



- Was the guy you needed "off your property" armed and threatening you with a gun or knife or similar?


I don't know if he was armed. With what was going on, I wasn't about to let him be in the position of becoming a threat.



- Had the burglary already been commited? Like aside from actually trespassing, had this person actually commited any actual portion yet, of the crime of burglary or theft or menacing (related)?


He was rummaging through stuff in the garage and had a pile of stuff he intended to take off with.



- Was he with others or was he alone? And aside from yourself, were you also in the company of others. Protecting others for instance?


He was alone.



- If push came to shove, do you feel you would have been able to successfully fight him off, if he would have attacked you, assuming neither of your had an advantage of a weapon?


No way to know. A key to survival in hand to hand combat is to avoid making assumptions about the outcome of a potential encounter. Give yourself maximum advantage and go from there.



- Was there ever an opportunity for you to reasonably seek defense from this person in any sort of "domain" per se.. Inside a house for example. WITH an opportunity to request help from the police?


I was already inside the house. With a serial killer on the loose, I wasn't going to do anything that might diminish the advantage that I had in the situation. Being in that position, I gave him an opportunity to extricate himself from the crime he was committing rather than shooting right away. He made the right choice.



You'll pardon my line of questioning if it's too personal or none of my business, but you did tell us the story and it's obviously a very open ended scenario. I'm just trying to come to terms with my own sensibilities and what (I think) I know about you, to weigh justification of drawing down on another human being. I'm not going to comment either way or try to publicaly pass judgement at you, so don't feel like these are too loaded of questions to reply to (excuse the pun...).


No worries. I brought it up in response to Patrick's question. I know I did what was appropriate in that specific situation.




Obviously it was your life and time and decision, but rather I trully would like to know these things, so I can pose the question toward myself and again try to see if I can justify the action. Again though, if it's not any of my business, please don't be compelled to answer me; I am curious though. :dunno:

Yep, a situation like that answers some important questions about how you will respond, and that is a good thing to know.

[I`m Batman]

Serious question, tell me why anyone would HAVE to have an "assault rifle" over a shotgun or pistol?

If we are talking about protection then why would anyone need anything more than those two?

Maybe I am missing something but unless you really think that we will be combat fighting on US soil you shouldnt really need anything more than that.

Tell me why you need to HAVE a sportbike over a moped?

If we're talking about transportation then why would anyone need more than a moped or a Toyota Corolla?

Maybe I'm missing something but you don't need a vehicle that can go 0-60 in 3 sec or less on public roads. They only belong on race tracks.

[rforsythe]

Maybe I'm missing something but you don't need a vehicle that can go 0-60 in 3 sec or less on public roads. They only belong on race tracks.

What else am I going to outrun the cops on?

[Ezzzzy1]

Ban all cars too while they're at it. Cars kills a lot more people per year than guns. There are a lot of idiots on the road everyday that put my life and my family's lives in danger everyday. Ban all cars that can go over 25mph. Because it's dangerous.
Ban Apple too, NY crimes has increased because of Apple.

I'm just thinking like them politicians.


Maybe they need to concentrate on the criminals instead of the law abiding citizens.


Motorcycles are dangerous too. There's no need for them. We need to ban them too. Drive cars because its safer.


There's also no need to drive over 25mph either. Lets limit all the cars to the top speed of 25mph.

Only certain transport vehicle like semi trucks can travel faster because they need to transport goods.


I have a friend that ruin his life because of alcohol. Tried to kill himself because of alcohol. I'm sure that a lot more people die every year because of alcohol related incidents than guns. Why not ban alcohol?


Ban sports bikes because there's no need for that kind of performance on public roads only race professionals could ride them on race tracks. Same goes for sport cars. We should all be driving mopeds and econoboxes.

What else can we ban?


Tell me why you need to HAVE a sportbike over a moped?

If we're talking about transportation then why would anyone need more than a moped or a Toyota Corolla?

Maybe I'm missing something but you don't need a vehicle that can go 0-60 in 3 sec or less on public roads. They only belong on race tracks.

We get it dude... The real reason no one has respond to any of your great ideas is because thats not what this is about.

I feel like I am trying to talk to my wife about guns because her responses would be the same exact as your :lol:

[Ezzzzy1]

So thats it? Only one person has a reason that they NEED an AR? And that answer pertains to us going to war on our own soil.

What I think is funny is how many people would fight tooth and nail over their guns but have less then 200 rounds :lol: What, 90% of all gun owners have less then that....

Bout how far does anyone think 200 rounds will go when we are fighting our own government? But at least you have your gun right! Im sure you will be able to find more ammo during our next civil war.

[TFOGGuys]

So thats it? Only one person has a reason that they NEED an AR? And that answer pertains to us going to war on our own soil.

What I think is funny is how many people would fight tooth and nail over their guns but have less then 200 rounds :lol: What, 90% of all gun owners have less then that....

Bout how far does anyone think 200 rounds will go when we are fighting our own government? But at least you have your gun right! Im sure you will be able to find more ammo during our next civil war.

I, and many others, are more prepared than that. ;)

[The Black Knight]

So thats it? Only one person has a reason that they NEED an AR? And that answer pertains to us going to war on our own soil.

What I think is funny is how many people would fight tooth and nail over their guns but have less then 200 rounds :lol: What, 90% of all gun owners have less then that....

Bout how far does anyone think 200 rounds will go when we are fighting our own government? But at least you have your gun right! Im sure you will be able to find more ammo during our next civil war.
Oh I have my reasons for having an AR but I also don't feel the need to justify those reasons to anyone else. Which is why I haven't posted about needing an AR15.

As far as ammo goes, I've got way more than 200 rounds. In fact I think the only gun I have 200 rounds for is my 7mm hunting rifle. Everything else I have is well let's just say, a lot.... :)


Concerning a next civil war. I'm sure there will be plenty of rifles from both sides laying on the ground to choose from.... :(



What else am I going to outrun the cops on?

Yeah but if the cops have mopeds as well, it's going to be one nail biting high speed chase. The suspense would be captivating :)

[modette99]

A great video on the proposed law:
http://youtu.be/JDglpt8hpyg

[salsashark]

So thats it? Only one person has a reason that they NEED an AR? And that answer pertains to us going to war on our own soil.

What I think is funny is how many people would fight tooth and nail over their guns but have less then 200 rounds :lol: What, 90% of all gun owners have less then that....

Bout how far does anyone think 200 rounds will go when we are fighting our own government? But at least you have your gun right! Im sure you will be able to find more ammo during our next civil war.


Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The purpose of this amendment was to ensure that the citizens of the United States would not fall under a tyrannical government. One of the founding principles that drove the settlers out of Europe. It ensures that the citizens will remain armed at a level equal to or better than its military. This amendment is what keeps our government in check and ensures that we remain a republic. Once the government disarms the populace, what's left to prevent them from completely taking over?



How many more reasons do you need?

[jcj81]

The AR sporting rifle is no different any other semi-auto firearm rifle/handgun/shotgun, I shoot mainly pistol matches thruout the year for competition as a hobby, last year I shot 15k rounds (no one got shot). For rifle matches the AR platform is usually the rifle to go with if, they restrict ban it will hurt the shooting sports which I and many others find great joy in competing. The current bill as is will hurt the shooting sports dramatically in all areas to me that is were it sucks the most. THE only reason the AR platform has a bad rap is the medias misinformed conception of the truth as in all media dislikes. Also the AR has been around since the 60's for sale to the average person. And AR does not stand for "assault rifles" it was the two letters giving to the product lines from the original company that designed it ArmaLite

[~Barn~]

Hold dear what you must, but we are nowhere near the same atmosphere, as being equally or better armed than those who serve government militaries, just because our constitution affords us the "right" to have guns.

Hell.... a Second World army would easily (yes EASILY...) overthrow the citizens of the USA, if it were not for the military might of our government. Guns and ammo might as well be water balloons.

[salsashark]

Hold dear what you must, but we are nowhere near the same atmosphere, as being equally or better armed than those who serve government militaries, just because our constitution affords us the "right" to have guns.

Hell.... a Second World army would easily (yes EASILY...) overthrow the citizens of the USA, if it were not for the military might of our government. Guns and ammo might as well be water balloons.

...and who's fault is this? We get what we vote for...

I'm sure more than a few political prisoners were under the impression that their government would never in slave them and work them to death because they believed differently, held opposingpolitical views, were educated, were wealthy, held differing religious beliefs, different sexual orientation, skin color... and so on.

[Bueller]

Hell.... a Second World army would easily (yes EASILY...) overthrow the citizens of the USA, if it were not for the military might of our government. Guns and ammo might as well be water balloons.
Even if this were true, at least we would go down with a fight and honor, rather than being led to slaughter like docile sheep.

[~Barn~]

...and who's fault is this? We get what we vote for...

I'm sure more than a few political prisoners were under the impression that their government would never in slave them and work them to death because they believed differently, held opposingpolitical views, were educated, were wealthy, held differing religious beliefs, different sexual orientation, skin color... and so on.

Regrettably, the fault does not change the reality. And with due deference to the many social and political injustices that exist, I just don't want to see anymore movie-goers, or High School students, or young Greenwood Village office professionals, or 5 and 6 year old children and their teachers get massacred. That's the world that I spend the bulk of my day in, so that is what hits closer to home. I'm not chasing a phantom utopia...


Even if this were true, at least we would go down with a fight and honor, rather than being led to slaughter like docile sheep.

Egh... Comments like that Dave, just make me sad because it makes me wonder just how unaware you really must be, to the slaughters that are perpetuated seemingly every other moment with gun violence. You and I could probably go many lifetimes without the need to attempt to protect ourselves from (our or any) government, but your talk of "going down with a fight and with honor" misses the forest for the trees, with regard to what is really happening in our country today.

[dirkterrell]

Hold dear what you must, but we are nowhere near the same atmosphere, as being equally or better armed than those who serve government militaries, just because our constitution affords us the "right" to have guns.


Good thing the founders of this country didn't succumb to such thinking. England was the most feared and well-equipped military power in the world when they got run out of this country. Among many examples in history, the Soviets got chased out of Afghanistan despite an overwhelming military advantage. See my post in the recent gun topic about how the Polish Jews held off the Nazis for months with literally a handful of small arms.

