PDA

View Full Version : What will happen if Obama Orders the U.S. Military to Confiscate Guns in America?



zachjonesishome
03-04-2013, 08:58 PM
Part I

What will happen if Obama Orders the U.S. Military to Confiscate Guns in America? (http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7787:what-will-happen-if-obama-orders-the-us-military-to-confiscate-guns-in-ameri&catid=97:breaking-news&Itemid=74)

(Are you sure? A military comprised primarily of sons, daughters, brothers and sisters of gun owning families.)



It is time for Americans to start thinking seriously about the possibility that their sons and daughters may be put in the untenable position going house-to-house, confiscating firearms and ammunition from their friends and family? What will they do?

Throughout the military - the kids, grand-kids, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews and friends of veterans and gun enthusiasts are likely weighing the possibilities of such an order and just how far they personally would be willing to go in carrying out something that would rip the very fabric of this nation apart and go against everything they’ve sworn to protect (http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/swearing-in-for-military-service.html). In thinking the unthinkable, certainly they must be questioning the end game and who are the real good guys. Especially, when they see this President fail to pay homage to the recent death of the greatest American Sniper in history (http://theulstermanreport.com/2013/03/01/following-death-of-greatest-military-sniper-in-american-history-obama-says-nothing/), Chris Kyle. When they see this Commander in Chief fail to engage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/02/08/fox-newss-hannity-was-obama-awol-on-benghazi-night/) while our Ambassador in Benghazi and former Navy Seals are in the fight of their lives, wouldn’t a reasonable soldier reevaluate Obama’s fidelity to the code – we leave no one behind (http://nation.time.com/2012/05/17/the-warrior-ethos-why-we-leave-no-one-behind/). When Janet Napolitano’s Homeland Security Report labels returning Veterans and Tea Party people as potential terrorists (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/?page=all), one has to ask what the heck is going on. When they see towns putting in place plans for confiscation of firearms from the “unruly” during emergency (http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=426), when veterans are receiving letters deeming them incompetent to own firearms without due process (http://www.examiner.com/article/report-vets-may-be-deemed-incompetent-without-due-process-cannot-own-firearms) - aren’t those in service wondering if they themselves will be the ones seen as threats (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/26/u-s-gun-laws-retroactively-barred-this-vietnam-vet-from-owning-a-firearm-because-of-a-teenage-misdemeanor-45-years-ago/), will they be the “unruly” that towns are talking about?

Will soldiers look closely if they are ordered to search American families’ homes? Will most intentionally not see the old double barrel shotgun in the closet of another soldier’s father or grandfather? Will they speak quietly to local veterans (http://oathkeepers.org/oath/) and relatives telling them where they might search next? Will enough refuse, making it impossible for those like Hagel (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/02/22/How-Team-Hagel-Did-Obama-s-Dirty-Work), Kerry (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/12/30/Top-Ten-Worst-John-Kerry-Foreign-Policy-Mistakes), Brennan (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/02/05/Obama-CIA-Pick-John-Brennan-Wrong-Man-for-Job) and certain military brass (http://www.examiner.com/article/report-vets-may-be-deemed-incompetent-without-due-process-cannot-own-firearms) to fully weaken America and her future? The veterans I know understand that the Second Amendment is in fact the keystone (http://saf.org/pub/rkba/general/BogusFounderQuotes.htm) of the Constitution and without it - all the others would be put in jeopardy (if not now, then surely in a disarmed future). The Founders certainly understood this (http://saf.org/pub/rkba/general/FoundersQuotes.htm), why can’t Obama and his friends?

I don’t know the answer to these questions, but I do know the time is close when each of us will need to choose. It may not be today, but I can see it coming just over the horizon. Can you?

(http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7754:politicians-and-the-media-are-a-bigger-threat-than-guns&catid=97:breaking-news&Itemid=74)

Will a young soldier choose Obama and their personal career over the Constitution, over the freedom of their families and their families’ families, over the sacrifices of veterans in whose boots each soldier now walks; over the ability of their own wives, daughters and sons to defend themselves; and over the ability (in an increasingly dangerous world) of ordinary Americans to stand against tyranny? What choices will local Sheriffs (http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=25606501), FBI agents, ATF agents, local police make? What do you think?

If you are on the ‘progressive’ left, what do you think? Are you sure? Really?

Let’s look at a few demographics that might cause you on the left to reassess your certainty.

In 2001, a survey was completed by Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) in North Carolina (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html) of the 50 states, DC and Territories asking people nationwide if there are any guns in their homes. The percentage of people having guns in their homes ranged from 59.7% in Wyoming to 3.8% in Washington, D.C. with an average in the 50 states (plus DC) of 37.6%. Even though this poll is somewhat dated, it’s sufficiently accurate for purpose of this article (if anything the percentage of gun owners in many states is rising now).

The military also tracks statistics regarding its forces (http://prhome.defense.gov/RFM/MPP/ACCESSION%20POLICY/PopRep2010/contents/contents.html). In 2010, the available pool of 18-24 years old enlistees was 29,004,915 and the number of actual recruits was 156,289 - just .005% (half of one percent). Additionally, they calculate the numbers of recruits coming from the various states in terms of the number available in relationship to the number of recruits actually provided. For example: The state pulling the most weight compared to the others was Florida (+2.30%) by providing 7.50% of military recruits even though they have available only 5.20% of the nation’s 18 to 24 year olds. (Note: comparing Florida’s recruiting numbers with its gun numbers is interesting because the gun percentage has been negatively effected, skewed downward, by the massive number of retirees in Florida with no guns.) The state puling the least weight compared to the others was - wait for it - New York. NY had 6.6% of the nations’ available 18 to 24 year olds but provided only 4.10% of the nation’s recruits for a net contribution of minus -2.5%. New York is not contributing its ‘fair share’.

The regional numbers gives us a sense who’s doing their fair share (in terms of slacking or pulling their weight) providing for the defense of the nation:



NORTHEAST REGION had 18.2% of the available pool of recruits but provided only 12.7% of recruits giving a contribution number of –5.5%.
NORTH CENTRAL REGION had 23.3% of the available pool of recruits but provided only 20.2% of recruits giving a contribution number of –2.1%.
SOUTH REGION had 35.8% of the available pool of recruits but provided only 43.4% of recruits giving a contribution number of +7.6%.
WEST REGION had 23.7% of the available pool of recruits but provided only 23.6% of recruits giving a contribution number of -.1%. [I](This group would have been a net positive contribution region but for the presence of California’s minus 1.6%.)


[22 of 50 states did not provide a percentage of actual recruits equal to or greater than their percentage of available 18 to 25 year olds]

Now let’s look at how the above numbers relate to the percentage of guns in homes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html) in each state. The 22 states plus DC with a net negative contribution to the nation’s defense had an average of 31.26% of their households having guns. The 27 states having a net positive contribution to the nation’s defense had an average of 42.07% of households having guns.

The 10 states (plus DC) with the lowest percentage of guns in households had 33% of the national pool of available 18-24 year olds and only provided 25.02% of recruits. They had an average of 16.45% of households having guns. Slackers.

The 10 states with the highest percentage of guns in households had 9% of the national pool of available 18-24 year olds and provided 10.81% of the nations recruits. They had an average of 52% of their households having guns. Oorah! (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=oorah)

Conclusions to be drawn from the above percentages are that states with the lowest number of households having guns are the biggest slackers when it comes to the nation’s defense and states with the highest percentage of guns in their households make the biggest contribution to the nation’s defense….

Part II in Next Post or here. (http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7787:what-will-happen-if-obama-orders-the-us-military-to-confiscate-guns-in-ameri&catid=97:breaking-news&Itemid=74)

zachjonesishome
03-04-2013, 09:17 PM
Part II (http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7787:what-will-happen-if-obama-orders-the-us-military-to-confiscate-guns-in-ameri&catid=97:breaking-news&Itemid=74)
I’m not knocking the recruits from the above states that failed to provide their ‘fair share’ of recruits. I honor them, like I do all veterans. It’s not their fault where they live. But how much do you want to bet these recruits from slacker states overwhelming came from the families having guns in their households?

My brothers and I all have guns; we’ve had guns since we were very young. I used to take my shotgun to the middle school I attended and keep it in my locker so I could shoot a few squirrels after the school day. No big deal. I’m the youngest of four boys and every one of us joined the military because our father served in WWII (he was in General Patton’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton) 3rd Army, fought in the Battle of the Bulge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge), was a guard at the Nuremberg War Trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_War_Trials)). I can say without doubt it mattered a lot to me that my dad served (http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/group/unitedstateselectionlawsuits/forum/topics/american-soldiers-tortured); and I would suspect that that still matters to those who serve that some of their family members also served. When I served, most of the men and women in our P-3 squadron had family who had served before them. I think it is safe to assume that prior military service (http://www.academia.edu/1123923/Military_Enlistment_and_Family_Dynamics_Youth_and_ Parental_Perspectives) of family members is a common trait of today’s soldier (by their fruit you will recognize them (http://bible.cc/matthew/7-16.htm)).

Additionally, military families are much more likely to have guns (http://www.jabfm.org/content/20/4/385.abstract) in their households than civilian families; and thus it stands to reason, that families who have family members who have served are also more likely to have guns. (Guns are fun - whether for hunting, target shooting, competition events for men, women (http://www.facebook.com/JulieGolob1), boys and girls (http://www.facebook.com/3gunkatie), gay, lesbian, LGBT, etc. – and guns are necessary for self-defense and unfortunately for keeping the politicians from slipping over the line into tyranny.)

Regretfully for today’s young people, (according to a 2009 Gallup Poll) “Veteran status is just slightly above 10% for men under age 35, rises slightly among men between 35 and 54, and then begins to rise sharply among men 55 years of age or older” (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118684/military-veterans-ages-tend-republican.aspx). In 2009, only about 7% of men 18-24 years old and 2% of women the same age were either veterans or on active duty. Men 80-84 years old in 2009 (WWII service), 74% were veterans. This decline in reported veteran/active duty status correlates perfectly to the end of the draft in 1973 (Vietnam war ended in 1975). However, given that every man and woman currently serving are volunteers (about 1,350,000 in 2006) (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004604.html), I would expect that most of these soldiers come from families with brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, or grandfathers who served; and as such, are from families who are more likely to have guns.

How about political party affiliation, the military and guns?

Gallup reported that 34% of veterans and those on active duty (2009) identified as Republicans, 29% identified as Democrats (coming from gun families I bet), and 33% as Independents. An interesting tidbit in the 2009 Gallup Poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118684/military-veterans-ages-tend-republican.aspx), is that the number veterans of the WWII generation identifying as Republicans was only 2 percentage points greater than non-veterans identifying as Republicans, which indicates to me that almost everyone knew WHY (http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/group/unitedstateselectionlawsuits/forum/topics/american-soldiers-tortured) they were fighting (both parties knew).

[From visiting military forums from time to time, I get a sense that the number of military identifying as Independents and Libertarians is growing.]

However, I have two polls for you to consider, one from 2008 showed that McCain had support of 68% of the military (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/10/military_poll_100508w/) and the other in 2012 showed that Romney had support of 66%. (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/10/08/poll-66-percent-of-military-members-support-romney/) So let’s just say that the Republican candidate (or the not Democrat candidate) is likely to get over 60% of military support. Unfortunately, many times it appears (for some mysterious reason) difficult to get ballots to our overseas military in a timely manner (http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=47924) (40% of 2012 Connecticut military ballots were never received) (http://www.theday.com/article/20130219/NWS12/130219640/State-senator:-Nearly-40-percent-of-military-absentee-ballots-never-received).

Regarding guns in homes and Party identification, the NYT (can’t believe I’m citing the NYT) had an interesting article this past December (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership-statistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/). The article broke down the likelihood of having guns in voters’ households by various factors such as Party, race, gender, region, population density, etc. based upon 2008 exit polling. Overall, in 2008, 42% of all voters had guns in their households. However, only 31% of Democrats had guns in their households in 2008 and that number has been decreasing for the past 40 years. Republicans had a respectable 56% of their voter households having guns. So we have a military that consistently votes Republican, military families more likely than civilians to have guns, gun states provide more than their ‘fair share’ of military recruits and Republican families more likely to have guns. All good. (Unfortunately, the exit polling reflected in the article did not provide info for Independents, etc. It does cite a survey indicating about 30% of Independents, 50% of Republicans, and 22% of Democrats had guns in 2010.) Given the current Obama assault on the Second Amendment, I would expect that the number of Republican, Libertarian and Independent gun owners is increasing, sales certainly are (http://newyorkcityguns.com/2013/03/sturm-ruger-ceo-were-selling-everything-we-make/).

Obama evidently won the firearms salesman of the year in New Hampshire gun store (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/01/president-obama-awarded-firearms-salesman-of-the-year-award-by-new-hampshire-gun-shop/).

[If we could only get Democrats to start enjoying gun activities more, maybe we could bridge the partisan divide.]

From the same poll (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership-statistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/), let’s look at race and guns in American households. The article indicates that 37% of white Democrat voters have guns in their households and 55% of white Republicans; 28% of Hispanic Democrats and 32% of Hispanic Republicans voters have guns in their households; 5% of Asian Democrats have guns in their households and 22% of Asian Republicans; and 17% of Black Democrat voters have guns in their households and 41% of Black Republicans have guns. Again Republicans (probably mostly conservatives and independents, as opposed to establishment GOP) of every ethnic group have a much greater likelihood of having guns in their homes. I would suggest a substantial majority of those from every ethnic group serving likely come from families that have guns in their households.

I’m encouraged by the percentage of Black voters having guns in their homes. Recently, many Americans have been reintroduced to the fact that historically gun control has been about black people control (http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/02/24/black-conservative-gun-control-is-black-people-control-52345) and that the NRA was founded by religious leaders who wanted to protect freed slaves from the KKK (http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/22/black-conservatives-gun-control-has-racist-roots-video/). In fact, recently the NRA (http://www.fact-index.com/n/na/national_rifle_association.html) introduced a young black man, Colion Noir, as a new contributor (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/01/the-nra-is-unveiling-a-new-pro-gun-contributor-and-you-might-be-a-little-surprised/). Mr. Noir apparently has a remarkable ability to present the issues concerning gun control in an easily understandable manner (he also has a nice Facebook page) (http://www.facebook.com/COLIONNOIR).

In 2010, the breakdown according to race and gender of the military’s Active Component Enlistment (http://prhome.defense.gov/RFM/MPP/ACCESSION%20POLICY/PopRep2010/appendixa/a_03.html) was basically 69.2% White (72% of male recruits are White, 57.9% of female recruits are White), 18.2% Black (15.8% of male recruits are Black, 27.9% of female recruits are Black), 15.7% Hispanic and 80.3% non-Hispanic (a bit confusing because numbers don’t add up – maybe some recruits are reporting multiple ethic backgrounds – like Sen. Elizabeth Warren saying she’s Native American (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-controversy-over-elizabeth-warrens-claimed-native-american-heritage/2012/09/27/d0b7f568-08a5-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html) when she’s not). Women make up 14% of today’s Active Component of Enlistment in the military (18-44 year olds).

Women gun owners are rising fast in their numbers. Seventy Three percent of gun dealers said the number of women buying guns has increased in 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/us/rising-voice-of-gun-ownership-is-female.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&). There’s also been a 51.5% increase in the number of women participating in target shooting (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/us/rising-voice-of-gun-ownership-is-female.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&) from 2001 to 2011, just over 5 million women. The number of women owning firearms has jumped too – from 13% in 2005 to 23% in 2013 (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/18/video-meet-the-fastest-growing-demographic-among-gun-owners/). Excellent!

So what does this mean? It means that the vast majority of military would have to disarm members of their own families, or their friends’ families if Obama gives the order to confiscate the firearms owned by law abiding Americans.

Would they? I don’t know. I hope not, given that their allegiance is supposedly to the Constitution and not Obama. I can’t believe that our military would go in lock step to implement such an order.

Would they sabotage Obama, Holder and Napolitano’s efforts? I don’t know. I think that’s possible, maybe ever probable.

I do hope that those in the military are seriously considering their options. Maybe they will follow the lead of Obama’s union buddies and organize a massive sit-down strike or a massive resignation based upon a reasonable belief that the order is unlawful and in violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Who knows? Maybe a few in the JAG Corps are privately preparing (at least thinking though the procedures, arguments and process) a possible legal action challenging the lawfulness of such an order to the Federal Courts.

I do believe that it won’t be pretty.

[Even some people in Russia are advising Americans to never give up your guns. (http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/)]

Don’t the Occupy Wall Street types realize that they too will have their guns taken? Don’t they realize the really rich they hate will probably always have access to guns? It could be a reason why some legislators are turning to the ideas of having expensive liability insurance for gun owners and high taxes on ammo. Poor and middle class people couldn’t afford to own or enjoy guns - leaving only government people, criminals and the well off having guns.

So what do I think gun owners might be thinking about these days?


Full Article is here (http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7787:what-will-happen-if-obama-orders-the-us-military-to-confiscate-guns-in-ameri&catid=97:breaking-news&Itemid=74).

zachjonesishome
03-04-2013, 09:18 PM
Part III (http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7787:what-will-happen-if-obama-orders-the-us-military-to-confiscate-guns-in-ameri&catid=97:breaking-news&Itemid=74)
I suppose some urban gun owners (where confiscation would likely first occur) (http://www.thesurvivalistblog.net/leos-opinions-on-gun-control-and-your-second-amendment-rights/) are thinking about moving some of their guns to rural friends or family (maybe to family living in the south or Texas). Probably, some rural people are starting to hide a few of their weapons here and there. A few are probably buying guns that can’t be traced to them personally. People might be acquiring an old, broken gun or two, from friends or family to have something available to turn over if there’s an unlawful search by the powers that be (giving local law enforcement a reason to move on to the next house). A few people may be exploring the new reality of printing guns with 3D printers (http://venturebeat.com/2013/02/19/defcad-gun-traffic-growing/). Many, many people are buying up ammo (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-02-22/news/os-ammo-shortage-hits-orlando-2-20130222_1_ammunition-gun-dealers-assault-rifles) and ordering new guns (http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Gun-buying-boom-a-bigger-issue-for-Ruger-than-4318403.php). People are buying guns in other states (http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/03/5231577/guns-a-tale-of-two-statesfaced.html). I expect that many returning veterans and civilians thinking about talking to their doctors about some emotional issue, like a mild depression, are reconsidering it (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/03/should-mentally-ill-veterans-be-banned-from-purchasing-guns/) out of fear their doctor will rat them out and keep them from owning guns. Many people have joined the NRA (http://washingtonexaminer.com/first-membership-now-nra-license-plates-are-hot/article/2521802), many are now networking, tens of thousands are protesting (http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/21532/20130301/thousands-join-anti-gun-control-rally-in-albany).

We all need to do what we can! Gun people need to get to know and support their local sheriff, talk to those in the military, talk to veterans, find attorneys (http://www.uticaod.com/news/x930806341/Lawsuits-against-state-gun-control-law-moving-forward) who will represent those who are arrested for refusing to turn over firearms, support lawsuits against new gun laws, get involved in your community, get organizations to set up shooting competitions (http://competitions.nra.org/) in their town for young people, get your kids involved (http://www.youthshootingsa.com/) in shooting competitions (http://www.ruger.com/micros/rugerRimfire/index.html), call elected officials, and work to get those with a gun control fetish thrown out of office. We can’t allow the nanny state progressives to succeed in painting gun ownership and sport as anything other than something everyone should want to take part in (except those with serious mental illness; and no, having a sad day every once in a while is not a mental illness).

I pray confiscation (http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/02/doj-memo-outlaw-and-confiscate-all-guns/) doesn’t happen, but people in both the military and civilian worlds need to be prepared for the worst and decide how they will manage to hold to their principles. It could be that if millions of Americans (civilian and military) are prepared to be arrested for their right to keep firearms (taking a page from Martin Luther King), the government’s efforts would fall apart. However, if our military does prove itself to be willing to confiscate law abiding American citizens guns, then maybe we don’t deserve our freedoms - and all the sacrifices of all veterans who have come and gone before will have been for naught.

END
Full Article is here (http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7787:what-will-happen-if-obama-orders-the-us-military-to-confiscate-guns-in-ameri&catid=97:breaking-news&Itemid=74).

imported_NineWorlds
03-04-2013, 09:40 PM
2969
-------------------------------

JD2780
03-05-2013, 01:40 PM
I’m not knocking the recruits from the above states that failed to provide their ‘fair share’ of recruits. I honor them, like I do all veterans. It’s not their fault where they live. But how much do you want to bet these recruits from slacker states overwhelming came from the families having guns in their households?

].

Slacker states eh? Thats just stupid. I came from Boston my dad has a shotgun and a lever action rifle. Me I have few guns of my own now, and I dont live in MA anymore. Probably never moving back either.

States dont provide a fair share of recruits. All volunteer force remember? I think there might be more opportunities for folks in the NE than other regions.

The military wont mobilize to take folks guns away. Just wont. Even Obama wont pull that off.

zachjonesishome
03-05-2013, 02:18 PM
Slacker states eh? Thats just stupid. I came from Boston my dad has a shotgun and a lever action rifle. Me I have few guns of my own now, and I dont live in MA anymore. Probably never moving back either.

States dont provide a fair share of recruits. All volunteer force remember? I think there might be more opportunities for folks in the NE than other regions.

The military wont mobilize to take folks guns away. Just wont. Even Obama wont pull that off.

It's good to hear that military would not take folks guns away. I've always believed that about enlisted military and hoped it was true about the officers. I was enlisted. I realize states don't provide recruits. I made the point to reflect that gun state/gun owner culture is more likely to be the source of volunteers than non gun culture.

......However, given that every man and woman currently serving are volunteers (about 1,350,000 in 2006) (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004604.html), I would expect that most of these soldiers come from families with brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, or grandfathers who served; and as such, are from families who are more likely to have guns....

zachjonesishome
03-05-2013, 02:50 PM
This following article at The Hill is the kind of stuff that causes me not to trust officers as far as I trust enlisted.
Biden meets with retired military for help on gun control (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/285077-biden-seeks-out-help-from-military-on-gun-control#ixzz2Mfz0j1gP)

I hope there are Generals, Admirals, officers opposed to gun control that will be speaking out, making ads. It’s not about gun control. It’s about an incremental approach to effectively eliminating the right to own firearms (especially for the poor) – making ammo too expensive, requiring liability insurance to make ownership too expensive, making the paperwork too burdensome for ordinary folks to deal with. I watched one of the NRA new contributor’s videos (Colion Noir) (https://www.facebook.com/COLIONNOIR) and it was great – common sense, clear, concise.

zachjonesishome
03-05-2013, 03:22 PM
This is good news:


Nearly 1 in 3 state sheriff groups now oppose Obama gun controls (http://washingtonexaminer.com/nearly-1-in-3-state-sheriff-groups-now-oppose-obama-gun-controls/article/2523266)

NC LEO
03-05-2013, 05:47 PM
And for all of you conspiracy nutjobs out there, dont forget that DHS is purchasing all of the ammo on Obama's orders so that after he declares martial law (in the middle of a sequestration mind you) George Soros will fund a secret U.N. Army that will invade the U.S. with the help of the Illuminati. After the entire country has been put to sleep with chemtrails, they will confiscate everyone's guns and bibles and put the entire population in Bilderberg sponsored FEMA camps for 666 microchipping ROFL!!!!

JD2780
03-05-2013, 06:12 PM
It's good to hear that military would not take folks guns away. I've always believed that about enlisted military and hoped it was true about the officers. I was enlisted. I realize states don't provide recruits. I made the point to reflect that gun state/gun owner culture is more likely to be the source of volunteers than non gun culture.

......However, given that every man and woman currently serving are volunteers (about 1,350,000 in 2006) (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004604.html), I would expect that most of these soldiers come from families with brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, or grandfathers who served; and as such, are from families who are more likely to have guns....

My grandfathers both served and my uncle was killed in 1969 in Quang Tri. My dad however quite a democrat. Hes democrat yet enjoys shooting his guns now and then. I dont think its a gun culture as it is the overall culture. The regions you described also a correllation between being conservative and dems meeting recruiting numbers.

zachjonesishome
03-05-2013, 06:56 PM
Absolutely! My father was a conservative Democrat, all 4 sons were Democrats. I became a Republican in 1980 after a few classes in economics, accounting and banking and getting a bit older. After law school 83-86, I realized that it's more about liberty than anything else. I made comments in the article supporting the idea that conservative ethnic groups and democrats contribute to the recruiting effort.