Guerilla warfare has a very different dynamic than battles between national armies. I certainly wouldn't want to lead a million-person army, no matter how well equipped, against a 100-million strong group of highly motivated people, even if they only had small arms.

[I`m Batman]

I feel like I am trying to talk to my wife about guns because her responses would be the same exact as your :lol:
That's because I'm in touch with my feminine side. :lol:

There are bigger problems out there that they should look for solutions. I'm just being sarcastic and that if people think like them politicians that would be the result. Don't get your panties in a wad.

[I`m Batman]

Oh and by the way, I use my ARs for sport, target shooting, for fun, its a hobby that I really enjoy and I'm not hurting anyone. I may use it for competition and/or hunting someday, I know people that use it for hunting.

You could say that it can be used to hurt someone but you could say that about anything. Does that mean that we need to ban everything?

[dirkterrell]

make me sad because it makes me wonder just how unaware you really must be, to the slaughters that are perpetuated seemingly every other moment with gun violence. You and I could probably go many lifetimes without the need to attempt to protect ourselves from (our or any) government, but your talk of "going down with a fight and with honor" misses the forest for the trees, with regard to what is really happening in our country today.

No one is denying the violence that goes on. What many of us are saying is that the solution to reducing the violence is not keeping law-abiding citizens from owning weapons. Maybe we should start with doing a better job of keeping violently psychotic people off the streets? History is replete with examples of the murders of millions, yes MILLIONs (170 million in the 20th century), of people who were disarmed in the name of public safety. An unarmed populace emboldens a government to restrict liberty, and seeing what our own government has been doing recently, I have no doubt whatsoever that our "leaders" would descend into tyranny with the best of intentions. Look at the shit that was going down in New Orleans after Katrina, with cops murdering citizens when that thin veneer of civilization was washed away,

[Monster]

Nobody wants to see kids or innocent people gunned down or blown up and we can all agree on that. The problem is is that you can not pin this problem on something material and say guns are the problem. People are the problem but it gets complicated when you go down that road. Could you someday piss off a cop, have him claim you as unstable and lock you up because of mental disorders. The bottom line is is that you cannot protect everyone from everything. If you try all you will do is continue to add laws that will become your own prisons.

[I`m Batman]

Nobody wants to see kids or innocent people gunned down or blown up and we can all agree on that. The problem is is that you can not pin this problem on something material and say guns are the problem. People are the problem but it gets complicated when you go down that road. Could you someday piss off a cop, have him claim you as unstable and lock you up because of mental disorders. The bottom line is is that you cannot protect everyone from everything. If you try all you will do is continue to add laws that will become your own prisons.

+1

[#1Townie]

This makes me happy.




This is a very scary statement. You should never be happy about giving up rights for the idea of safety. So the idea of the feds making a national gun registry makes you happy? Being a teacher I’m sure you have heard the term every action has a opposite and equal reaction. What could some of those reactions be? How about full on civil war in America?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8N91O04EhE

See I’m happy YOU have the right to choose if you should have a firearm or not. Let me ask you how you would feel if the script was flipped and the argument was if people should be FORECED to be armed 24/7?


Yup, go ahead because so many home invasions that are going on now. No wait, I see that everyone is hanging their guns in the back of their trucks in my neighborhood, so the thieves just look for my Prius.



Yeah I guess crimes in Colorado don’t happen.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cocrime.htm (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cocrime.htm)




Here is the thing: I have many buddies who have guns in their homes that have led to trouble ( accidents, injury, and one death). My neighbor has a giant gun safe in his garage that is left wide open all the time. Many times, his garage door is then left open all night. Are they idiots? Maybe? Are others more careful? Sure. However, I don't want to sort through all of them in the meantime


You honestly need to choose your friends better. The only person I have ever met who shot himself was a complete idiot. I would never consider that person a friend and I would never go out of my way to be a friend with that person. The next time your neighbor leaves his door open and guns are in the open call the police. Simple fix.




In the end, there are no statistics that prove that more guns are the answer or that they keep us safe. There are a ton of stats that show death from firearms that were handled or used improperly. There is no answer here; otherwise, this wouldn't be a conversation or debate on this forum.


Really there is no statistics on crime and lack of guns? How do you explain the violence in cities that have the most gun laws? How about jump in crimes when the honest people are disarmed in other countries?

Australia.


http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/PicExportError In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/PicExportError Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/PicExportError Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/PicExportError Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/PicExportError During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/PicExportError Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/PicExportError Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/PicExportError At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/PicExportError Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847 (http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847)






The second amendment was not created for the purpose that "we" are discussing here. I can't think of one person that I know that has actually used their guns to defend themselves, but I am sure that some have been used that way. Owning ar15s and other semiautomatic rifles are a little extreme in my opinion.


Well I have had to carry to protect myself. Ever had a few crazy tweekers hell bent on killing you because your friend couldn’t find them weed? They pulled a drive by on my house and another friends house that my friend was known to stay at. They let us know that just because he was our friend they would kill us. No other reason. Just because I was friends with someone.

So your opinion should dictate MY life? What do you mean the second amendment wasn’t created for what we are talking about today? At the bottom of my post there is three videos I want you to watch. The second amendment is the last line of defense against tyranny. Because it’s the 21st century tyranny no longer exists?

Our government has never been so out of control before. Its sad to me to see a person like yourself that has had their mind twisted into this kind of thinking. For some reason you have some how fallen for the idea that guns are the problem.

“by failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”

Benjamin Franklin.




In the end, have your guns, and be happy, but these deaths will continue because there are too many unstable people who need mental health instead of easy access to guns.

No gun ban will fix this. No gun law at all will fix this. Take them away or give them to everyone will not fix the mentally ill. Only dealing with how to actually treat these people will help in fixing that problem.



Nope, what I am saying, is if the guns weren't readily available, these killings may not have happened. However, if they do, more guns will not solve them.



That is a very bold statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932012) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932012))

Not one gun was used.


Jim,


Who exactly have you "protected" with your arsenal? Tell us your romantic stories about how many times you have "protected" the masses.


Wait, they had a armed guard at Columbine. Did that work? Nope, bring in more guns.



Actually they say it bought some time to save lives. The deputy engaged the shooters and then helped rescue kids. Also back then the protocol was to wait for swat for those things. These tactics have changed with active mass shooting scenarios. They have found that more often the shooter will kill themselves upon confrontation by armed people. Sure you can say that didn’t happen in columbine but there is a variable for ever situation.

[asp_125]

To use the NRA and gun nuts own words: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well ....if guns aren't the problem, then deal with the fucking problem! Everyone's ignoring the elephant in the room.

[#1Townie]

I can't remember when i ever had to call the cops to my house to have the pull their guns for me. However, I have seen the cops called when someone else had guns and full body armor back in LA in the mid nineties, and oh yea, the cops kept bringing more guns out yet two men killed and injured about one hundred people. But, I am sure that if everyone would have brought out their guns, it would have ended earlier. That's always the argument: if everyone had a gun, things like this wouldn't happen. Where were all those gun totting citizens?



I am happy for you that YOU have never needed someone armed to help you, but trying to compare life to one event that happened twenty years ago isn’t a very good example. Not to mention the shooters in that bank robbery had full auto ak’s and body armor. The police couldn’t pierce their armor so they had to get weapons. I am happy you bring up California as these new regs that are being proposed are basically from California. Let me ask you this, if these gun laws worked why does California still have so much gun crime?

Unlike for you many peoples lives have been SAVED buy guns.

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=7816


On December 11, Jacob Tyler Roberts, 22, wearing tactical clothing and a hockey mask, randomly opened fire on shoppers and employees in the Clackamas Town Center (http://www.clackamastowncenter.com/)shopping mall in ClackamasCounty, Oregon, killing two people and seriously wounding a third before committing suicide. Three days later, after allegedly murdering his mother while she slept, Adam Lanza, 20, allegedly shot his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and viciously murdered 20 first-graders and six adults before taking his own life.
Although it appears that both incidents may be the work of mentally-ill individuals, the latter sent severe shock waves across the planet of an intensity not exhibited since the 9-11 false-flag attacks over 11 years ago. Sadness gripped the country and Americans openly sobbed for the innocent lives that were so savagely ended.
Although it seems nearly certain that some sort of gun control legislation will pass Congress in next year’s session and be signed into law, it’s worth remembering that guns are responsible for saving many more lives than they are given credit for in the corporate-controlled mainstream media.
Gun-Haters Seize the Moment

Leftist anti-gun zealots in D.C., N.Y. and L.A. should admit, once and for all, what they really want: the outlawing of privately-owned firearms by American citizens. Of course they’ll never reveal their true motives, so instead tragedies such as the Newtown massacre are exploited to erode our Second Amendment rights.
The unspoken secret harbored among these gun-hating movie stars and politicians is that many of them have concealed carry permits, as do their armed bodyguards. Plus, they work in buildings protected by metal detectors and security personnel that brandish weapons. In other words, they’ll remain safe, but nobody else will.
As news broke regarding the Sandy Hook school shooting, it didn’t take long for NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg to declare (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/14/Bloomberg-politicizes-shooting), “[Obama] needs to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem. Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough. We need immediate action.” What Bloomberg failed to mention was that Connecticut already has some of America’s most severe gun control laws.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) pronounced that Obama should “exploit” this heartbreaking situation, whereas Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) sneered (http://www.nj.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2012/12/shooting_ups_pressure_on_obama.html), “The NRA is an enabler of mass murder, and it’s time we stood up to them.” However, both of these legislators neglected to tell constituents that on the same day as the Connecticut murders, a man in Beijing, China wielded a knife—not a gun—to attack 23 children inside their elementary school.
On the West coast, Hollywood bleeding hearts such as Alec Baldwin, Michael Moore and Mia Farrow all demanded “gun control now,” as did newsman Keith Olbermann. CNN talk show host Piers Morgan had an on-air meltdown, comparing Sandy Hook to Scotland’s 1996 slaying of 16 children inside a school. “This is America’s Dunblane,” Morgan frothed (https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/279650172332564481). Finally, MSNBC blowhard Ed Schultz called the Founding Fathers who wrote our Second Amendment “slave owners.”
For his part, only two months ago during the second presidential debate, Barack Obama specifically floated the notion (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/obama-calls-for-renewal-of-assault-weapons-ban) of “getting an assault weapons ban introduced.” As his former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once famously quipped (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/rahmemanue409199.html) in true Machiavellian fashion, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.”
Dave Workman Interview