....I would suggest a substantial majority of those from every ethnic group serving likely come from families that have guns in their households. ...

... I think it is safe to assume that prior military service (http://www.academia.edu/1123923/Military_Enlistment_and_Family_Dynamics_Youth_and_ Parental_Perspectives) of family members is a common trait of today’s soldier (by their fruit you will recognize them (http://bible.cc/matthew/7-16.htm)).

Additionally, military families are much more likely to have guns (http://www.jabfm.org/content/20/4/385.abstract) in their households than civilian families; and thus it stands to reason, that families who have family members who have served are also more likely to have guns. ...

...I’m not knocking the recruits from the above states that failed to provide their ‘fair share’ of recruits. I honor them, like I do all veterans. It’s not their fault where they live. But how much do you want to bet these recruits from slacker states overwhelming came from the families having guns in their households...

Meaning Democrats, Republicans and Independents living in mostly blue/liberal states with low gun ownership. That's why the southern states provide more that their 'fair share' of recruits - it's a more gun friendly culture. I believe there are more registered Dems in the South but many vote GOP because they share a lot of overall cultural values. Evidently the gun ownership of Dems has been decreasing for 40 years (I think from 40% to around 20% now). The PC crowd is being successful in painting gun activity and ownership with the vilified term 'conservative'. I suppose that gun culture is a subset of the overall culture today because the PC crowd says so. I hope we can reverse that trend and have it seen as a separate independent culture. Take care.

MACHINE666
03-05-2013, 07:39 PM
Obama will be very clever when he implements a program to take away the guns from all Americans...it will go something like this:

"My fellow Americans, if you continue to wish recieving your welfare benefits, if you wish to continue recieving food stamps, then turn in your firearms to the nearest federal collection point in your city".

And overnight America will become disarmed.

:D :D :D :D :D :D

zachjonesishome
03-05-2013, 07:43 PM
Obama will be very clever when he implements a program to take away the guns from all Americans...it will go something like this:

"My fellow Americans, if you continue to wish recieving your welfare benefits, if you wish to continue recieving food stamps, then turn in your firearms to the nearest federal collection point in your city".

And overnight America will become disarmed.

:D :D :D :D :D :D

I laughed out loud. He would get a bunch of guns that way. Dependency is a powerful tool. Sad but true.

Greg
03-05-2013, 07:46 PM
And for all of you conspiracy nutjobs out there, dont forget that DHS is purchasing all of the ammo on Obama's orders so that after he declares martial law (in the middle of a sequestration mind you) George Soros will fund a secret U.N. Army that will invade the U.S. with the help of the Illuminati. After the entire country has been put to sleep with chemtrails, they will confiscate everyone's guns and bibles and put the entire population in Bilderberg sponsored FEMA camps for 666 microchipping ROFL!!!!

George...George Norry? Is that you?

Steve45213
03-05-2013, 08:00 PM
Which President Obama are you referring to? Even casual observers will note he is actually OK with guns, but just not with assault weapons, hi-capacity magazines, and armor-piercing bullets being sold to civilians. Supporting reasonable gun control laws DOES NOT mean confiscating your single-shot hunting rifle. Now, if you happen to be hunting with an automatic combat weapon, I really don't have a problem with it being confiscated.

JD2780
03-05-2013, 08:05 PM
Obama will be very clever when he implements a program to take away the guns from all Americans...it will go something like this:

"My fellow Americans, if you continue to wish recieving your welfare benefits, if you wish to continue recieving food stamps, then turn in your firearms to the nearest federal collection point in your city".

And overnight America will become disarmed.

:D :D :D :D :D :D

hehe, only self respecting citizens will continue to have them.

JD2780
03-05-2013, 08:07 PM
Which President Obama are you referring to? Even casual observers will note he is actually OK with guns, but just not with assault weapons, hi-capacity magazines, and armor-piercing bullets being sold to civilians. Supporting reasonable gun control laws DOES NOT mean confiscating your single-shot hunting rifle. Now, if you happen to be hunting with an automatic combat weapon, I really don't have a problem with it being confiscated.

What about my semi-automatic remington 1100 12 guage? Set up with a goose barrel, full choke. It semi auto and not an assault rifle, yet people are worried about all these semi-auto weapons

zachjonesishome
03-05-2013, 08:42 PM
Which President Obama are you referring to? Even casual observers will note he is actually OK with guns, but just not with assault weapons, hi-capacity magazines, and armor-piercing bullets being sold to civilians. Supporting reasonable gun control laws DOES NOT mean confiscating your single-shot hunting rifle. Now, if you happen to be hunting with an automatic combat weapon, I really don't have a problem with it being confiscated.

Sorry, but you are wrong about that. Obama will use incremental gun control until the 2nd Amendment is gutted.
Flashback—Obama, Circa 1990s: 'I Don't Believe People Should Be Able to Own Guns' (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/18/Barack-Obama-I-Don-t-Believe-People-Should-Be-Able-Own-Guns)
...
When the two met, Lott's reputation on guns preceded him, and Lott claims Obama said, "I don't believe people should be able to own guns."
Read that again, and let it soak in; Barack Obama reportedly said, "I don't think people should be able to own guns." In my correspondence with Lott, he stood by his story.....

TJMAC77SP
03-05-2013, 08:49 PM
Which President Obama are you referring to? Even casual observers will note he is actually OK with guns, but just not with assault weapons, hi-capacity magazines, and armor-piercing bullets being sold to civilians. Supporting reasonable gun control laws DOES NOT mean confiscating your single-shot hunting rifle. Now, if you happen to be hunting with an automatic combat weapon, I really don't have a problem with it being confiscated.

Ok, good points except you are sipped a little Kool Aid.

The Obama position (with loud verbal support from many others) is that the ban on assault weapons will go a long way to keep the shooting in CT from happening again. More specifically it will help 'keep our children safer". That is blatant and shameful trading on their deaths because it will do no such thing. If Lanza had gone in with two 9 mm pistols and 200 rounds of ammunition (something no ban proposed would stop) we would still be talking about a mass shooting. Hasan had one handgun and lots of ammo. Emotionalism at its worst.

There is already a ban on 'automatic combat weapon(s)'. Well more specifically the sale of them is very restricted and even then very hard to obtain. Again, the proposed bans will do nothing to change that. I know of no case of an active shooter (outside of robberies) using automatic weapons.

Personally I don’t see the neither need nor logic of owning an assault weapon (I use the political definition and not the military definition) for hunting and think it is disingenuous to claim it is a viable hunting weapon. There some arguments to be made in favor (hog hunting for one) but all that aside it is irrelevant to the argument presented. The right to own guns should only be restricted for valid and obvious reasons. The anti-gun movement is running roughshod over the graves of these young children and manipulating the grieving parents into promoting a false result.

You really want to ‘lessen the danger to our children’; prevent other Newtown shootings….you have to ban ALL guns and strengthen mental health laws making it mandatory for medical providers AND family members, AND citizens in general to report ANY person who presents ideation that they may hurt others. Good luck with that.

zachjonesishome
03-05-2013, 08:51 PM
Which President Obama are you referring to? Even casual observers will note he is actually OK with guns, but just not with assault weapons, hi-capacity magazines, and armor-piercing bullets being sold to civilians. Supporting reasonable gun control laws DOES NOT mean confiscating your single-shot hunting rifle. Now, if you happen to be hunting with an automatic combat weapon, I really don't have a problem with it being confiscated.

How about having an AR-15 to defend against a home invasion?

zachjonesishome
03-05-2013, 08:57 PM
Ok, good points except you are sipped a little Kool Aid.

The Obama position (with loud verbal support from many others) is that the ban on assault weapons will go a long way to keep the shooting in CT from happening again. More specifically it will help 'keep our children safer". That is blatant and shameful trading on their deaths because it will do no such thing. If Lanza had gone in with two 9 mm pistols and 200 rounds of ammunition (something no ban proposed would stop) we would still be talking about a mass shooting. Hasan had one handgun and lots of ammo. Emotionalism at its worst.

There is already a ban on 'automatic combat weapon(s)'. Well more specifically the sale of them is very restricted and even then very hard to obtain. Again, the proposed bans will do nothing to change that. I know of no case of an active shooter (outside of robberies) using automatic weapons.

Personally I don’t see the neither need nor logic of owning an assault weapon (I use the political definition and not the military definition) for hunting and think it is disingenuous to claim it is a viable hunting weapon. There some arguments to be made in favor (hog hunting for one) but all that aside it is irrelevant to the argument presented. The right to own guns should only be restricted for valid and obvious reasons. The anti-gun movement is running roughshod over the graves of these young children and manipulating the grieving parents into promoting a false result.

You really want to ‘lessen the danger to our children’; prevent other Newtown shootings….you have to ban ALL guns and strengthen mental health laws making it mandatory for medical providers AND family members, AND citizens in general to report ANY person who presents ideation that they may hurt others. Good luck with that.

Well said. And as for your comment 'Good Luck With That', I would add For Good Reasons. And evidently, because of the wacked out LA Ex Cop - probably need to band guns from the police too. And then there's that Fort Hood Terrorist, probably need ban guns from the military in the US. Good luck with that.

oldgrndr@
03-05-2013, 09:14 PM
Which President Obama are you referring to? Even casual observers will note he is actually OK with guns, but just not with assault weapons, hi-capacity magazines, and armor-piercing bullets being sold to civilians. Supporting reasonable gun control laws DOES NOT mean confiscating your single-shot hunting rifle. Now, if you happen to be hunting with an automatic combat weapon, I really don't have a problem with it being confiscated.

Even casual observers will note that none of this is original thought, and is most likely copied directly from the anti-gun mantra.

My rifle (that is of the civilian ar-15 subtype) is not an assault weapon (a media coined term). The magazines for it are of STANDARD capacity as that is what the weapon is designed to function with. Civilians cannot buy (legally, as far as I know) AP rounds. All my weapons are single-shot. Some of them function or reload SEMI-automatically, others are bolt-action and I've even got slide/pump-actions. Automatic "combat" weapons are already largely illegal (without SIGNIFICANT paperwork and fees) since 1934 (IIRC) and otherwise EXTREMELY difficult and costly to acquire.
And before you go there, the adjustable stock on my ar-15 (subtype) is so I can secure it more conveniently and so my wife (who can shop in the junior or petite section) can shoot the same rifle as me and both of us are able to properly shoulder the weapon. What about the kids, if we can save just one…??? They shoot it too. ZOMG they’re still alive!?!?!?! That’s because I routinely (aka not just once) teach them how to safely handle every weapon type I can get my hands on. I do not hide the weapons from them; I secure the weapons (big difference). Why do I do this with my kids? I don’t have cats in my house, especially one named Curiosity. We are all safe, yet you support turning us into criminals for possessing them.

zachjonesishome
03-05-2013, 09:14 PM
The recent DOJ Memo (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NRA-Justice-Memo-Guns/2013/02/24/id/491684) indicates most of what's being proposed would do little and could make things worse.

...
The memo says requiring background checks for more gun purchases could help, but also could lead to more illicit weapons sales. It says banning assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines produced in the future but exempting those already owned by the public, as Obama has proposed, would have limited impact because people now own so many of those items.

It also says that even total elimination of assault weapons would have little overall effect on gun killings because assault weapons account for a limited proportion of those crimes.

The nine-page document says the success of universal background checks would depend in part on "requiring gun registration," and says gun buybacks would not be effective "unless massive and coupled with a ban."...

Pullinteeth
03-06-2013, 04:34 PM
Which President Obama are you referring to? Even casual observers will note he is actually OK with guns, but just not with assault weapons, hi-capacity magazines, and armor-piercing bullets being sold to civilians. Supporting reasonable gun control laws DOES NOT mean confiscating your single-shot hunting rifle. Now, if you happen to be hunting with an automatic combat weapon, I really don't have a problem with it being confiscated.

So you are fine with a semi-auto assault rifle? That is good to hear. It is actually harder to hunt with a fully-auto anyway.


How about having an AR-15 to defend against a home invasion?

He only referred to using it for hunting so I am sure having one for home defense would be fine....

Banned
03-06-2013, 04:40 PM
This is just a publicity stunt. Obama, IMHO, is making this grand show of cracking down on guns because of the political fallout over the school shooting.

Guns are WAAAYY to useful to the system to be banned. Morons with guns are a huge asset to the government. Think about it. Think of all of the influential people in modern American history who could have been a threat to the establishment - JFK, Martin Luther King, John Lennon, Malcom X... who were killed.

None of those guys I just listed were taken out by the government - no CIA hit teams, nothing like that... each and every one of those guys was killed by some idiot with a weapon - serious threats to government power are systematically eliminated by good citizens exercising their second amendment rights.

And THAT is why no serious effort will be made to confiscate our guns.

USAF-Controller
03-07-2013, 05:35 AM
To answer the OP's question, it's simple: If the 2nd amendment was nullified or changed, I would comply with the order to confiscate guns. If it was still in place, I would be forced to refuse.

Banned
03-07-2013, 05:13 PM
To answer the OP's question, it's simple: If the 2nd amendment was nullified or changed, I would comply with the order to confiscate guns. If it was still in place, I would be forced to refuse.

No one is taking our guns away. It's gonna be okay.

Pullinteeth
03-07-2013, 07:31 PM
Apparently, gun laws (in the U.S.) are effective in lowering the gun related suicide rate but not gun related homicide rates...

When compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile of states that had the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate and a lower firearm homicide rate, Fleegler said. The absolute difference in the suicide rates was 6.25 deaths per 100,000; in the homicide rates it was 0.40 deaths per 100,000.

Not sure that was the intent of firearms laws since if someone is really suicidal, not having a gun probably won't stop 'em...

Of course they also admit that they didn't consider what the laws actually were or if they were enforced and that their data is essentially worthless;

He added that the list of laws takes no account of differences between states in the specifics of laws and takes no account of how hard states worked to enforce those laws.
The biggest difficulty, Wintemute continued, is that almost all of the associations between more laws and fewer deaths disappeared when the investigators took into account the prevalence of gun ownership in each state.
He added, "We really don't know what to do with the results. We cannot say that these laws -- individually or in aggregate -- drive firearm death rates up or down."
He predicted that policy makers would not be able to draw useful conclusions from the work. "The conclusion that I draw is we need to get this question answered right."

Makes for a good headline though;

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/us/guns-laws-mortality/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

Banned
03-07-2013, 08:10 PM
And in other news, a PTSD veteran killed 25 school children using combatives. Clearly, taking guns off the streets doesn't reduce violence.

Pullinteeth
03-07-2013, 08:58 PM
And in other news, a PTSD veteran killed 25 school children using combatives. Clearly, taking guns off the streets doesn't reduce violence.

Ummm...you are of course aware that they merely counted the gun laws right? You are of course aware that Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law" is considered a gun law right? Vermont's law permitting a 16 year old to purchase a handgun=gun law. AZ law permitting automatic weapons=gun law. CO law authorizing deadly force against armed or unarmed intruders? Gun law...and on....and on....and on....

Banned
03-07-2013, 09:22 PM
Ummm...you are of course aware that they merely counted the gun laws right? You are of course aware that Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law" is considered a gun law right? Vermont's law permitting a 16 year old to purchase a handgun=gun law. AZ law permitting automatic weapons=gun law. CO law authorizing deadly force against armed or unarmed intruders? Gun law...and on....and on....and on....

I agree. Effective gun control has to be nationwide, otherwise its pointless if I can simply drive down the street to a different state and have completely different standards.

jconners [Stolen Valor]
03-08-2013, 06:05 PM
The US military would not be the most appropriate entity to enforce gun seizures in the US and therefore it will not be used in that capacity. The military is ill suited to support any police type actions...whether foreign or domestic.

JD2780
03-08-2013, 08:07 PM
The US military would not be the most appropriate entity to enforce gun seizures in the US and therefore it will not be used in that capacity. The military is ill suited to support any police type actions...whether foreign or domestic.

For a supposed Ranger you forget the history of warfare. Does Kosovo ring a bell? A peace keeping mission is essentially a Police action. A few other places we sent folks to assist with police actions. The US military is capable of it.

USAF-Controller
03-08-2013, 08:28 PM
No one is taking our guns away. It's gonna be okay.

I never considered it would happen. I was just answering the OP's question. ersonally, I am anti-gun. I would love to see us outlaw ALL guns but I know that will never happen.

sandsjames
03-08-2013, 08:41 PM
I agree. Effective gun control has to be nationwide, otherwise its pointless if I can simply drive down the street to a different state and have completely different standards.

Right. More federal involvement. That ALWAYS works out perfectly. For that matter, why don't we just abolish all state rights?

Banned
03-08-2013, 10:09 PM
Right. More federal involvement. That ALWAYS works out perfectly. For that matter, why don't we just abolish all state rights?

At what point did states' rights become a religion? Since when did the concept overrule all common sense?

sandsjames
03-08-2013, 10:44 PM
Since when did the concept overrule all common sense? Since the inception of the country? The United States were, and are, individual entities that fall under a federal government. In the early years of the country, "United States" was a plural phrase. Then it changed to a singular phrase. The intent, from the start fo the nation, has always been for the states to be individual states. That's why we have state representation. Without the independence of each state the process of representation is moot, as is the case today.

I think this is where your misunderstanding of the term "small government" comes into play. It doesn't just refer to less laws, less agencies, etc. It means that the government is taking place at the local level. Town, city, county, state. Any attempt by the federal government to take away the state rights, in my mind, is similar to an act of war.

Banned
03-08-2013, 11:36 PM
Since the inception of the country? The United States were, and are, individual entities that fall under a federal government. In the early years of the country, "United States" was a plural phrase. Then it changed to a singular phrase. The intent, from the start fo the nation, has always been for the states to be individual states. That's why we have state representation. Without the independence of each state the process of representation is moot, as is the case today.

I think this is where your misunderstanding of the term "small government" comes into play. It doesn't just refer to less laws, less agencies, etc. It means that the government is taking place at the local level. Town, city, county, state. Any attempt by the federal government to take away the state rights, in my mind, is similar to an act of war.

So explain how in the world gun laws that vary from state to state could ever conceivably be enforced - what's keeping me from buying a weapon in, say, Nevada, and then simply tossing it in my truck and driving over to California?

Or do you not even care?

sandsjames
03-09-2013, 12:05 AM
So explain how in the world gun laws that vary from state to state could ever conceivably be enforced - what's keeping me from buying a weapon in, say, Nevada, and then simply tossing it in my truck and driving over to California?



The same thing that happens if someone leaves Nevada with a .07% blood alcohol content (perfectly legal) and enters California where the limit is .05%. The person is now breaking the law. If the person gets pulled over, he cannot use the "Well it was legal in Nevada" argument. The same goes for guns. If the person buys the gun in Nevada and then brings it into California illegally, he is now a criminal. Should the federal government enact legal BAC levels as well?

What if I'm leaving one state doing 70 MPH on the freeway and decide not to slow down when I enter the next state where the limit on the freeway is 65 MPH? I am breaking the law.

What about pot? It's easy for me to cross the border after legally possessing pot in, say, Colorado, and enter a state where it's not legal.

We have to start punishing the criminals, not limiting everybody elses rights because it's "too hard" to enforce the laws that are in place.

Are you suggesting that the federal government enact ALL of the laws in the nation and take it all away from the states, or just a few select ones?

Banned
03-09-2013, 12:26 AM
The same thing that happens if someone leaves Nevada with a .07% blood alcohol content (perfectly legal) and enters California where the limit is .05%...

So an entire industry (arms smuggling) is exactly the same as a drunk driver?

Since you apparently couldn't give a real answer on the first try... how do you propose gun laws that vary from state to state be enforced?

oldgrndr@
03-09-2013, 12:43 AM
So an entire industry (arms smuggling) is exactly the same as a drunk driver?


Already illegal and inconsistently enforced on the federal level, let alone state level.


Since you apparently couldn't give a real answer on the first try... how do you propose gun laws that vary from state to state be enforced?

So the laws we have are ineffective because of state variances and as I say above a lack of consistent application at the Federal level. And your solution is more laws? Before we discuss that... First, tell me how you intend to get criminals to obey the laws you want to create. And remember that the laws we have are either already inconsistently applied or inconsistently/ineffectively enforced.

Banned
03-09-2013, 12:49 AM
Already illegal and inconsistently enforced on the federal level, let alone state level.



So the laws we have are ineffective because of state variances and as I say above a lack of consistent application at the Federal level. And your solution is more laws? Before we discuss that... First, tell me how you intend to get criminals to obey the laws you want to create. And remember that the laws we have are either already inconsistently applied or inconsistently/ineffectively enforced.

Not MORE laws, consistent laws. For example, if its decided that, for example, the maximum capacity for a magazine should be 8 rounds, then have it be 8 rounds across the board.

And the whole "criminals disobey the law" shtick is daft. Many weapons used in crimes were purchased legally. Thousands of legally purchased weapons are stolen, further arming criminals. Gun shows have virtually no oversight or regulation.

Banned
03-09-2013, 12:50 AM
Already illegal and inconsistently enforced on the federal level, let alone state level.



So the laws we have are ineffective because of state variances and as I say above a lack of consistent application at the Federal level. And your solution is more laws? Before we discuss that... First, tell me how you intend to get criminals to obey the laws you want to create. And remember that the laws we have are either already inconsistently applied or inconsistently/ineffectively enforced.

Not MORE laws, consistent laws. For example, if its decided that, for example, the maximum capacity for a magazine should be 8 rounds, then have it be 8 rounds across the board.

And the whole "criminals disobey the law" shtick is daft. Many weapons used in crimes were purchased legally. Thousands of legally purchased weapons are stolen, further arming criminals. Gun shows have virtually no oversight or regulation.

sandsjames
03-09-2013, 12:50 AM
So an entire industry (arms smuggling) is exactly the same as a drunk driver? Yeah, federally enforced gun laws will stop the arms smugglers. Is that what you are implying? And off topic a little, the drug smuggling industry is almost exactly the same as the arms smuggling yet I don't hear you complaining about Washington and Colorado.


Since you apparently couldn't give a real answer on the first try... how do you propose gun laws that vary from state to state be enforced?I gave a real answer. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's not real.

They would be enforced as any other law is enforced. Once law enforcement has probable cause they can pursue an arrest of the criminal. If there is no probable cause, then there is no issue.

Personally, I don't think owning ANYTHING should be illegal, until that item is used for an illegal purpose.

We are creating criminals by instituting blanket laws. I know you agree with this. You've talked about it in relation to drugs. We are taking law abiding citizens and imposing laws on them that criminalize otherwise innocent acts. I KNOW you agree with this, though you'll never admit it.

oldgrndr@
03-09-2013, 06:02 AM
Not MORE laws, consistent laws. For example, if its decided that, for example, the maximum capacity for a magazine should be 8 rounds, then have it be 8 rounds across the board.

So a new law limiting magazine sizes doesn't equal more...??? :confused:


And the whole "criminals disobey the law" shtick is daft. Many weapons used in crimes were purchased legally.

Shtick... daft... Ok how many legally purchased weapons were used in crimes? You can't say thousands, show me actual stats with a link. I'm gonna show you some stats in a bit.


Thousands of legally purchased weapons are stolen, further arming criminals.

Yep stolen weapons arm criminals; your command of the obvious is astounding. :rolleyes: How is that my fault?! And why should I be subject to a new law because of it?


Gun shows have virtually no oversight or regulation.

Now who is spouting shtick? You must be daft! Howz about some reality...? No... Too bad. Private sales of firearms between your neighbor on your left and the schmoe across the street is not subject to a NICS background check. Yes, these two just might meet up at a gun show and agree to a sale. And, yes, maybe that should be subject to a NICS check, maybe not. But that's not what we're talking about here. However where you continue to incorrectly spout diatribe is that MOST vendors at gun shows do in fact have a FFL to vend firearms as a business and are required to do a NICS check on every transfer as a result of a sale. I've spoken to several FFL holders who will not sell their personal firearms without also doing a NICS even though they wouldn't need to as a private sale.