One day prior to the Sandy Hook tragedy, AMERICAN FREE PRESS interviewed Dave Workman, senior editor at The Gun Mag (http://www.thegunmag.com/), the official publication of the Second Amendment (http://www.saf.org/)Foundation (http://www.saf.org/), a nonprofit organization that works tirelessly to protect Americans’ inalienable right to bear arms.
Saddened by the senseless tragedies, Workman said: “These are rare events, and because they don’t happen all the time they’re obviously high profile. As the media says, ‘If it bleeds, it leads.’ When news stories like this surface and flash across the country they receive plenty of coverage. It gives the impression that America is a violent country but that’s not necessarily correct.”
Confirming a previous AFP report from the August 13, 2012 edition, Workman said, “Over the past five years, there’s been a steady increase in firearms sales and concealed carry permits. Plus, more people that have never owned a gun are also purchasing them for the first time. Yet, during this same period, the violent crime rate has steadily decreased. If you check FBI statistics, they speak for themselves.”
Well versed on this subject, Workman stressed: “These numbers clearly point out that it was a myth to begin with when the gun prohibition lobby claimed that more weapons in private hands would lead to more crime. It’s nothing but scare rhetoric.”
The irony here, added Workman, is that the exceptions to America’s declining crime rate are largely located in cities that have banned guns.
“If you look at large municipalities like Chicago, L.A., D.C. and Detroit that have higher crime rates, they’ve also enacted strict firearms laws,” said Workman. “Citizens can’t fight back even though they possess a constitutionally protected civil right to do so.”
When asked why certain groups can’t seem to connect the dots, Workman replied, “The progressive mindset is one of denial. They refuse to acknowledge that one of their core beliefs may in fact be wrong, or that they were mistaken. Without an evolution of thought or a process of maturity, they can’t deal in a logical adult way with proof that everything they believed about guns being bad was wrong. The core of their foundations would be shaken to the ground.”
Pertaining to this same subject, only hours after the Newtown massacre, Barack Obama vowed to “take meaningful action” to satisfy his left-leaning supporters. Workman’s thoughts on this subject were evident. “A lot of people are concerned that during Obama’s second term he’ll enact some sort of gun control legislation. Obama went on the record in 2008 with a Pittsburgh newspaper [Tribune-Review] stating that he’s against concealed carry. His record in Illinois also proves that he’s no fan of guns. If Congress handed him a pure pro-gun rights bill, I’m certain he’d immediately veto it.”
Obviously, the latest massacres will do nothing to change the impression that America is teeming with violence, especially to those residing in foreign countries with strict gun control laws. Workman observed, “They still think we’re the Wild West. It’s a cultural thing. People learn about us by watching our movies. These films make for colorful entertainment, but they’re a lot of hype and not very realistic.”
Similarly, Workman pointed out, “Following Australia’s Port Arthur Massacre, authorities confiscated a majority of guns. Of course, shortly thereafter homicides shot through the roof. Violent crime is also going way up in England. There, defending yourself can land you in jail. It’s a crime.”
Comparing their societies with our own, Workman concluded, “The Wild West was actually a pretty peaceful place because people knew the other guy would shoot back. Today in the U.S., taking out a bad guy is a public service.”







Cars are dangerous, but they, unlike guns, are a necessity. I would rather take my chances with a car that everyone uses almost everyday; whereas, guns are not. The last time I checked a bike nor a car was used to create 61 mass killings over the past 50 years, but I haven't checked recently.

Cars are dangerous? You say this like yeah sometimes people get hurt.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf)

unlike guns cars are what? No a car is not a necessity. You could use public transportation or other means to get around. transportation is not a right.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaEKB8pU2Tw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaEKB8pU2Tw)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpOT7wR-wU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpOT7wR-wU)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpOT7wR-wU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpOT7wR-wU)


please watch these videos. These videos are about the feds illegally trying to remove private property from the people of Nevada. It got to the point that the feds made the threat to send in their swat team to fight the sheriff and his deputies.




We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices … Government has to make those choices for people.
Hilliary Clinton.

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans"
Bill Clinton.

Are we turning into Nazi Germany?

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/20-signs-that-the-nazification-of-america-is-almost-complete (http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/20-signs-that-the-nazification-of-america-is-almost-complete)

so you might feel safe with the idea of only military and law enforcement having these guns understand that no gun ban will stop the criminals from getting firearms. At the end of the day law enforcement is not there to protect you. That is up to you and you alone.

[#1Townie]

Hold dear what you must, but we are nowhere near the same atmosphere, as being equally or better armed than those who serve government militaries, just because our constitution affords us the "right" to have guns.

No but it’s a start. It would suck to only have pitchforks and baseball bats.




Hell.... a Second World army would easily (yes EASILY...) overthrow the citizens of the USA, if it were not for the military might of our government. Guns and ammo might as well be water balloons.


I disagree with you everything you have to say here. To add to what dirk already said I will use a great quote from japan.

"You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

Admiral Yamamoto

Notice how we still cant beat these guys in Afghanistan?



Regrettably, the fault does not change the reality. And with due deference to the many social and political injustices that exist, I just don't want to see anymore movie-goers, or High School students, or young Greenwood Village office professionals, or 5 and 6 year old children and their teachers get massacred. That's the world that I spend the bulk of my day in, so that is what hits closer to home. I'm not chasing a phantom utopia...

People that are against the proposal of these bans don’t want those 5 and 6 years olds to have to grow up and end up having to use pitchforks to fight off the government we allowed to destroy this country. None of us want to see kids die but guns are not the issue. Mental health is. Until we deal with them they are still going to kill. Look at the guy that killed the firemen on Christmas eve. He couldn’t legally posses a gun. Did that stop him? No. What did he do? What he loves most, kill people.






Egh... Comments like that Dave, just make me sad because it makes me wonder just how unaware you really must be, to the slaughters that are perpetuated seemingly every other moment with gun violence. You and I could probably go many lifetimes without the need to attempt to protect ourselves from (our or any) government, but your talk of "going down with a fight and with honor" misses the forest for the trees, with regard to what is really happening in our country today.
Comments like yours make me sad because you have also fallen for this idea that gun control will fix this world. Also makes me sad to see you so blind to the real world that we live in today. The illegal wars that are being fought. The overstepping government control. The innocent people who are killed here on our own soil by corrupt police. Fact is this world is extremely scary these days and for you to not see how close this country is to falling apart saddens me.

[Ezzzzy1]

That's because I'm in touch with my feminine side. :lol:

There are bigger problems out there that they should look for solutions. I'm just being sarcastic and that if people think like them politicians that would be the result. Don't get your panties in a wad.

No wad here... I just feel like you probably have some really good points and they are lost in all the other mumbo jumbo.

Believe it or not I share a LOT of the same beliefs of all the pro gunners on here. I have enough ammo and guns to make a small dent and if shit hit the fan and I would be a part of whatever the next steps were.

That said, I am a big fan of quality conversation that builds better pro gun owners. To me its not all about "if shit hits the fan" there is more to owning these kinds of guns and part of that has to be (in my opinion) fully understanding why people dont want them around. Its just flat silly to me to say we have to have them to defend ourselves 100%.

In all honesty I feel that the super pro gun guys hurt themselves in their points because their single "defense" standpoint is fairly irreverent to most people. There is more to it and if viewed the right, open minded way maybe we could all make some sense to people that otherwise are tired of hearing that excuse.

That said, if you are not "prepared" I guess the jokes on you (not you but whoever isnt).

What I have realized is that I am not a good forum conversationalist :lol: I think I push pretty hard back because the reality is that in a normal conversation a lot of the way people act and what they say wouldnt normally be said.

Its hard to address all the things said and all the different directions and then the trolling/interruptions.

[I`m Batman]

I'm an easy going kind of person that don't take things too seriously and try to keep things light. To me, there's no need for drama for anything. Maybe my posts reflect that, while others are trying to keep it serious. But there's a point in there somewhere, you just have to look for it.

I guess I can only hope for the best and see.

[Zanatos]

I am against bans, but I am for restrictions.

In my opinion, anyone who is 100% opposed to any limitations on the 2nd Amendment has no right to blame or criticize the government for mass shootings.

I am sure the authors of the Constitution never had MP5s and AR-15s in mind when they gave citizens the right to bear arms. Back then, a long-barreled, single-shot, black powder muzzle loader was the only firearm available to common citizens - so there wasn't a big need for restrictions on magazine capacity, automatic fire, etc.

[Ezzzzy1]

I am against bans, but I am for restrictions.

In my opinion, anyone who is 100% opposed to any limitations on the 2nd Amendment has no right to blame or criticize the government for mass shootings.

I am sure the authors of the Constitution never had MP5s and AR-15s in mind when they gave citizens the right to bear arms. Back then, a long-barreled, single-shot, black powder muzzle loader was the only firearm available to common citizens - so there wasn't a big need for restrictions on magazine capacity, automatic fire, etc.

And the crowd goes crazy!!!! :applause::up:

Part of the real problem is that people wont say that they are for some revision. I think that it makes the pro gunners feel like they are not fully defending their stance and it makes the softies feel like they are in support of guns, even if its means to an end.

[TFOGGuys]

I am against bans, but I am for restrictions.

In my opinion, anyone who is 100% opposed to any limitations on the 2nd Amendment has no right to blame or criticize the government for mass shootings.

I am sure the authors of the Constitution never had MP5s and AR-15s in mind when they gave citizens the right to bear arms. Back then, a long-barreled, single-shot, black powder muzzle loader was the only firearm available to common citizens - so there wasn't a big need for restrictions on magazine capacity, automatic fire, etc.

The misconception here is that the Second Amendment somehow grants the right to bear arms. The language used actually restricts the government from infringing on a preexisting natural right. Semantics, I know, but important in the distinction between right and privilege. True, the founders were only familiar with rifled muskets as it came to firearms, but that is the exact weaponry carried by state of the art militaries of the time. The framers of the Bill of Rights knew exactly what they were trying to protect: The ability of citizens to determine the course of their society, preferably through consensus and effective government, but also through force of arms if necessary. An interesting side note: Until after the Civil War, most artillery (canons and mortars) were privately owned and provided to army units by their owners in times of need. It wasn't until the Spanish American war that the US government bought it's own.

[Ghosty]

Yes, banning any pistol grip that mounts forward of the trigger will most definitely SAVE SCHOOL CHILDREN'S LIVES!!!

Fucking-A bullshit, no common sense, ugh. It makes your blood boil...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/SpectralCat/Emoticons/brickwall.gif

[Ezzzzy1]

Yes, banning any pistol grip that mounts forward of the trigger will most definitely SAVE SCHOOL CHILDREN'S LIVES!!!

Fucking-A bullshit, no common sense, ugh. It makes your blood boil...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/SpectralCat/Emoticons/brickwall.gif

That whole proposal is terrible. Its worse than terrible.

Its so bad that hopefully it just gets laughed at

[#1Townie]

Or maybe its because we are tired of all these people saying its the guns and we want the REAL problem to br brought to the table. The idea of being in the 21st century means we have sone away with tyranny is laughable. How can you guys be keen on anymore restrictions when time and time again they prove to fail? How can anyone truly think that eliminating a single tool will succeed in safe guarding anything? Basically what you guys are saying is eliminating crowbars will stop home invasions.

Guns make it easy to kill people? Someone should have told Timothy McVeigh and Osama that.

Also guys against what the news will tell you this last shooting was not the largest school attack in our history.

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

[Ghosty]

PISTOL GRIPS AND 20-ROUND MAGAZINES KILL PEOPLE!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/SpectralCat/Emoticons/facepalm.gif

Sorry, I'm frustrated. I want to easily buy any gun or ammo I want to, WHEN I FEEL LIKE, not dictated by idiots and panics.

[bluedogok]

Oh and by the way, I use my ARs for sport, target shooting, for fun, its a hobby that I really enjoy and I'm not hurting anyone. I may use it for competition and/or hunting someday, I know people that use it for hunting.

You could say that it can be used to hurt someone but you could say that about anything. Does that mean that we need to ban everything?
I know quite a few people in South Texas who hunt feral hogs with AR's, seems to be a good combination of rifle/caliber for that purpose. They feral hog problem is real bad down there, in fact the first night the new 85 mph stretch of toll road south of Austin was opened up there were three wrecks involving feral hogs crossing the highway.

[Clovis]

Come on peeps. If all the guns are out-lawed and no one has guns then there won't be any more school shootings!

Simple fix, why all the resistance?? Think of the children! The children!

[Monster]

I toured the jail in deerlodge one time and part of the tour was all of the weapons that inmates had made. It was amazing at the weapons they made out of simple materials. One inmate even made a gun out of a pen. Where there is a will there is a way.

[sag]

my biggest problem is with all the antigun people not knowing anything about guns. the media, politicians, and people who offer their opinions on the internet. first rule of any debate is to define your terms and most people know nothing of which they are trying to legislate. if they dont know the difference between a clip and a magazine, they should probably do some research and get themselves informed before even attempting to comment.

i dont know how many stupid girls on my facebook called for the banning of "machine guns" after the shootings, even a senator tweeted that. obviously they nothing about current regulations even. the other day i read an AP article where the author described in detail, how "scary and dangerous" the man who shot the FDNY's rifle was. it had "a military-combat style flash suppressor". the average dumbass in this country hides in terror at the thought someone had that equipped on their rifle while anyone who knows anything goes ummmmm so?

people should always have more rights, not have rights taken away from them. oh, you dont have any guns or ARs so youre okay with a big government taking them away from hobbyists and sportsmen? WELL by the same logic, im not gay and trying to get married and i dont smoke weed so why the fuck should i care whether a person has the right to those things in their life? you dont need to be married and you dont need to get high. much more children have died in accidental drownings in pools than have ever been shot. better ban pools, children dont need to swim, there are alternative ways of having fun and exercising that arent as dangerous.

government control does not help or protect you. how big of a pain in the ass has TSA been? how much controversy and hate has it sparked? how many terrorists have been caught in the security line?

the other week, amid all the fiery gun control arguments on my facebook, i challenged any of the antigun people screaming and ranting on my facebook to read this article and offer me an intelligent response that wasnt filled with emotion or just a kneejerk reaction to violence. i didnt get a single peep out of any of the people who were just spouting their mouths all over my facebook with ban this and ban that. its obviously written by someone who leads a very pro-gun life but its more logical than any argument ive heard against guns. dont let your scroll bar scare you, its mostly the comments:

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

[Zanatos]

I'm afraid the whole gun control debate is going to boil down to one thing - money.

It is cheaper to implement a ban on certain kinds of weapons than it is to hire armed security for every school in America.

Politicians are between a rock and a hard place right now. If they do nothing and there is another mass shooting - then people will blame politicians for inaction. And with the Aurora theater shooting, the elementary school shooting, and the firefighters' shooting all happening back to back, a lot of folks (especially parents of school-aged kids) are scrambling to find ways to help protect their children.

No matter how calm and reasonable you are, it is impossible to convince a concerned parent that access to assault weapons should be preserved for target shooters, hunters, collectors, and gun enthusiasts.

[Ghosty]

Another shooter stopped by an armed person, apparently skipped over by the "mainstream media".

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/media-quiet-about-san-antonio-theater-shooting-2524596.html

Normally I defend CNN as not being too biased. Not as far-left as Fox is far-right, BUT this year, I'm starting to grow more weary, after hearing this stuff.

[Zanatos]

I can find plenty of news stories about armed citizens shooting bad guys, but I can't find any stories where the armed citizens were packing AR-15s, AK-47s, MP5s, M-1 carbines, Uzis, etc.

http://stickerheads.com/images/1-shitstirrer.jpg

[~Barn~]

:lol:

[Bueller]

I would be willing to bet a few of them have those guns at home because they want to own them.

[Wrider]

I can find plenty of news stories about armed citizens shooting bad guys, but I can't find any stories where the armed citizens were packing AR-15s, AK-47s, MP5s, M-1 carbines, Uzis, etc.



I'll bet some of them were carrying handguns with detachable magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds. Maybe they even had a *gasp* military characteristic!

[Ghosty]

I want a scary miniature pistol grip to mount on the end of the barrel of my S&W M&P .40 handgun, so it looks like a scary tiny machine gun that has a stock 15round magazine. Then I want to pay $200 FFA tax every year, get fingerprinted, and register as a scary gun owner, because that's what I am. That pistol grip is scary.

[Zanatos]

http://i.imgur.com/TO7R7.jpg http://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg575/JamesL5102/myweapon18.jpg
http://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg575/JamesL5102/myweapon16.jpg

[dirkterrell]

I can find plenty of news stories about armed citizens shooting bad guys, but I can't find any stories where the armed citizens were packing AR-15s, AK-47s, MP5s, M-1 carbines, Uzis, etc.



:lol:

http://www.youtube.com/v/j-q2zHIovOE&hl

[Zanatos]

Thanks for supporting my point.

The kid could have used any gun to shoot the intruder. It didn't have to be a military style assault weapon.

[Bueller]

Thanks for supporting my point.

Seriously? That wasn't your point.


http://stickerheads.com/images/1-shitstirrer.jpg

This is.

[dirkterrell]

Thanks for supporting my point.

The kid could have used any gun to shoot the intruder. It didn't have to be a military style assault weapon.

Not sure I'm following your logic. You asked for a case where someone used an AR-15 or similar to thwart a crime. There you go.

How do you define a "military style assault weapon".

[~Barn~]

I wasn't laughing because I didn't think it happens once in a blue moon, it's just irony, that's all. Good on the teen though.

[TFOGGuys]

A pistol with a vertical foregrip is already an NFA Title II weapon...:banghead:

[Drano]

Hell.... a Second World army would easily (yes EASILY...) overthrow the citizens of the USA, if it were not for the military might of our government. Guns and ammo might as well be water balloons.

Really? Remind me, how long did it take us to secure Iraq? The most advanced military force in the world and we were fighting insurgency for how many years?

As has been said before, we're still fighting in Afghanistan. How is this possible? By your logic they should have been easily defeated by the soviets in 1979.

Armored Vehicles and Aircraft can only take a war so far, the rest has always been achieved through boots on the ground. If Iraq and Afghanistan aren't enough of a lesson for you I don't know what else could be.

Unless every citizen adopts the defeatist mentality that we stand no chance and surrenders before the struggle begins, any military strategist will tell you that a war on American soil is ill advised. It will result in a bloodbath, and will last decades. A simple cost/benefit appraisal is enough to deter any strategist from thinking conquest in America is worth the cost of invasion.

[~Barn~]

Bryan, you're confusing a "mission" with a straight-up hostile "take over". I don't have the time to go into explaining the finer points, but it's important to spend some time to understand the differences between something like the restorative effort the US has been doing thirdburner duty with in Iraq, and my hypothetical of a country with no military being violently overthrown by one that has.

[Drano]

I would still argue that Iraq and Afghanistan serve that example more than adequately.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the only reason Iraq and Afghanistan lasted as long as they did was because we did not invade with the intent of conquest and subjugation, and that if we had the conflicts would not have endured for as long as they have? How would our strategies have changed? Unless you are proposing that we simply would have nuked/carpet bombed them back into the stone age, then similar tactics would still be employed and be met with similar outcomes.

Secondly, was not the revolutionary war a precise example of exactly what you are proposing? Following the Declaration of Independence the colonies had to create and organize a continental army in order to fight the royal army.

Currently, statistics show that 40-45% of Americans own a firearm. That means, on the low side, roughly 124 million people are armed. There are approximately 3 million Active and Reserve forces serving in our armed forces. Our Armed forces are ranked 2nd in terms of military size. Which means they are only outnumbered 41:1. Take away our military and that is exactly what an invader must deal with. 124 million armed citizens.

Unless an invader is willing to eradicate millions of lives through the use of WMDs in order to achieve victory, they still have quite a fight on their hands.

[~Barn~]

I never said anything about Iraq or Afghanistan, you introduced them into the conversastion. And as one of the more far-fetched counterpoints I've read in awhile, if I say so myself.

If you want to disagree with me about a de-militarized United States being able to successfully defend itself with the public's pistols, rifles, and bullets against another nations Army, you're welcome to. I just don't see it.

[#1Townie]

I never said anything about Iraq or Afghanistan, you introduced them into the conversastion. And as one of the more far-fetched counterpoints I've read in awhile, if I say so myself.