Now to intercept your next suggestion (straight out of the anti-gun playbook)... mandated registration. Also a new law BTW...
Have you ever looked into what actually happens when someone fills out a NICS form to buy a gun? The vendor calls right then and there and gives the Feds your name and address and other pertinent info that you put on the form. The Feds (while they are checking to see if you've been a bad boy) provide that retailer a unique transaction ID number that they are required to document on the form. The Feds also note the ID number in their system. If you've played nice you can walk out with the gun. Unless you live someplace like California and have to wait for days. What happens to the form now...? You don't know do you. The retailer (by law) keeps it on file for 20 years (IIRC) with your name, address, firearm purchased and that unique transaction ID number. If you don't play nice and can't leave with it, the retailer still keeps the form marked as rejected but only for 5 years (IIRC). *EDIT* The Feds can take their list of unique ID numbers sort it by FFL holder and pop in for a visit to the FFL. If every single piece of paper is not in perfect order it is bad juju for that FFL holder. Wait a minute that sounds like registration is already in place. And you want yet another law to mandate more. Aren't you the small government, less laws and more liberty guy?

But, but guns are evil...
Let's look at some actual stats shall we.

FBI crime stats
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1
Table 1: In 1992 the violent crime was 757.7 (per 100K). In 2011 it was 386.3. Note almost half! The murder rate was 9.3 in 1992 and 4.7 in 2011. Ever so slightly above half. And this happened while the population increases by 56 MILLION people.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11
Table 11: There were 12,664 murders, 8583 by guns (all types), 6220 by handguns, 323 by rifle (note that this is all kinds of rifles), 356 by shotgun, and 1864 of type not stated. Of note 1694 were killed by knives, about 5 times more then by rifles! And 496 by blunt objects. Louisville Sluggers and Craftsman hammers took out more people then AR-15s! These number do not included justifiable homicides (both by law enforcement and civilians).

Now we know that the last gun ban was 1994 thru 2004... hrm... looking at Table 1 the numbers were indeed going down during that time. However look at the rate of progression, or rather decline in this case. Why it's almost linear, no sharp decline in 1994 or 1995. A slight resurgence in 2005, 2006 and 2007. But the Decline is back on track in 2008 and lower then 2004. Was the uptick as a result of the ban expiring??? I don't know. It's definitely coincidental; but coincidence is not proof of causation.

Before you can declare that I don't "need" an AR-15 or a STANDARD capacity magazine. You must prove that firearm is in fact responsible and not the person using it!

Banned
03-10-2013, 01:55 AM
So a new law limiting magazine sizes doesn't equal more...??? :confused:

Uh, no genius - it doesn't. Its simply a matter of STANDARDIZING magazine capacity laws.


Shtick... daft... Ok how many legally purchased weapons were used in crimes? You can't say thousands, show me actual stats with a link. I'm gonna show you some stats in a bit.

Okay really? How deep into naivety are we going to get here? Do you think guns used by criminals just sprung up out of thin air?

But here's some stats for you:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/11/AR2010061103259.html


Yep stolen weapons arm criminals; your command of the obvious is astounding. :rolleyes: How is that my fault?! And why should I be subject to a new law because of it?

Yes because god forbid you should be inconvenienced to save lives.


Now who is spouting shtick? You must be daft! Howz about some reality...? No... Too bad. Private sales of firearms between your neighbor on your left and the schmoe across the street is not subject to a NICS background check. Yes, these two just might meet up at a gun show and agree to a sale. And, yes, maybe that should be subject to a NICS check, maybe not. But that's not what we're talking about here. However where you continue to incorrectly spout diatribe is that MOST vendors at gun shows do in fact have a FFL to vend firearms as a business and are required to do a NICS check on every transfer as a result of a sale. I've spoken to several FFL holders who will not sell their personal firearms without also doing a NICS even though they wouldn't need to as a private sale.

Depends on the state. In California for example, ANY gun sale is required to be done at an FFL, even between two private parties.

Hence MAYBE we should standardize the process, yes?


Now to intercept your next suggestion (straight out of the anti-gun playbook)... mandated registration. Also a new law BTW...
Have you ever looked into what actually happens when someone fills out a NICS form to buy a gun? The vendor calls right then and there and gives the Feds your name and address and other pertinent info that you put on the form. The Feds (while they are checking to see if you've been a bad boy) provide that retailer a unique transaction ID number that they are required to document on the form. The Feds also note the ID number in their system. If you've played nice you can walk out with the gun. Unless you live someplace like California and have to wait for days. What happens to the form now...? You don't know do you. The retailer (by law) keeps it on file for 20 years (IIRC) with your name, address, firearm purchased and that unique transaction ID number. If you don't play nice and can't leave with it, the retailer still keeps the form marked as rejected but only for 5 years (IIRC). *EDIT* The Feds can take their list of unique ID numbers sort it by FFL holder and pop in for a visit to the FFL. If every single piece of paper is not in perfect order it is bad juju for that FFL holder. Wait a minute that sounds like registration is already in place. And you want yet another law to mandate more. Aren't you the small government, less laws and more liberty guy?

But, but guns are evil...
Let's look at some actual stats shall we.

FBI crime stats
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1
Table 1: In 1992 the violent crime was 757.7 (per 100K). In 2011 it was 386.3. Note almost half! The murder rate was 9.3 in 1992 and 4.7 in 2011. Ever so slightly above half. And this happened while the population increases by 56 MILLION people.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11
Table 11: There were 12,664 murders, 8583 by guns (all types), 6220 by handguns, 323 by rifle (note that this is all kinds of rifles), 356 by shotgun, and 1864 of type not stated. Of note 1694 were killed by knives, about 5 times more then by rifles! And 496 by blunt objects. Louisville Sluggers and Craftsman hammers took out more people then AR-15s! These number do not included justifiable homicides (both by law enforcement and civilians).

Now we know that the last gun ban was 1994 thru 2004... hrm... looking at Table 1 the numbers were indeed going down during that time. However look at the rate of progression, or rather decline in this case. Why it's almost linear, no sharp decline in 1994 or 1995. A slight resurgence in 2005, 2006 and 2007. But the Decline is back on track in 2008 and lower then 2004. Was the uptick as a result of the ban expiring??? I don't know. It's definitely coincidental; but coincidence is not proof of causation.

Before you can declare that I don't "need" an AR-15 or a STANDARD capacity magazine. You must prove that firearm is in fact responsible and not the person using it!

So... all the ideological rambling aside... why SHOULDN'T we standardize gun laws?

As for the AR-15 killing people - well buddy, if you're so confident that people kill people, not guns... why do we give soldiers guns?

oldgrndr@
03-10-2013, 07:50 AM
Uh, no genius - it doesn't. Its simply a matter of STANDARDIZING magazine capacity laws.


For those of us that reside in a state that doesn't have a law it's STILL A NEW LAW. But otherwise; standardize... yeah I might be able to get behind that. How about this according to Beretta's web site http://www.berettausa.com/products/90-two-high-capacity-magazine/jm90/ this magazine for the 92FS (AKA M9) cannot be shipped to 5 states. Hrm should we base the standard on the 5 or the other 45? Do we eliminate 5 laws or create 45 new ones?



Okay really? How deep into naivety are we going to get here? Do you think guns used by criminals just sprung up out of thin air?

But here's some stats for you:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/11/AR2010061103259.html


I'll leave the naive thing alone and let critical thinking answer for me. I find it highly humorous that your own links fail significantly to support your argument. Ok, PBS link. I don't know PBS to be biased one way or the other but...


Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,

Well crap there goes your stolen guns arm criminals angle.


Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.

Here's a hint for you Straw Purchasing is ILLEGAL. If an FFL holder suspects that this is occurring they are required to refuse the sale AND report the incident (with names) immediately. If they don't their own standing as an FFL is in jeopardy. BTW, no actual stat was found with this in the article.


The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers.

So... we have another corrupt FFL and no actual stat in the article.


Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts. These illegal dealers turn around and sell these illegally on the street. An additional way criminals gain access to guns is family and friends, either through sales, theft or as gifts.

Again, no actual stat was found. Criminals selling to/arming other criminals... I've got an idea let's make a bunch of new laws regulating law abiding civilian purchasers/owners!!! YEAH!! That will work... :rolleyes:


with 13 percent of all arrestees interviewed admitting that they had stolen a gun. However a key finding is that "the illegal market is the most likely source" for these people to obtain a gun. "In fact, more than half the arrestees say it is easy to obtain guns illegally

Please, please... PLEASE! Tell me what is that magic number of laws that I am forced to put up with as a law-abiding citizen that will work to prevent the ease with which this happens?


ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes.

So less than 10% of dealers shit the bed and you want the rest of us to wear diapers.


"Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market."

Oh my sweet baby jebus!!! Ok... serious face. Look new laws COULD, JUST MIGHT, MAY BE... the answer. But I still don't see that answer being further limits on someone like me that plays by the rules!


Ok, now the Washington Post. I'll be fair and say that I don't trust them. I've read a few of their pieces that are fair discussions of both sides of this issue. However, far too many articles show them as mouth pieces for the Anti-gun movement that you're caught up in.


If that's the case, why do we give people guns when they go to war? Why not just send the people?"

You were all high and mighty with your closing statement but looky what I found.

However I'll play along. Because the other guys have guns! Truthfully, it makes us more efficient killers. BUT, isn't the better question why we give (a majority of) them a weapon that fires a .223/5.56 round? I mean it is such a high power and dangerous round isn't it? That is the mainstream media anti-gun message anyways. So I've watched (more than) a few history channel type shows (both in/from the U.S. as well as the BBC while I was in the U.K.) that laid out the chronology of gun development. So, the predecessor to the .223 was the .308/7.62x51 and/or the 30-06/7.62x54. Those are some pretty effective rounds. They are the most popular hunting cartridges in the United States. Why did the DoD change...? Basically it was too good! Too powerful, too devastating, had too much range and weighed to much for the soldiers to routinely carry enough. So they DOWNGRADED to the .223. Because it was easier to shoot, more could be carried and it didn't cause to grievous a wound.

Fast forward a couple decades and what I learned in CAST. The .223 doesn't reliably drop our adversaries so we were trained to double-tap the targets.

WAIT... WHAT!?!?! Oh never mind... moving on.


Illinois law requires that all gun owners have a state ID card and that transactions be recorded, allowing police to potentially link a gun used in a crime to its owner.

Yeah... "potentially." Not good enough. To counter the why not. Because the records are already there! Go back and read what I said about those NICS checks with the FFL's. Furthermore this heavy of a registration protocol can only lead to confiscation. STOP! Before you try to say confiscation won't/can't happen in the U.S. It already did! New Orleans and the surrounding area post hurricane Katrina. And Senator Feinstein stated blatantly in a 1995 interview on 60 Minutes that she wanted to take them as part of the 1994 ban. I've seen nothing from her to indicate she's given up that idea.


Data from 2008 in Chicago show that 81 percent of homicides were committed with guns and that 91 percent of homicide offenders had a prior arrest record.

Chicago... really that's where the source data is from!?! :rofl Chicago already banned guns! Yet the guns are still getting there. Maybe it has something to do with
"Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market." 91% of offenders had priors... Please, please... PLEASE! Tell me what is that magic number of laws that I am forced to put up with as a law-abiding citizen that will work to prevent the ease with which this happens?



Yes because god forbid you should be inconvenienced to save lives.


JEBUS, really!?! The emotional argument of "if it saves just one we have to." You have yet to put forth ANYTHING that even hints that it would. There's a quote oft attributed to Benjamin Franklin that floats around in several variations.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. Something that would work... Education! Schools use to have the Eddie the Eagle program of "Stop! Don't touch... blah, blah blah" It doesn't work. All it does it teach kids and eventually adults to fear guns. Rather teach everybody that we can get our hands on 3 basic rules:
1. Always treat it as loaded.
2. Never point at anything you aren't ready to kill/destroy.
3. Never touch the trigger until ready to kill/destroy.

Many pro-gunners would argue that there are more rules. But I hold fast that if you know and obey these then people are safe. Proof well it starts with my family (wife, kids, and even parents who are pacifists). Small potatoes, but it HAS SAVED LIVES. Look at that more than 1 even.


Our research suggests that as many as 500,000 guns are stolen each year in the United States, going directly into the hands of people who are, by definition, criminals.