If you want to disagree with me about a de-militarized United States being able to successfully defend itself with the public's pistols, rifles, and bullets against another nations Army, you're welcome to. I just don't see it.

You dont see the mess that could be created by 124,000,000 randomly armed American people fighting a invading army? Look at the creative ieds that have been made by a group of people who barley know what running water is. Imagine the creativity this civilization could come up with. Not to mention those invading armies have to move across the lands of people that know all the dirt roads and choke points. Supply lines would be a nightmare to secure. You do understand that the first shots fired in the revolutionary war were fired before the colonies even had a army right? The colonies fought off the worlds most advanced army of its time. How can that be ignored?



Also as to the repeated reference to the framers not knowing about fully auto or even semi auto rifles let me point out a few things here. Just look at the wording right to bear arms. Notice they dont use the terms firearms, rifle or even pistol. They had pistols back then. Why didnt they use the term side arms for self defense? I mean thats what you guys are saying right? Also i would like to ask how tyranny has no affect on life in the 21st century? Can anyone truly argue our government is in the best working order it has ever been?

I said it before and im going to say it again. If we dont learn from the past we are doomes to repeat it. We have more in common with nazi germany then im comfortable with. We have dark days in our future if we dont get off this road we are on.

[Drano]

Actually, Afghanistan had been used several times prior to my post.

What I was attempting to indicate is that following the defeat of Iraq's army in 2003 we were still engaged with guerrilla and insurgent forces up until 2011. We "thought" that we had ended hostilities in Iraq with the defeat of their Army but it didn't end there.

The reason this applies to your proposed scenario is that it adds to the historical proof that, even with a superior force, there is nothing "easy" about invasion. Even in the case of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, who had considerably weaker military forces, Iraq took 9 years before we pulled out, and Afghanistan is still ongoing.


Bryan, you're confusing a "mission" with a straight-up hostile "take over"

Maybe I was mistaken, but I took what you said here as primarily due to the scope of our mission in those areas. I asked how the scope would be different if we had approached them as conquerors.

We may disagree about the ease of which the United States would be conquered in the absence of our Armed Forces. But history has shown that poorly armed insurgent forces, with far fewer numbers than 124 million, have stood their ground against regular armies and succeeded in the endeavor.

[jcj81]

I think its amazing how many people are buying as of this afternoon over 12,500 people are in que for back ground checks in Colorado 8-9 days out. My brother works for a large firearms company they are working over time and all of their backstock handguns have been bought. He doesnt work in shipping but last week everyone is working shipping to keep caught up.

[Ghosty]

The reason Iraq and Afghanistan took/taking so long is because we are a different (friendlier) country towards foreign CIVILIANS. We are EXTRA CAREFUL to not allow casualties. We perform surgical strikes, and place huge restrictions on our soldiers before they can engage. If this was the 1970's or prior, we'd have bombed the SHIT out of everything in sight in those regions, regardless of civilians, and easily finished the wars there in a fraction of the time, from the air mostly, then from the ground. It all depends on which view you have, do you care about those civilians? Then you agree that the military's hands are tied and they are forced to be extra careful, hence the 10+ year wars we're in now.

If we were Russia, China, or any douchebag MiddleEastern country, we wouldn't give a shit and be done with it in no time. Surprised the Russians couldn't do it, were they extra careful? Because I doubt they give a flying fuck about civilians, neither do the Chinese, N.Korea, or Iran militaries.

[Ghosty]

As for fighting on U.S. soil... "WOLVERINES!!!" These guys will protect our freedom:

http://mos.totalfilm.com/images/f/four-more-wolverines-join-red-dawn.jpg

[Monster]

As for fighting on U.S. soil... "WOLVERINES!!!" These guys will protect our freedom:

http://mos.totalfilm.com/images/f/four-more-wolverines-join-red-dawn.jpg

:up:

[Drano]

The reason Iraq and Afghanistan took/taking so long is because we are a different (friendlier) country towards foreign CIVILIANS. We are EXTRA CAREFUL to not allow casualties. We perform surgical strikes, and place huge restrictions on our soldiers before they can engage. If this was the 1970's or prior, we'd have bombed the SHIT out of everything in sight in those regions, regardless of civilians, and easily finished the wars there in a fraction of the time, from the air mostly, then from the ground. It all depends on which view you have, do you care about those civilians? Then you agree that the military's hands are tied and they are forced to be extra careful, hence the 10+ year wars we're in now.

If we were Russia, China, or any douchebag MiddleEastern country, we wouldn't give a shit and be done with it in no time. Surprised the Russians couldn't do it, were they extra careful? Because I doubt they give a flying fuck about civilians, neither do the Chinese, N.Korea, or Iran militaries.

It should be fairly obvious. Most invasions have historically occurred to take territory that contain resources of strategic or economic value. To completely decimate the countryside with large-scale bombings tends to risk the very resources the invader is trying to acquire. Not to mention it's generally unwise to kill off the very people you intend to rule, people who may be needed to work those resources once victory is secured. Secondly, in today's atmosphere, the unnecessary killing of civilians has the nasty effect of generating the sympathy of other nations who may combine in an effort to thwart genocide.

Precision strikes serve those purposes quite well. They reduce the amount of collateral damage to civilians and also serve to prevent needless destruction of resources intended to be controlled. The less destroyed means less to be rebuilt.

[#1Townie]

So this just in..... adam lanza did NOT use a ar15 in his killings. He used four pistols. The ar15 was recovered from his car and not inside the school.

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

I will keep searching for more info.

[Ezzzzy1]

So this just in..... adam lanza did NOT use a ar15 in his killings. He used four pistols. The ar15 was recovered from his car and not inside the school.

Aint that some shit....

[#1Townie]

No it looks like it really is some shit. Lol. I dont know. Its very weird because they say they found the 223 in the car but all the kids were shot with it. So i really dont understand why he would kill all the kids and then take the rifle out to the car and go back in with just pistols. The news is stupid and im extremely certain we will never know the truth to this.

[#1Townie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtUqGukP2SY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

So this is supposed to be bullets from a 223. They look a little large for a 223.

[hcr25]

Wouldnt it be easy to tell if they were shot with mainly a handgun or AR just from the many spent shells that would have been all over the place.
I guess he could have had a shell catcher on the AR but autopsy results should proove everything.

[TFOGGuys]

Ok...I've got a closet full of tinfoil hats, but the way the evidence has been altered and obscured in this case really points to an agenda...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=greuYvcMLDk

[The Black Knight]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtUqGukP2SY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

So this is supposed to be bullets from a 223. They look a little large for a 223.

.223 will produce an entrance hole of that size. I was surprised when my friend and I tried out different rifles on a empty 20lb propane tank. The .223 actually did more damage than we expected. My 7mm completely screamed through the propane tank.

But keep in mind we tried it at various distances. With the .223 we shot the tank at a distance of no more than 50 yards. My 7 mag however, was at 600+ yards. The .223 is somewhat powerful but when you stack it up against a true magnum rifle it looks wimpy at best.

Side note:
With my 7mm I was using ballistic tip and Accubond rounds and neither mushroomed like they should. Obviously this was due to the propane tank being empty. Had it been filled with water my 7mm would have completely decimated the tank. And the .223 would have had probably weaker results because of the water resistance. A .223 works great with low resistance. Whereas my 7mm achieves maximum potential by actually slamming into something with some weight behind it(i. e. and Elk).. That and it's all about energy. A .223 has roughly 1200-1400lbs of muzzle energy and travels close to 3000fps depending on the load. I can push a 150gr 7mm bullet about 3300-3400fps with muzzle energy of 3500+. At 600yrds with my 7mm, I'm hitting a target as hard as a .223 does at the muzzle.

[Ghosty]

The ONLY conspiracy theory I'd ever give a second thought to, was if someone had proof that his psychiatrist had government connections. Otherwise nothing else jives. So in other words, meh, doubt the CIA was spiking his school lunch with goofballs. His Mom did NOT do enough, was not brave enough to commit him, plus (sorry) stupid enough to allow a bi-polar fruitcake to have shooting as a hobby, I pity her now.

Yes, everyone wants their 2nd Amend right to shoot, BUT that does NOT include proven mental defectives!

[Ghosty]

Someone NEEDS to do a PhotoChop internet meme (future classic) of Feinstein with Hitler moustache and in LOLcat font letters say "LET ME SEE YOUR PAPERS"...

You photoshop/graphics guys get to work please! Let's flood the Internet, hahaa.

[The Black Knight]

The ONLY conspiracy theory I'd ever give a second thought to, was if someone had proof that his psychiatrist had government connections. Otherwise nothing else jives. So in other words, meh, doubt the CIA was spiking his school lunch with goofballs. His Mom did NOT do enough, was not brave enough to commit him, plus (sorry) stupid enough to allow a bi-polar fruitcake to have shooting as a hobby, I pity her now.

Yes, everyone wants their 2nd Amend right to shoot, BUT that does NOT include proven mental defectives!

I firmly believe MKUltra is real and being used today. I have my own beliefs about these random yet coincidental shootings that have happened and honestly wouldn't put it past the governments involvement with MKUltra to be the reasons/motives behind all the shootings.

Why would the government be behind all this?? Answer is easy.. disarmament of the populace and complete population control. Create enough tragedies and people will freely give their Freedoms and Rights away in the name of security and safety.....

[#1Townie]

.223 will produce an entrance hole of that size. I was surprised when my friend and I tried out different rifles on a empty 20lb propane tank. The .223 actually did more damage than we expected. My 7mm completely screamed through the propane tank.

But keep in mind we tried it at various distances. With the .223 we shot the tank at a distance of no more than 50 yards. My 7 mag however, was at 600+ yards. The .223 is somewhat powerful but when you stack it up against a true magnum rifle it looks wimpy at best.

Side note:
With my 7mm I was using ballistic tip and Accubond rounds and neither mushoomed like they should. Obviously this was due to the propane tank being empty. Had it been filled with water my 7mm would have completely decimated the tank. And the .223 would have had probably weaker results because of the water resistance. A .223 works great with low resistance. Whereas my 7mm achieves maximum potential by actually slamming into something with some weight behind it(i. e. and Elk).. That and it's all about energy. A .223 has roughly 1200-1400lbs of muzzle energy and travels close to 3000fps depending on the load. I can push a 150gr 7mm bullet about 3300-3400fps with muzzle energy of 3500+. At 600yrds with my 7mm, I'm hitting a target as hard as a .223 does at the muzzle.

Idk man. Propane tanks are stronger then the sheet metal on car doors. As you said the mushroom affect but this is thin metal and the mushroom affect would have been minimal. Looks more like a nine or 40.

One thing i know is as you look into the location of this ar its all over the place. Trunk, backseat and then with the body. Am i going to believe a cop couldn't figure out the difference between a rifle and a pistol? A rifle and a shotgun?

[Ghosty]

Why would the government be behind all this?? Answer is easy.. disarmament of the populace and complete population control. Create enough tragedies and people will freely give their Freedoms and Rights away in the name of security.....
Interesting, and I respect that. My dominant Rose-colored-Glasses side usually wins out though. Unfortunately that leaves you vulnerable to their plots if they exist.

Someone get on that Photochop, we need to start flooding the Internet with it...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/SpectralCat/Emoticons/devil-smiley-029-1.gif

[TFOGGuys]

There are some very interesting connections between the CT shooter and the Aurora shooter (no, I won't mention their names). Both of their (absent) fathers are due to testify in the ongoing investigation into the LIBOR scandal...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022005746


Yeah, I've got a wardrobe by Reynolds...mostly headgear...

[Ghosty]

Wow, you gotta admit that is a HUGE coincidence though, what are the odds?!


Yeah, I've got a wardrobe by Reynolds...mostly headgear...
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/tin_foil.jpg

[#1Townie]

Wow, you gotta admit that is a HUGE coincidence though, what are the odds?!
in the millions. Thats some scary shit.

[modette99]

Went to Wal-Mart here in Monument the other night. I bought the last .45 100 round box, guy in front of me said he got two of them just then. Then went to Woodland Park for diner with brother in-law and told him, we ran down to his Wal-Mart and they were sold out too on everything but some rifle ammo.

[Ghosty]

in the millions. Thats some scary shit.
I WISH we had a news channel like the one on HBO series "The Newsroom"! If anyone hasn't seen it, FIND IT NOW, download it, Netflix, order HBO, whatever season one. It's worth even paying for.

I think everyone in this thread would appreciate the concept they're trying to push. It's an excellent drama all about major news outlets being biased and corporate schills, and ONE GUY's news team attempting to actually report truthful world news, not biased, and the corporate pressure (Koch Bros.) he is up against (even spying, etc.) to control his team.

WATCH THIS, he's come a LONG way since Dumb & Dumber, seriously...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEyUWKJFER8

I still believe it's the greatest, but that's because it's my country. Apologies in advance, if I'm getting too "Glen Beck" on ya.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/SpectralCat/patriot_zps54e3a636.gif

[#1Townie]

I WISH we had a news channel like the one on HBO series "The Newsroom"! If anyone hasn't seen it, FIND IT NOW, download it, Netflix, order HBO, whatever season one. It's worth even paying for.

I think everyone in this thread would appreciate the concept they're trying to push. It's an excellent drama all about major news outlets being biased and corporate schills, and ONE GUY's news team attempting to actually report truthful world news, not biased, and the corporate pressure (Koch Bros.) he is up against (even spying, etc.) to control his team.

WATCH THIS, he's come a LONG way since Dumb & Dumber, seriously...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEyUWKJFER8

I still believe it's the greatest, but that's because it's my country. Apoligies in advance, if I'm getting too "Glen Beck" on ya.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/SpectralCat/patriot_zps54e3a636.gif

Okay that was awesome. That clip won me over.

[Ghosty]

Okay that was awesome. That clip won me over.
Awesome, I try to turn everyone on to it, definitely try to Hulu it or something. I know it sucks if you don't have HBO, but most every drama series on there is sick, worth the $15/mo easily. Remember Sopranos? It's only gotten better. Game of Thrones (EPIC fantasy), Boardwalk Empire (EPIC gangster), TruBlood (first few seasons only), Rome (EPIC historical), etc.

[TFOGGuys]

All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party - Mao Tse Tung

[The Black Knight]

I WISH we had a news channel like the one on HBO series "The Newsroom"! If anyone hasn't seen it, FIND IT NOW, download it, Netflix, order HBO, whatever season one. It's worth even paying for.

I think everyone in this thread would appreciate the concept they're trying to push. It's an excellent drama all about major news outlets being biased and corporate schills, and ONE GUY's news team attempting to actually report truthful world news, not biased, and the corporate pressure (Koch Bros.) he is up against (even spying, etc.) to control his team.

WATCH THIS, he's come a LONG way since Dumb & Dumber, seriously...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEyUWKJFER8

I still believe it's the greatest, but that's because it's my country. Apologies in advance, if I'm getting too "Glen Beck" on ya.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/SpectralCat/patriot_zps54e3a636.gif
Dude!! Jeff Daniels handled that like a boss!! :up:

Honestly though I agree with much of what he said. I hate to say it but we aren't the greatest nation anymore. Our aspiration, inspiration and innovation has fallen by the way side. It hurts me to say it but when I see certain things unfold I can honestly say there are times I'm ashamed to be an American. I still love my country and what it stands/stood for. But there are times when I just have to turn away from it as well... :(

[#1Townie]

How debates should be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF-BZsrtoPs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Ghosty]

How debates should be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF-BZsrtoPs&feature=youtube_gdata_player (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF-BZsrtoPs&feature=youtube_gdata_player)
Yep, another gem, one of many throughout the season. God forbid the candidates have to answer the actual questions with REAL answers. It makes a citizen cry...

:bs:


All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party - Mao Tse Tung
Uh-oh, YOU GUYS ARE GONNA LOVE THIS ONE. I never post ZeroHedge.com posts because they are hardcore Libertarian GoldBug ChickenLittle type stuff, BUT, I'll make an exception for fun here. Not claiming it's true, but MANY valid points within, read it!

How Feinstein's Bill Will Usher in "The Revolution"...

http://www.investingchannel.com/article/141978/Guest-Post-Feinsteins-Gun-Control-Bill-Will-Trigger-The-Next-American-Revolution#.UOHR0478pMI

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/SpectralCat/Emoticons/scared.gif

[bornwildnfree]

I would like to remind everyone that this is a first world problem and if we would like to keep our first world status, we should stay armed and all LAW ABIDING citizens should have access to arms. In most of the world, might means right. We are rich enough to afford equality.

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Most of you have never been in a dangerous situation. Most of you have never faced a home invasion, kidnapping attempt, rape, murder attempt or random drug shootout or even been in a physical altercation. You don't understand what is like to have your family and home threatened sometimes on a daily basis. You've never had to survive.

The person who has chosen to break into a home, who mugs, who rapes, will not respond to words on paper saying they can't do something. Most of us could care less about speedlimits but that's a law too. The people who commit acts of violence will only respond to greater shows of force. At that point it reverts to primal instincts. I'm a bigger predator and I will take you down for invading my territory.

We seem to think that we should be above such actions. That peace is possible if we all just sit and hold hands. That it does not take a great deal of force to sustain the lifestyle we hold so dearly. If that were true, then why would we even need a military? We are not a peaceful species. There is always someone out there who wants what we have.

Have I drawn a weapon against someone, yes. Were the causes justified? I think that all comes down to the individual. Were the causes legal? Yes. I should not have justify my right to defend myself in any way shape or form from being attacked. I should not justify my right to defend my friends, my family, my pets and my property. If you have never faced any more danger than someone cutting you off in traffic, then you are not qualified to weigh in on gun bills. Go live in a 3rd world country for a year and tell me you just can't see why the regular citizen needs to be able to defend themselves. Heck, go volunteer in a jail and tell me that those guys give a damn about the legalities of owning a weapon. We forget what it is like to fight for what we have because we are rich enough to not have to.

If you want to be a pacifist, please, by all means do so. It takes great character to be beaten to a bloody pulp and not fight back, to watch your family killed in front of you and not fight back. Me, I will defend me and mine from anyone who is out to harm them. Thankfully most of our fair citizens are not out to harm me (except in a cage) so I don't have to use a show of force with them. I'm not worried about the sheep. I'm protecting myself from the wolves.

[Ghosty]

If you want to be a pacifist, please, by all means do so. It takes great character to be beaten to a bloody pulp and not fight back, to watch your family killed in front of you and not fight back. Me, I will defend me and mine from anyone who is out to harm them. Thankfully most of our fair citizens are not out to harm me (except in a cage) so I don't have to use a show of force with them. I'm not worried about the sheep. I'm protecting myself from the wolves.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/SpectralCat/Emoticons/worship-1.gif

[rforsythe]

If you have never faced any more danger than someone cutting you off in traffic, then you are not qualified to weigh in on gun bills.

I agree with what you posted, except for that line. While I think you're directing it at the people who would restrict gun ownership, the way it's written you seem to think that pro-gun people also have no say. The fact is that every citizen, regardless of the tragedy or turmoil in their life, has a say. Also one does not have to stick their hand in the fire to know that getting burned alive is bad, and many people understand your points without the benefit of direct experience.

While I realize your experience gives you unique perspective from most of us "first world people", be careful not to treat that as some sort of entitlement to a voice that other US citizens shouldn't get just because they don't know what it's like to live that way. That doesn't exist, and will do nothing more than make the very people you're trying to convince just ignore everything else you have to say.

[Ghosty]

in the millions. Thats some scary shit.
Still haven't found any credible info that this is true. (two shooters fathers due to testify in LIBOR scandal) Keeping my eyes open...

[Grant H.]

Wow, just wow.

The stupid on the "guns are scary" side of this thread is just astounding.

[Ghosty]

U.S.Marine letter to Diane Fascistein:


Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America. I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012



Dianne Feinstein, go back to sleep. You have been served by a true patriot, an honorable solider who takes his oath to the Constitution seriously and who will never obey treasonous orders from cowardly cronies like you.

For a powerful follow up interview with Joshua Boston, click here (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/30/Marine-Tells-Di-Feinstein-No-Ma-am-Over-Gun-Grabbing).

In Liberty,
Mike



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/SpectralCat/Emoticons/gr_patriot.gif

[rforsythe]

This whole thing is starting to feel like a guns-instead-of-commies McCarthyism episode. Strike enough fear in the populace and they'll hang their own neighbor, just to avoid being seen as a "sympathizer".