Source/math fail! The FBI http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime cites 1,200,000 violent crimes in 2011. You already established that 10-15% of stolen guns are subsequently in crimes. So even in we assume the full 15% that's 180,000 and still less than 1/3 the purported 500,000.


It costs more and takes more time to get guns in the underground market
STOP THE PRESSES; there's a genius at the Washington Post! Things are more expensive and may take longer to get off the black market. The authors command of the obvious is also astounding. Still doesn't convince me that more laws are going to change things enough to warrant me... no... US... ALL OF US... giving up that freedom and liberty.



Depends on the state. In California for example, ANY gun sale is required to be done at an FFL, even between two private parties.

Hence MAYBE we should standardize the process, yes?


As I said. Maybe... But most assuredly not as part of all the other tripe that you want piled on.



So... all the ideological rambling aside... why SHOULDN'T we standardize gun laws?

As for the AR-15 killing people - well buddy, if you're so confident that people kill people, not guns... why do we give soldiers guns?

Standardize... again. No other weak emotional arguments? Let's see there's what 39? http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ten-more-states-allow-concealed-carry-permits-within-last-10-years 39 states allow concealed carry with a permit now. And 4 require no permit to carry. Leaving 7 that don't allow concealed carry. http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html Oh yeah there's those 5 states that limit magazine capacities. What else do you propose to standardize?

Did you intend to shoot your own argument in the foot like that or was it coincidence that you used an entire standard capacity 15 round mag in your M9?

Banned
03-10-2013, 06:02 PM
For those of us that reside in a state that doesn't have a law it's STILL A NEW LAW. But otherwise; standardize... yeah I might be able to get behind that. How about this according to Beretta's web site http://www.berettausa.com/products/90-two-high-capacity-magazine/jm90/ this magazine for the 92FS (AKA M9) cannot be shipped to 5 states. Hrm should we base the standard on the 5 or the other 45? Do we eliminate 5 laws or create 45 new ones?

You're still not wrapping your head around this concept, are you? You don't need "45 new laws" - we just need 1 federal law.


I'll leave the naive thing alone and let critical thinking answer for me. I find it highly humorous that your own links fail significantly to support your argument. Ok, PBS link. I don't know PBS to be biased one way or the other but...

So you're either a liar, or just bad at reading comprehension. I don't think you're a liar, so I'll go with bad reading comprehension.


Well crap there goes your stolen guns arm criminals angle.

10 to 15%. Were you on crack when you wrote this?


Here's a hint for you Straw Purchasing is ILLEGAL. If an FFL holder suspects that this is occurring they are required to refuse the sale AND report the incident (with names) immediately. If they don't their own standing as an FFL is in jeopardy. BTW, no actual stat was found with this in the article.

Again - you are surprisingly bad at understanding simple concepts. The gun was bought legally - by a valid buyer through a legal dealer. Which was my point.

As an example - I can legally buy a case of beer or a pack of cigs. What is illegal is for me to then give that item to a minor. So to argue that its "already illegal" is - like most of the rest of your argument - dumb. All the i's were dotted and the t's crossed.

Are you even going to attempt to refute my argument that most guns used in crimes were at some point purchased legally? Not by the looks of things.


So... we have another corrupt FFL and no actual stat in the article.

You're literally stumbling over stats every other paragraph. But sure bro, whatever you say.


Again, no actual stat was found. Criminals selling to/arming other criminals... I've got an idea let's make a bunch of new laws regulating law abiding civilian purchasers/owners!!! YEAH!! That will work... :rolleyes:

Or maybe - GASP - start holding FFL's accountable.


Please, please... PLEASE! Tell me what is that magic number of laws that I am forced to put up with as a law-abiding citizen that will work to prevent the ease with which this happens?

However many it takes. However much inconvenience it takes. It doesn't bother me - because I actually give a shit about human life.


So less then 10% of dealers shit the bed and you want the rest of us to wear diapers.

lol wow really - I think I actually lost a few IQ points reading this post. You think 10% of dealers being criminals is LOW? On what planet is that? That's like saying "only 10% of Soldiers are war criminals".


Oh my sweet baby jebus!!! Ok... serious face. Look new laws COULD, JUST MIGHT, MAY BE... the answer. But I still don't see that answer being further limits on someone like me that plays by the rules!

Ok, now the Washington Post. I'll be fair and say that I don't trust them. I've read a few of their pieces that are fair discussions of both sides of this issue. However, far too many articles show them as mouth pieces for the Anti-gun movement that you're caught up in.

Wow really - did you just accuse the Washington Post - a notorious Right Wing rag - of being "anti-gun"? The little credibility you had left just went out the window.


You were all high and mighty with your closing statement but looky what I found.

However I'll play along. Because the other guys have guns! Truthfully, it makes us more efficient killers. BUT, isn't the better question why we give (a majority of) them a weapon that fires a .223/5.56 round? I mean it is such a high power and dangerous round isn't it? That is the mainstream media anti-gun message anyways. So I've watched (more than) a few history channel type shows (both in/from the U.S. as well as the BBC while I was in the U.K.) that laid out the chronology of gun development. So, the predecessor to the .223 was the .308/7.62x51 and/or the 30-06/7.62x54. Those are some pretty effective rounds. They are the most popular hunting cartridges in the United States. Why did the DoD change...? Basically it was too good! Too powerful, too devastating, had too much range and weighed to much for the soldiers to routinely carry enough. So they DOWNGRADED to the .223. Because it was easier to shoot, more could be carried and it didn't cause to grievous a wound.

Fast forward a couple decades and what I learned in CAST. The .223 doesn't reliable drop our adversaries so we were trained to double-tap the targets.

If you think 556 isn't "damaging", then clearly you've never seen a tumbler. The 556 doesn't reliably drop a target has NOTHING to do with it being a weak round - against an unarmored target it simply passes through - in one end, out the other, so to speak.

As for double taps - again - NOTHING to do with it being a weak round. Just a matter of redundancy. Ammo is cheap, lives are expensive. Put least two rounds into each person, and if all the targets are down, go ahead and pump a few more into each, just to be sure.


WAIT... WHAT!?!?! Oh never mind... moving on.

Was this an attempt at humor?


Yeah... "potentially." Not good enough. To counter the why not. Because the records are already there! Go back and read what I said about those NICS checks with the FFL's. Furthermore this heavy of a registration protocol can only lead to confiscation. STOP! Before you try to say confiscation won't/can't happen in the U.S. It already did! New Orleans and the surrounding area post hurricane Katrina. And Senator Feinstein stated blatantly in a 1995 interview on 60 Minutes that she wanted to take them as part of the 1994 ban. I've seen nothing from her to indicate she's given up that idea.

Jesus dude, put away the tin foil hat.


Chicago... really that's where the source data is from!?! :rofl Chicago already banned guns! Yet the guns are still getting there. Maybe it has something to do with 91% of offenders had priors... Please, please... PLEASE! Tell me what is that magic number of laws that I am forced to put up with as a law-abiding citizen that will work to prevent the ease with which this happens?

One city... in an ocean of guns. So are you saying that you - GASP - agree with me that we should standardize gun laws across the board?


JEBUS, really!?! The emotional argument of "if it saves just one we have to." You have yet to put forth ANYTHING that even hints that it would. There's a quote oft attributed to Benjamin Franklin that floats around in several variations. Something that would work... Education! Schools use to have the Eddie the Eagle program of "Stop! Don't touch... blah, blah blah" It doesn't work. All it does it teach kids and eventually adults to fear guns. Rather teach everybody that we can get our hands on 3 basic rules:
1. Always treat it as loaded.
2. Never point at anything you aren't ready to kill/destroy.
3. Never touch the trigger until ready to kill/destroy.

...you're missing a weapon safety rule. Not quite a jedi master yet there buddy.


Many pro-gunners would argue that there are more rules. But I hold fast that if you know and obey these then people are safe. Proof well it starts with my family (wife, kids, and even parents who are pacifists). Small potatoes, but it HAS SAVED LIVES. Look at that more than 1 even.

...So why is it that people have to go through school and testing to drive a car, but not to carry and shoot a weapon? Why?


Source/math fail! The FBI http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime cites 1,200,000 violent crimes in 2011. You already established that 10-15% of stolen guns are subsequently in crimes. So even in we assume the full 15% that's 180,000 and still less than 1/3 the purported 500,000.

Good god man, are you THAT bad at reading comprehension? Go back and read it again. Two different stats. "who are by definition criminals" - not connected to the number actually used in violent crimes. Its hilarious when someone thinks he's so smart, and then ends up failing himself.


STOP THE PRESSES; there's a genius at the Washington Post! Still doesn't convince me that more laws are going to change things enough to warrant me... no... US... ALL OF US... giving up that freedom and liberty.

As I said. Maybe... But most assuredly not as part of all the other tripe that you want piled on.

Standardize... again. No other weak emotional arguments? Lets see there's what 6? 6 states that don't allow concealed carry now. Oh yeah there's those 5 states that limit magazine capacities. What else do you propose to standardize?

Did you intend to shoot your own argument in the foot like that or was it coincidence that you used a standard capacity 15 round mag in your M9?

Sure thing buddy. But like I've said before, there is ZERO chance of the big bad government taking away your guns. Useful idiots with guns are WAY to useful. Morons with guns have killed so many public leaders who could have actually caused progress in the country.

oldgrndr@
03-10-2013, 08:15 PM
You're still not wrapping your head around this concept, are you? You don't need "45 new laws" - we just need 1 federal law.
Your right on this one I don't get it. I don't think we need to limit magazine capacity. It's a warm-fuzzy measure that does nothing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa-joxi63xs There are far too many magazines out there in circulation for it to ever have a real effect.



10 to 15%. Were you on crack when you wrote this?

Dude, it was a quote from YOUR link! Who needs to check their reading comprehension?



Again - you are surprisingly bad at understanding simple concepts. The gun was bought legally - by a valid buyer through a legal dealer. Which was my point.

Yes you are. You (and the link used) are describing an enforcement/prosecution issue with the FFL holders. Yet you persist that the solution is restricting all consumers.



As an example - I can legally buy a case of beer or a pack of cigs. What is illegal is for me to then give that item to a minor. So to argue that its "already illegal" is - like most of the rest of your argument - dumb. All the i's were dotted and the t's crossed.

Are you even going to attempt to refute my argument that most guns used in crimes were at some point purchased legally? Not by the looks of things.

I refuted your blanket application of a vague term, "most." I also refuted that the articles you cited also did not quantify to ANY degree, instead using the same vague term you did.



Or maybe - GASP - start holding FFL's accountable.

GENIUS! It took you that long to figure it out?



However many it takes. However much inconvenience it takes. It doesn't bother me

BAD policy for the sake of bad policy. Ok then I get to add mine too. You don't need internet; turn it off. Cyber bullying; think of how many lives it will save. You don't need a smart phone. Texting and driving; think of how many lives it will save. Do you have more than one car? Too bad don't need it; too much traffic/congestion. Think of how much less smog that will produce. BTW get rid of that remaining car and get a Prius. That will save the planet and all the lives on it! Drinking and driving still happens; re-enact prohibition. It worked so well the first time. We don't need planes; ground them all. Think of how many lives it will save. Ridiculousness for the sake of it after all.



because I actually give a shit about human life.

Nice, baseless emotional, personal attack... you assume much; well done.



lol wow really - I think I actually lost a few IQ points reading this post. You think 10% of dealers being criminals is LOW? On what planet is that? That's like saying "only 10% of Soldiers are war criminals".

Your own link stated 8% of 124000 dealers are responsible. Here let me do the math... 9920 dealers and you're still advocating restricting all 311.6 Million people. Or maybe you should...
Or maybe - GASP - start holding FFL's accountable. Do you have enough points left to comprehend that?



If you think 556 isn't "damaging", then clearly you've never seen a tumbler. The 556 doesn't reliably drop a target has NOTHING to do with it being a weak round - against an unarmored target it simply passes through - in one end, out the other, so to speak.

As for double taps - again - NOTHING to do with it being a weak round. Just a matter of redundancy. Ammo is cheap, lives are expensive. Put least two rounds into each person, and if all the targets are down, go ahead and pump a few more into each, just to be sure.



Was this an attempt at humor?

What I was getting at is that there are far more effective rounds available to the populace. Yet the .223 is vilified as a high power killer part and parcel of the 'evil assault rifle' argument. You should try that reading comprehension thing.



Jesus dude, put away the tin foil hat.

So it HAS happened to OUR people. SOME of OUR people want it to happen to ALL of US and I'm wrong for being opposed to something that lays the groundwork for it to happen!? Wow, just wow...



One city... in an ocean of guns. So are you saying that you - GASP - agree with me that we should standardize gun laws across the board?

I already said... MAYBE. However there must first be a clear understanding of what is already out there. Followed by a proper analysis of what actually works against what sounds good as a feel-good fuzzy. You still advocate that we must act now regardless of what is already there.



...you're missing a weapon safety rule. Not quite a jedi master yet there buddy.

Not a Jedi, the whole Skywalker family is a bunch of whiners. Except for the mother. But, I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. Do tell... And I can clearly define how it fits into those 3.



...So why is it that people have to go through school and testing to drive a car, but not to carry and shoot a weapon? Why?

I never said they shouldn't. This MIGHT be a valid control. I would be willing to debate the merits of this as well as the pitfalls. However, you pulled this out of your hat because your position has crumbled.



Good god man, are you THAT bad at reading comprehension? Go back and read it again. Two different stats. "who are by definition criminals" - not connected to the number actually used in violent crimes. Its hilarious when someone thinks he's so smart, and then ends up failing himself.

Your WP article asserted that 500K are stolen and subsequently arm criminals. Your PBS link stated that only 10-15% of stolen guns are actually used in subsequent crimes. My FBI link stated 1.2 Million violent crimes in 2011. 15% of 1.2M is 180K. 180K does not equal 500K; one of these stats is wrong. Or do you contend that a crime involving a gun in the hands of the offender is not violent?



Sure thing buddy. But like I've said before, there is ZERO chance of the big bad government taking away your guns. Useful idiots with guns are WAY to useful. Morons with guns have killed so many public leaders who could have actually caused progress in the country.

Zero chance or zero chance of success? Maybe I am wearing a tinfoil hat on this one, but I see the attempt as a real possibility. And it would be disastrous for EVERYONE involved. I DO NOT relish the idea; but I will not be the one to sit there and say "Gee, didn't see that coming. Whoda thunk it." I also think it's incredibly naive (maybe your word is trusting) to think that there isn't a movement within our own people and leaders that are considering it.

Pullinteeth
03-29-2013, 07:58 PM
Ok, I am against confiscating guns but this is equally absurd...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/28/plan-to-hand-out-free-shotguns-in-tucson-stirs-debate/?test=latestnews

Where are MY fre guns?

oldgrndr@
03-29-2013, 11:18 PM
Ok, I am against confiscating guns but this is equally absurd...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/28/plan-to-hand-out-free-shotguns-in-tucson-stirs-debate/?test=latestnews

Where are MY fre guns?

I know right, I want me a shotgun too! I hope they watched Biden's training videos on how to fire random blasts into the air and shoot through a door at unknown targets. /sarcasm

That should be the anti-gun movements first clue btw... Biden is the designated ring leader to rally the troops.

Banned
03-30-2013, 01:38 AM
Gotta arm the people... to stop all those scary UN paratroopers from taking our guns and forcing us to be homosexuals!

zachjonesishome
05-13-2013, 01:36 PM
Gotta arm the people... to stop all those scary UN paratroopers from taking our guns and forcing us to be homosexuals!

UN paratroopers? I don't think so. However, there is a move to portray gun ownership as some kind of bad thing. It's not. "forcing us to be homosexuals" - whatever, can we keep our guns? Wait - this is my rifle, this is my gun.... Words do matter in the gun control debate and those seeking more gun control are very good at ridicule, etc. Unfortunately (and disgustingly), teachers and school administrators seem to be doing what they can to change how the little ones view guns by targeting them for punishment if they dare to pretend (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/03/first-grader-suspended-for-making-gun-gesture-with-finger-at-maryland-school/)at cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, etc. Is that really the color of your hair? My wife had a streak that color put in her hair a few years ago. Looked good.

New Jersey Democrats caught calling for confiscation of guns on open microphone (http://www.examiner.com/article/new-jersey-democrats-caught-calling-for-confiscation-of-guns-on-open-microphone)

2 Va. 7-year-olds suspended from school for pointing pencils at each other, making gun noises (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-07/local/39072868_1_drive-by-shootings-bethanne-bradshaw-noises)

garhkal
05-13-2013, 08:47 PM
How about having an AR-15 to defend against a home invasion?

Easily doable with a shotgun or pistol.

BUT i do know several friends who own them and only use them at the range..


I agree. Effective gun control has to be nationwide, otherwise its pointless if I can simply drive down the street to a different state and have completely different standards.

Or just buy one off the street.



So the laws we have are ineffective because of state variances and as I say above a lack of consistent application at the Federal level. And your solution is more laws? Before we discuss that... First, tell me how you intend to get criminals to obey the laws you want to create. And remember that the laws we have are either already inconsistently applied or inconsistently/ineffectively enforced.

And already ignored by the criminals.


So less than 10% of dealers shit the bed and you want the rest of us to wear diapers.

Well, it is the military response to stuff.. One or two bad eggs do wrong, punish everyone else.

Now.. all this said.. I don't currently own a gun, but if i did, i would rather NOT be recorded in all sorts of databases.

RobotChicken
05-14-2013, 06:38 AM
:frusty Take my guns....goin' after my rope necks???? :rant

Pullinteeth
05-14-2013, 08:58 PM
Crap...I agree with Joe on this one-not his example but the idea behind it. Not sure we need a federal LAW but a standard would be nice. Kind of like driving. If you are legal to drive in one state, you can drive in all. If I want to pack heat in one state and can do so legally, I should be able to use that same permit to pack heat in EVERY state. If I buy a fully auto AR-15 legally in one state, I should be able to own it in ANY state...

There aren't specific driving laws on the Federal level (at least not many) but they do leverage federal $$ to get the state standards they want.... Same thing with drinking age.

Banned
05-14-2013, 09:12 PM
Crap...I agree with Joe on this one-not his example but the idea behind it. Not sure we need a federal LAW but a standard would be nice. Kind of like driving. If you are legal to drive in one state, you can drive in all. If I want to pack heat in one state and can do so legally, I should be able to use that same permit to pack heat in EVERY state. If I buy a fully auto AR-15 legally in one state, I should be able to own it in ANY state...

There aren't specific driving laws on the Federal level (at least not many) but they do leverage federal $$ to get the state standards they want.... Same thing with drinking age.

I agree. There should be a Federal standardized process for getting a concealed carry - for one, that means you can go state to state and still be valid, and also prevents local sheriffs from injecting their own opinions and prejudices into the process. Even within the state of California, it can be really easy, or almost impossible, to get approved... it just depends which county you apply in. Which is bullshit. It should be the same in all of them.

Imagine if I had to go to the "right" DMV to get my license and approved to drive a car.

CYBERFX1024
05-14-2013, 10:56 PM
I agree. There should be a Federal standardized process for getting a concealed carry - for one, that means you can go state to state and still be valid, and also prevents local sheriffs from injecting their own opinions and prejudices into the process. Even within the state of California, it can be really easy, or almost impossible, to get approved... it just depends which county you apply in. Which is bullshit. It should be the same in all of them.
Imagine if I had to go to the "right" DMV to get my license and approved to drive a car.

This is one of few times I agree with you. Right now we have in this country certain CCW licenses that are valid in a few states. Some states are next to impossible to get CCW licenses in, so hard that the Supreme Court voted against that law. I agree standardize the whole thing, and make it so that people can go from NC to California and not be in the wrong and risk arrest.

Banned
05-15-2013, 12:34 AM
This is one of few times I agree with you. Right now we have in this country certain CCW licenses that are valid in a few states. Some states are next to impossible to get CCW licenses in, so hard that the Supreme Court voted against that law. I agree standardize the whole thing, and make it so that people can go from NC to California and not be in the wrong and risk arrest.

Could come in handy if the Christians try to carry out one of their "put gays in camps" threats.

CYBERFX1024
05-15-2013, 12:35 AM
Could come in handy if the Christians try to carry out one of their "put gays in camps" threats.

When have Mainstream Christians ever advocated for that? What is with your sure and utter hatred for Christianity?

TJMAC77SP
05-15-2013, 12:19 PM
I agree. There should be a Federal standardized process for getting a concealed carry - for one, that means you can go state to state and still be valid, and also prevents local sheriffs from injecting their own opinions and prejudices into the process. Even within the state of California, it can be really easy, or almost impossible, to get approved... it just depends which county you apply in. Which is bullshit. It should be the same in all of them.

Imagine if I had to go to the "right" DMV to get my license and approved to drive a car.

You have a very good idea there Joe. Unfortunately it would probably be what most states require...............an 8 hour class and punching holes is a target. Hardly what I consider proper training to carry a deadly weapon on a regular basis.

TJMAC77SP
05-15-2013, 12:20 PM
Could come in handy if the Christians try to carry out one of their "put gays in camps" threats.

Had to inject a little Christian-bashing in there didn't ya? Did you ever consider you suffer from a similar condition as those you hate? They inject these beliefs into every facet of every subject. Sounds familiar.

garhkal
05-15-2013, 08:26 PM
So if the fed does overrule states on this one joe, what comes next to overrule?

oldgrndr@
05-15-2013, 09:56 PM
You have a very good idea there Joe. Unfortunately it would probably be what most states require...............an 8 hour class and punching holes is a target. Hardly what I consider proper training to carry a deadly weapon on a regular basis.



Standardize... again. ... ... ... Let's see there's what 39? http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ten-more-states-allow-concealed-carry-permits-within-last-10-years 39 states allow concealed carry with a permit now. And 4 require no permit to carry. Leaving 7 that don't allow concealed carry. http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html Oh yeah there's those 5 states that limit magazine capacities. What else do you propose to standardize?

As opposed to the 8 hour class and paper punching we do prior to a deployment or being augmented to you in the SFS? Until the newer qual’s courses came out the CCW permit course I took (not required in my state but I still took it) was better than anything I had received from the military to date. And I carry regularly. I don’t do it to be Johnny Rambo. I do it because it’s my right to be able to defend myself and more importantly responsibility to defend my family IF the need arises. That gun is the single most effective way to do that if other methods fail.

BTW I heard the other day that Missouri is advancing a bill through the state legislature that would not only preclude any gun “control” laws. But ALSO invalidated any previous laws on such. I haven’t heard how that proposal is doing but it will make for some interesting discourse.

RobotChicken
05-15-2013, 10:09 PM
:fencing Just look at FBI reports on gun crime.....then tell me who should be screened, like a 90 year old CMOH awarded to be strip searched at the airport?? 'Com'on man'..........:smash

TJMAC77SP
05-16-2013, 11:43 AM
As opposed to the 8 hour class and paper punching we do prior to a deployment or being augmented to you in the SFS? Until the newer qual’s courses came out the CCW permit course I took (not required in my state but I still took it) was better than anything I had received from the military to date. And I carry regularly. I don’t do it to be Johnny Rambo. I do it because it’s my right to be able to defend myself and more importantly responsibility to defend my family IF the need arises. That gun is the single most effective way to do that if other methods fail.

BTW I heard the other day that Missouri is advancing a bill through the state legislature that would not only preclude any gun “control” laws. But ALSO invalidated any previous laws on such. I haven’t heard how that proposal is doing but it will make for some interesting discourse.

So your logic in dismissing my point is to cite other inadequate training? Sorry, I am missing something there.

JD2780
05-16-2013, 12:35 PM
There is tons of training that is light years ahead of the AF when it comes to weapons. When people talk about weapons in the AF most will start screaming about how we don't need to now that, and we aren't the army.

oldgrndr@
05-16-2013, 04:05 PM
So your logic in dismissing my point is to cite other inadequate training? Sorry, I am missing something there.

You dismissed your own point, I merely offered a comparison. You implied that state level training is largely inadequate so I pointed out a federal level training plan that more or less mirrors what you decried. You're also missing the point that you're injecting a high volume of opinion, vice fact, on what you feel constitutes adequate training. Any training is only as adequate as the next accident or tragedy that defines a breakdown or lack thereof. And, no. I don’t mean that to say that we should do away with all CCW training requirements. Although I enjoy the luxury of a state that practices Constitutional Carry there is much to be said in favor of a training requirement. Careful, otherwise that opinion you hint at is dangerously close to supporting class discrimination.