I keep seeing the "from my cold dead hands" rhetoric too, but really, how many people do you think are going to unload on a fellow citizen in that scenario? My guess: close to none, unless an actual civil war broke out. Disarmament rarely results in civil war however, it's all the other fascist bullshit that comes after a populace is defenseless that breaks a nation down to that point. If the government wants to shit on the constitution and take your piece, force you to register it, or make it very very illegal for you to ignore either one, they will do so knowing that only a few fringe "extremists" will actually fight back against a fellow American with force. Once that line of rights revocation is crossed "legally", there is no going back.

We're witness to perhaps the most pivotal moment in our country's history. Get ready for it.

[#1Townie]

Thats why i say i am thinking about the kids. The kids will be the ones who have to clean up the mess. Maybe the grand kids.

I have a bad feeling that thia country will make a very dangerous decision this year. Lots of patriotic anericans will be deemed terrorists.

[~Barn~]

The FBI is probably watching this thread, putting Townie and a few others on some sort of watchlist. :lol:

[Ezzzzy1]

All I know is that the government really helped some 200k people make the decision to go buy guns.... and as many high-cap mags as possible.... and as much ammo....

Essentially all this has done is caused a swarm on all this stuff meaning the stuff that would have sold over the next few years sold in two weeks.

[Jmetz]

For the record I lost all my guns in a boating accident this last weekend.

[Wrider]

For the record I lost all my guns in a boating accident this last weekend.

Weird, mine were stolen in a break-in that same weekend.

[rforsythe]

Heard that. I sold all of mine no questions asked to a guy I met at a Starbucks. Offered up a bunch of money (current gun craze has everyone spooked) and seemed like a good enough dude.

[~Barn~]

Sorry to hear the bad luck fellas. On a whim, I took mine to a foundry and had them repurposed into pieces of an industrial style computer desk that I'm mocking up. Should be nice when I'm done!

[I`m Batman]

I sold all of my guns too for a bunch of cash then got robbed at gun point right afterwards.

[Snowman]

The FBI is probably watching this thread, putting Townie and a few others on some sort of watchlist. :lol: Probably? I'm sure Townie is a high level watch word by now...

Does spying on Americans protect the US? (http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2013/01/20131394414159593.html)

[madvlad]

Defcon delta

[#1Townie]

Naaaaa im on no watch list. I just passed my fed background check. Also i gave my firearms to a friend who heard sold them for a small fortune to a outstanding gentleman by the name john doe. I figured he could use the money and i hate taxes.

Townie on a watch list. Thats funny. They know im too dumb to be dangerous.

[~Barn~]

The greatest trick The Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world that he was dumb.

[#1Townie]

Yeah but unless ive been pulling the long con im sure everyone on this site can agree to this one thing. Townie is a dumbass.

[vort3xr6]

Magazine ban being introduced today by Colorado congresswoman.

[Ezzzzy1]

Magazine ban being introduced today by Colorado congresswoman.

They can have Playboy but please God dont let them take Hustler!

[salsashark]

Just got home from dropping my guns off at OCC to have them made into a badass chopper... much safer!

[Ghosty]

U.S.Marine letter to Diane Fascistein:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/SpectralCat/Emoticons/gr_patriot.gif
CNN picked it up on their front page, woot! Fox never did, weird, only FoxRadio.

[Ghosty]

Marine who wrote letter to Fascistein stating "I will not register my (semi-auto) guns...", goes viral

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/04/us/marine-gun-letter-ireport/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/04/us/marine-gun-letter-ireport/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)



"I own the guns I own because I acknowledge mankind's shortcomings instead of pretending like they don't exist," Boston wrote. "There are evil men in this world and there just may be a time when I need to do the unthinkable to protect me or my family."

[dirkterrell]

Look at this little gem I found in the Congressional record:

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-joint-resolution/15

Not that it'll go anywhere, but it just shows you how those in power think...

[Ghosty]

Yeah, the dudes on the Colorado AR15 forum are going buckwild about that one, as you could imagine! :D "The One" will vote himself into an endless dictatorship, United States of Cuba, etc., heheh.

I think it's funny, but I actually do see one guys point (the last time this was introduced, it's nothing new), even if we don't agree with it, especially in a country where voting is the most accurate than anywhere in the world, vs. some MiddleEastern or African shithole country where the elections are frequently corrupt and fraudulent. Plus much of the masses don't even make it to voting booths, or aren't counted.




Rep. Hoyer, Feb. 17, 2005: The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics. While I am not a supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment.

Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush’s last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result.

Under the resolution I offer today, President Bush would not be eligible to run for a third term. However, the American people would have restored to themselves and future generations an essential democratic privilege to elect who they choose in the future.

[dirkterrell]

And so it begins:


President Barack Obama is exploring executive orders to help stop mass shootings in America, Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday.

"The president is going to act. Executive orders, executive action, can be taken," Biden told reporters before meetings with groups representing survivors of mass shootings. "We haven't decided what this is yet, but we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and all the rest of the Cabinet members."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/politics/gun-control-battle/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

This is how tyranny begins, my friends. The descent may be slow, but this is how it begins, always with good intentions but sold on emotion rather than logic. And with the frighteningly antagonistic divisiveness that the politicians have fomented in this country, I can see a horrific conclusion to all of this. If we can chart a logical, rather than emotional, course through this topic, we may avoid that end, but we have not shown much to make me confident of that. I dearly hope that I am wrong.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Fuck democracy, it's too slow.

[Ghosty]

McConnell says no gun-control legislation for a couple/few months because more important Fiscal issues now. For once I agree with Mitch. BUT, then you have this XO b.s. They will seek to at least tighten up background check criteria & ban high-cap mags. Glad I stocked up. This XO might also include reinstatment of the last AWB, without congressional approval, as a temporary measure until Fascistein's bullshit can make traction.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/SpectralCat/Emoticons/brickwall.gif

[Vance]

Yeah...
I don't think the Executive Privilege of the President of the United States allows for the arbitrary ban of or restriction of any particular manufactured product, sale of any particular product, import or such - nor tax levy, etc.

I'm sure Holder is telling him he can - and it will have to be fought up to the Supreme Court - but when it is, I'd put money on it in Vegas even with a stack of liberal judges on the bench they'll find on the side the office doesn't allow that kind of power and it will be overturned.

I'd love to see any context, case law, or otherwise where they believe they have this kind of power - because if they did - many a past president would have been using it on many a different thing (like Executive Ordering the banning of abortions or some such red hot topic as such to please their constituents and party).

[dirkterrell]

I'm sure Holder is telling him he can - and it will have to be fought up to the Supreme Court - but when it is, I'd put money on it in Vegas even with a stack of liberal judges on the bench they'll find on the side the office doesn't allow that kind of power and it will be overturned.


I'm not so sure. Whip up enough of a frenzy about "public safety" and I'm sure they can justify it legally. Executive order 9066 comes to mind...

[vort3xr6]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin

I have hope that the American people won't let this slide.

I forsee a civil war within 5-10 years.

[#1Townie]

I agree with dirk. Many other things that would be clearly unconstitutional have passed out of public fear. Sad day when fear wins every time.

[~Barn~]

Just for the sake of a little levity.
Chalk one up to talking it out... (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16453001-sheriff-heroics-by-teacher-supervisor-end-high-school-shooting?lite)

[Hoot]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin

I have hope that the American people won't let this slide.

I forsee a civil war within 5-10 years.

Those with guns vs those who don't like guns because they're scary? Hmmm

[~Barn~]

Shirts vs. Skins

[Ghosty]

I agree with dirk. Many other things that would be clearly unconstitutional have passed out of public fear. Sad day when fear wins every time.
Exactly why Bush/Obama were able to pass so much overreaching powers.

There is no longer a "terrorist hidding in every bush*. We need some more Libertarian-leaning congresspeople voted into office to clean up this Patriot Act and NDAA bullshit. We may not have eliminated the extremist Muslim threats, but we've practically decimated the key leaders and the organizations. Time to bring home all the troops and get on with fixing this country.

Gun-control isn't even a factor, but I fear that's too late too, thanks to the mental defects recently.

[rforsythe]

I forsee a civil war within 5-10 years.

I don't. We are nowhere near the SHTF boiling point.

[#1Townie]

Have we really done anything about terror? To me it seems like its winning.

[laspariahs]

Have we really done anything about terror? To me it seems like its winning.

"Terror" only wins if you are afraid.

[#1Townie]

"Terror" only wins if you are afraid.

Thats my point. Its winning.

[laspariahs]

Thats my point. Its winning.

You're afraid? It's not winning with me.

[Hoot]

You're afraid? It's not winning with me.

This whole thread is on a proposed infringement of an unalienable right. I'd say terror is winning. Maybe not with you or I, but as a whole, our nation is afraid. Afraid that someone or anyone might get a splinter. We want to protect everyone.

[#1Townie]

You're afraid? It's not winning with me.


This whole thread is on a proposed infringement of an unalienable right. I'd say terror is winning. Maybe not with you or I, but as a whole, our nation is afraid. Afraid that someone or anyone might get a splinter. We want to protect everyone.

This.

[laspariahs]

This whole thread is on a proposed infringement of an unalienable right. I'd say terror is winning. Maybe not with you or I, but as a whole, our nation is afraid. Afraid that someone or anyone might get a splinter. We want to protect everyone.

It's not an unalienable right, it's at best a opinion of a few old white men that it's a right. The militia does have a right to bear arms though.


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I doubt most gun owners are in a well regulated militia, in fact I know they aren't.

We've lost most actual rights during the previous 8 years because people were pissing in their boots about evil terrorists than is even worth mentioning.

[Jmetz]

It's not an unalienable right, it's at best a opinion of a few old white men that it's a right. The militia does have a right to bear arms though.

Quote:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I doubt most gun owners are in a well regulated militia, in fact I know they aren't.

We are "the people" they are referring to.

[#1Townie]

It's not an unalienable right, it's at best a opinion of a few old white men that it's a right. The militia does have a right to bear arms though.



I doubt most gun owners are in a well regulated militia, in fact I know they aren't.

We've lost most actual rights during the previous 8 years because people were pissing in their boots about evil terrorists than is even worth mentioning.


First off you are only reading the first part that. The second statement about the peoples rights to bear arms clearly states to the people. Not a militia. You think the founding fathers made the people statement as a mistake? Also a militia is nothing more than people willing to rise up to protect their states. Not the military. So get off the militia part to that. It clearly states to the people. It was even upheld in court. So done.

Next im not sure what last eight years you are referring to but ndaa and a few others have by far blown the patriot act out of the water.

You just got done asking me if i was scared and yet here you are trying to give up civil liberties out of the idea of fear. Before you agree with the news tonight do yourself a favor and go look up actual gun statics. These mass shootings make up like one percent of gun crime. Crime with rifles alone only makes up 30% as a whole. You wont find that info in any major media.

So before you start giving up anymore rights out of protection you sgould do some homework. Maybe you should start with what the current administration has added to the formers so called illegal laws. In short terms see what obama added to the patriot act.

[The Black Knight]

It's not an unalienable right, it's at best a opinion of a few old white men that it's a right. The militia does have a right to bear arms though.



I doubt most gun owners are in a well regulated militia, in fact I know they aren't.

We've lost most actual rights during the previous 8 years because people were pissing in their boots about evil terrorists than is even worth mentioning.

You've got some back ass backwards way of thinking and processing a sentence. Where do you get that only a well regulated militia only has the right? If the founding fathers(you know those old white guys) wanted to assure that only the militia had the right, then they would have worded the 2nd Amendment to read as such: a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the "militia" to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

But they didn't write it that way. They said, the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms. It's the people who make up a militia, hence them needing the right to keep and bear arms.

:slap:

[Wrider]

It's not an unalienable right, it's at best a opinion of a few old white men that it's a right. The militia does have a right to bear arms though.



I doubt most gun owners are in a well regulated militia, in fact I know they aren't.



However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.

Found at findlaw.com (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/). Specifically in reference to District of Columbia v Heller.

[Jmetz]

I'm gonna leave this here. It's a good watch if you have some time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIGzj6eIwWU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Ghosty]

But they didn't write it that way. They said, the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms. It's the people who make up a militia, hence them needing the right to keep and bear arms.
Wore my AR15News.com shirt to work yesterday. Complete with George Mason quote on the back, nizzzzzze...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/SpectralCat/Firearms/ar15newscomt-shirt500.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/SpectralCat/Emoticons/sunglasses.gif

[dirkterrell]

I doubt most gun owners are in a well regulated militia, in fact I know they aren't.


Read Federalist 46 to see what the Founders meant by "militia".

[asp_125]

Well if you're going to pick apart the second amendment, militia refers to:


On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:
[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[97]

So anyone not a white male between 18 & 45, please hand over your muskets, your powder, and your balls. :D

[The Black Knight]

Wore my AR15News.com shirt to work yesterday. Complete with George Mason quote on the back, nizzzzzze...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/SpectralCat/Firearms/ar15newscomt-shirt500.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/SpectralCat/Emoticons/sunglasses.gif

Yeah buddy!!! :up:

My dad and I both have shirts and hats that feature the Spartan and the Molon Labe inscription.

[Hoot]

Well if you're going to pick apart the second amendment, militia refers to:



So anyone not a white male between 18 & 45, please hand over your muskets, your powder, and your balls. :D

An uniform militia. Not THE militia. They created a more structured army, they didn't take away the right to form militia. Which... Any able bodied person willing to do so, may create or join.

[Ezzzzy1]

Then lets form a fucking Militia right NOW!


.

[Hoot]

Then lets for a fucking Militia right NOW!

:imwithstupid:

[Boom]

I’ve been silently reading this one for a while, and just have to speak up. All this talk of militia, gun control/banning, assault weapons vs ‘other’ weapons, amendments,… let’s back up a second and put it all together.

The state (any governing body, federal or otherwise) has a pattern of growth, corruption, and ultimately turning on its people for control. (I’ll be using the word corruption very loosely; just remember there are thousands of books written about this topic, do the research.) The intentions are always good at first, we all know we need protection from ourselves, right? I think the founding parents (See how PC I am?) saw the empowerment of Militias as a way to add balance to this force. It is not exactly that we’re waiting for the state to rise up, so that our militia can step up and fight them off,… not if we can help it. And we certainly don’t want a ‘Standing’ militia, because it would be susceptible to the same corruption as the state. So how do we keep things in this delicate balance of peace, with a state that continues to respect its duties? What we want is a well-armed public. Knowing that a militia is likely to form is a deterrent for the state to start down any road against its people, lest they forget who they serve.

Do you think the armed forces of this country are going to be deterred by pea-shooters? No, this is why assault weapons are a healthy part of the original plan, and should stay so.

Part of the problem is that few people are willing to look at the issue and history of our laws in a holistic manner. I hear things like, “Gun shoot guy, gun bad” and, “There is no rational need for Assault Weapons in today’s society”, and it is easy to believe these if you lose site of the big picture.

-- Matt

[#1Townie]

Hey welcome to the chat bro. We have gone over tyranny in the last weeks but the op seems to think tyranny is no longer a threat in the 21st century. I have asked how that is but no responses.

[#1Townie]

Then lets form a fucking Militia right NOW!


.

You should.

[The Black Knight]

You should.

I'm forming my own empire, with me as Emperor of course :D

[Boom]

We have gone over tyranny in the last weeks but the op seems to think tyranny is no longer a threat in the 21st century.

Tyranny may not have its head out in the open, but it is alive and well as a threat. It is part of the human condition. It comes out when it’s allowed to, and just because it hasn’t yet in this country doesn’t mean it can’t. Two hundred years isn’t very long on the scale we should be talking about. Take the Stanford Prison Experiment (You know, the one where prison guards turned evil just because they were not accountable for their actions and given a general ‘control’ of the inmates.), which “…demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support”. (Yes, I’m equating a “...legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support” to State.)

So what’s to stop this from happening? It isn’t just fear, term limits, or plain ‘good will’, but accountability. And who is to hold the state accountable? Certainly not the state itself, that has never worked at any scale. The originators of these ideas believed it is the people’s responsibility. And how are they to do so?
If you don’t think it is the people… if at this point your answer is politics, politicians, social mores, the police, the military, or really anything outside of a potential, reactionary force risen up from the population then I invite you to explain how it all works. Please be sure to include some clear examples of how and when it has happened in history or science (also, please remember scale).

[Ezzzzy1]

Its really not a matter of if, its a matter of when. Sooner or later the cup will tip and things will start to unravel. Its nice to hear someone talk about scale and scope.

The who, what, why, when... Its all a crap shoot. It could be one of a thousand things that just pushes everything the exact right way to sway the scale enough for someone to pull the trigger first.

I used to think that our own troops wouldnt fight the citizens of this country but the more I think about it the more I start to realize that it could very easily happen. The troops would just have to be convinced that they were doing the right thing and they would do it.

And the more people (the citizens) become a threat the faster our government would be to react. There are civilian groups that have tanks and airplanes. They do it for two reasons: 1 because they can and 2 to have a fighting chance if shit hits the fan.

My point is that if one of these groups got antsy this whole process could get going pretty quick especially because of how information is communicated now days. All people would have to hear is that the Government is attacking citizens and people would jump at the opportunity to join in. Maybe not you and I at first but sooner or later we would have to make a decision as to what fight we would fight... Theirs, the Governments or our own.

[Wrider]

Well if you're going to pick apart the second amendment, militia refers to:



So anyone not a white male between 18 & 45, please hand over your muskets, your powder, and your balls. :D

Again, check out the reference to findlaw I posted before you posted this...

[vort3xr6]

Tyranny may not have its head out in the open, but it is alive and well as a threat. It is part of the human condition. It comes out when it’s allowed to, and just because it hasn’t yet in this country doesn’t mean it can’t. Two hundred years isn’t very long on the scale we should be talking about. Take the Stanford Prison Experiment (You know, the one where prison guards turned evil just because they were not accountable for their actions and given a general ‘control’ of the inmates.), which “…demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support”. (Yes, I’m equating a “...legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support” to State.)

So what’s to stop this from happening? It isn’t just fear, term limits, or plain ‘good will’, but accountability. And who is to hold the state accountable? Certainly not the state itself, that has never worked at any scale. The originators of these ideas believed it is the people’s responsibility. And how are they to do so?
If you don’t think it is the people… if at this point your answer is politics, politicians, social mores, the police, the military, or really anything outside of a potential, reactionary force risen up from the population then I invite you to explain how it all works. Please be sure to include some clear examples of how and when it has happened in history or science (also, please remember scale).

Welcome. And great post.

Just out of curiosity, do you think other countries would support a USA civilian revolt?

[The Black Knight]

Welcome. And great post.

Just out of curiosity, do you think other countries would support a USA civilian revolt?

Even if they did, there wouldn't be jack shit they could do about it or to help. Two oceans on either side is a lot of distance to travel. Yeah we're on our own...

[Boom]

...do you think other countries would support a USA civilian revolt?

This is a great question. I haven’t really thought about it, but my gut says no. At least, they wouldn't come to help us. Here are some random thoughts followed by a half-assed answer.

Other than the US (and maybe the Ernesto Guevara types, which are a dying breed) I can’t think of entities that are quick to jump in to help the civil revolts of other countries. (look at Syria today) This is especially true for the uninvited manner that the US does it.

While the US has many allegiances with other countries they are allegiances between governments, not our peoples.

Other than a worthless reverence for our pop-culture, most of the world’s population hates the US. I can’t begin to guess what sympathies might exist from outside during a revolt. So would we see sympathy for the people, or the ‘cashing in’ of favors to the state?

I guess my short answer is no, I don’t think anybody would come to help us. But I do think that somebody (or somebodies, plural) would indeed jump into the fight. If the empire that has been keeping you down has a week moment, isn't that the exact moment to strike?

Taking a step back, I have to say that I don’t think we’re close to any such revolt. We just jumped to this subject from the original idea that we were to keep our own government in check via the empowerment of potential militia.

We have it so good in this country, better than anywhere else in so many ways. We do so in large part due to the exploitation of other nations. I’m finding it sad that we’re spending energy considering who might come help us when we know damn well that things COULD be a ton better in other places. And I’m not even talking about us going to help, just us being less imperialistic. How about instead we take responsibility and stop some of the exploitative behavior we have as a nation?

Down with Consumerism, it is the evil driving it all. Be a part of the solution, be a Producer.

[bluedogok]

Most wouldn't be open to it unless the bribes, I mean aid payments from the current regime (regardless of party in control) stop.