TJMAC77SP
05-16-2013, 05:00 PM
You dismissed your own point, I merely offered a comparison. You implied that state level training is largely inadequate so I pointed out a federal level training plan that more or less mirrors what you decried. You're also missing the point that you're injecting a high volume of opinion, vice fact, on what you feel constitutes adequate training. Any training is only as adequate as the next accident or tragedy that defines a breakdown or lack thereof. And, no. I don’t mean that to say that we should do away with all CCW training requirements. Although I enjoy the luxury of a state that practices Constitutional Carry there is much to be said in favor of a training requirement. Careful, otherwise that opinion you hint at is dangerously close to supporting class discrimination.

Not sure where is God's name you get class discrimination from anything I wrote or how I dismissed my own point but ok.

I am injecting just the right volume of opinion because my opinion is that the vast majority of people who 'carry' everyday are inadequately trained and prepared to engage in a deadly force situation. What would be the right amount of opinion?

You seem to be reading a lot into a very short post.

In a nutshell.

- Current training required by the states for a CCW is inadequate (my opinion)

- Any federal level CCW will most likely carry similar training requirements and will therefore by extension be inadequate (again, my opinion)


Your response was to cite a military training regimen used by the USAF for SF augmentees. I didn't and still don't see the direct relevance.

oldgrndr@
05-16-2013, 06:52 PM
Not sure where is God's name you get class discrimination from anything I wrote or how I dismissed my own point but ok.

I am injecting just the right volume of opinion because my opinion is that the vast majority of people who 'carry' everyday are inadequately trained and prepared to engage in a deadly force situation. What would be the right amount of opinion?

You seem to be reading a lot into a very short post.

In a nutshell.

- Current training required by the states for a CCW is inadequate (my opinion)

- Any federal level CCW will most likely carry similar training requirements and will therefore by extension be inadequate (again, my opinion)


Your response was to cite a military training regimen used by the USAF for SF augmentees. I didn't and still don't see the direct relevance.

What, in your opinion, would be an accurate level of training then? And as you think about that and formulate the response ask yourself these questions of and brutally honest with us. Does your interest stem solely from a desire to have “sufficient” training? Or do believe the prerequisites/requirements of the training should also be inherently restrictive or cost prohibitive as to disenfranchise the ability of a significant part of the population? If there is even the slightest hint of yes to the second qualifier then that constitutes class discrimination because “they” are not worthy. Be careful if you declare “they” are not worthy of something as you invariably end up as a “they” to someone else.

You marginalized state CCW programs as paper punching exercises. I countered with a federal level program. And that federal training I cited was used by the entire Air Force populace (with some exceptions) to include augmentees; therefore a federal level program wide spread enough to be correlative to your state-level inadequacy. If you contend this training is also inadequate so be it; the debate continues.

I submit that the training commonly available for CCW’s is largely adequate for the “vast majority.” Give that the crime rates have historically trended down, 37% just in number of raw instances as well as per capita reductions of almost 49% since 1992. And despite a population growth of 56.5M since 1992, the expiration of the “Assault Weapons Ban” in 2004 and an overall shift in concealed carry laws that allow far more people to carry.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

And what the hell does God have to do with it? Are you just invoking to make an emotive argument from a falsely assumed position of moral superiority?

garhkal
05-16-2013, 07:27 PM
Not sure where is God's name you get class discrimination from anything I wrote or how I dismissed my own point but ok.


oldgrndr was prob saying there would be class discrimination cause the poor folk wouldn't be able to pay for those classes.

Banned
05-17-2013, 01:18 AM
oldgrndr was prob saying there would be class discrimination cause the poor folk wouldn't be able to pay for those classes.

We have to consider not just fees associated with the classes - but time taken off work. If we have a two or three week gun safety course, obviously that would be a huge financial impact on people - like jury duty.

RobotChicken
05-17-2013, 06:42 AM
:playball Just take your gun too class...over in 2 minutes!! :whoo

Pullinteeth
05-17-2013, 03:27 PM
So if the fed does overrule states on this one joe, what comes next to overrule?

The Fed doesn't have to overrule anyone... Think of it like a driver's license. In some states the minimum age to get a license is 14, in others it is 17, and everyone else is in between. However, that 14 year old can drive in the state in which the minimum age is 17. They do however establish minimums and standards for interstate transport....

oldgrndr@
05-17-2013, 04:46 PM
The Fed doesn't have to overrule anyone... Think of it like a driver's license. In some states the minimum age to get a license is 14, in others it is 17, and everyone else is in between. However, that 14 year old can drive in the state in which the minimum age is 17. They do however establish minimums and standards for interstate transport....

So if the fed establishes "minimums and standards for interstate transport" then there's the very real potential that 14 y.o. can't drive in the min 17 state as that would be interstate transport.

The driver’s license analogy is also inherently flawed because driving and the possession of a vehicle is not an enumerated right; nor is it an intrinsic right. Self-defense is an intrinsic and inalienable right, and therefore the most effective means to it are as well. The 2nd amendment specifically enumerates weapons. It doesn’t say what kind of weapons, swords (and long knives) were still very common ‘side-arms’ in that day. The assertion that when drafted the founders couldn’t have conceived of full-auto weapons is specious. As it’s commonly referred to, the Kentucky long rifle is one of the recognized reasons why we eventually defeated the Brits (technological superiority). And the 9th and 10th say rights not specifically enumerated or granted to either the state or federal level are retained and reserved to the people.

*EDIT* I'm sorry I think I pulled the Kentucky long rifle out of the wrong war. But the capability itself was still there.

Pullinteeth
05-17-2013, 06:20 PM
So if the fed establishes "minimums and standards for interstate transport" then there's the very real potential that 14 y.o. can't drive in the min 17 state as that would be interstate transport.

No....interstate transport refers to commercial transportation that crosses state lines. So that 14 year old from South Dakota could legally drive in any state of the union (including NJ) as long as they were not driving a commercial vehicle.

garhkal
05-17-2013, 09:06 PM
We have to consider not just fees associated with the classes - but time taken off work. If we have a two or three week gun safety course, obviously that would be a huge financial impact on people - like jury duty.

Don't we already require people to do jury duty (hence their summons)?

oldgrndr@
05-18-2013, 01:54 AM
No....interstate transport refers to commercial transportation that crosses state lines. So that 14 year old from South Dakota could legally drive in any state of the union (including NJ) as long as they were not driving a commercial vehicle.

Then the analogy is even more flawed in the context of the conversation about gun possession as it would be a rare 14 y.o. indeed that would have an FFL to commercially transport firearms.

Banned
05-18-2013, 07:47 AM
Don't we already require people to do jury duty (hence their summons)?

Like I said... it would be a huge financial burden - like jury duty.

Greg
05-18-2013, 12:17 PM
Like I said... it would be a huge financial burden - like jury duty.

How is jury duty a huge financial burden?

garhkal
05-18-2013, 07:42 PM
Being most times when you 'stand jury duty' you get paid little if at all, and during the time you are not at work, that is where i think joe is going on about it being a 'financial burden' cause you are not earning.

Though i would like to know what he feels we should be doing instead of having juries.

Banned
05-18-2013, 10:30 PM
How is jury duty a huge financial burden?

Taking days or even weeks of time off work would be a financial burden to most people.

Greg
05-19-2013, 12:55 AM
Taking days or even weeks of time off work would be a financial burden to most people.

I received a full paycheck from my employer, when I had jury duty.

RobotChicken
05-19-2013, 06:44 AM
:spy Be 'another' civil war. As Pres. Jefferson said, revolution is good to keep Democracy in check...:closed_2

Banned
05-19-2013, 07:54 AM
I received a full paycheck from my employer, when I had jury duty.

Then you're lucky. A lot of people aren't.

Greg
05-19-2013, 01:47 PM
Then you're lucky. A lot of people aren't.

Lucky? Lucky that I live in the state of Ohio, a state like many other states that has passed legislation, decades ago, that require employers, public and private, to compensate their employees doing civic duty?

There's also a "thing" called hardship waiver.

garhkal
05-19-2013, 06:02 PM
That made me think.. which states Do and which dont but i had no luck via google.

Banned
05-19-2013, 07:40 PM
That made me think.. which states Do and which dont but i had no luck via google.

Couldn't find a complete list either - but here's some examples:

http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post.aspx?post=186b1d1d-5c31-4a09-a0de-ab3671f98751

Good luck getting by on $6 a day.

Greg
05-19-2013, 10:17 PM
Couldn't find a complete list either - but here's some examples:

http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post.aspx?post=186b1d1d-5c31-4a09-a0de-ab3671f98751

Good luck getting by on $6 a day.

Six dollars a day is more than enough to cover the cost of a post office box for the homeless.

Your Magic Sky Man forgives you. Now, work on forgiving yourself.

Pullinteeth
05-20-2013, 04:17 PM
Then the analogy is even more flawed in the context of the conversation about gun possession as it would be a rare 14 y.o. indeed that would have an FFL to commercially transport firearms.

No.....say SD required you to view an online video to get your CCP and NJ required you to go to a four month tactical weapons training course... If there was an interstate agreement like there is with the DL, the CCP holder from SD would be able to carry their weapon in any state of the union even if their training didn't meet the same standard. Like with a DL, if you moved to a new state, you would have to meet the requirements to drive in that state. So if this hypotheical 14 year old had a DL and a CCP and drove to NJ on vacation, they would be legal but if they moved to NJ, they would have to wait until they were 17 to drive again and would have to meet the NJ criteria to carry a weapon....

Note-Not picking on SD and NJ, they just have the most glaring disparity when it comes to minimum age for a driver's license....so I continued with this hypothetical with them as well...

sandsjames
05-20-2013, 04:33 PM
No.....say SD required you to view an online video to get your CCP and NJ required you to go to a four month tactical weapons training course... If there was an interstate agreement like there is with the DL, the CCP holder from SD would be able to carry their weapon in any state of the union even if their training didn't meet the same standard. Like with a DL, if you moved to a new state, you would have to meet the requirements to drive in that state. So if this hypotheical 14 year old had a DL and a CCP and drove to NJ on vacation, they would be legal but if they moved to NJ, they would have to wait until they were 17 to drive again and would have to meet the NJ criteria to carry a weapon....

Note-Not picking on SD and NJ, they just have the most glaring disparity when it comes to minimum age for a driver's license....so I continued with this hypothetical with them as well...

This post will drive RFD mad...on so many levels.

oldgrndr@
05-20-2013, 04:35 PM
No.....say SD required you to view an online video to get your CCP and NJ required you to go to a four month tactical weapons training course... If there was an interstate agreement like there is with the DL, the CCP holder from SD would be able to carry their weapon in any state of the union even if their training didn't meet the same standard. Like with a DL, if you moved to a new state, you would have to meet the requirements to drive in that state. So if this hypotheical 14 year old had a DL and a CCP and drove to NJ on vacation, they would be legal but if they moved to NJ, they would have to wait until they were 17 to drive again and would have to meet the NJ criteria to carry a weapon....

Note-Not picking on SD and NJ, they just have the most glaring disparity when it comes to minimum age for a driver's license....so I continued with this hypothetical with them as well...

Still a bad analogy, but I'm tracking now. You're just talking about possession and personal travel, it was that whole "commercial transport" thing that was flummoxing me. Do you know how CCW/CCP's work? From the way you present this it doesn't sound like it. My CCW offers reciprocity in several states (which is why I chose to get it even though it’s not required in my state to carry). Meaning I can carry in those states were I to travel there. BUT, I am subject to their laws, not the laws of my state. I.E. If I were to go to a state with a magazine capacity limit I must abide by that law even though my (issuing) state doesn't have a limit. It is my responsibility to research the laws of any and all states I intend to travel to or through as I carry and abide by all the vagaries and variety. It is clearly stated during the class I went to and on various websites that show reciprocity that ignorance is most definitely not bliss.

Pullinteeth
05-20-2013, 04:40 PM
This post will drive RFD mad...on so many levels.

Please explain your abbreviation. Without context, I can't figure out what "RFD" means... I tried looking it up on Google but without context.....

Pullinteeth
05-20-2013, 05:24 PM
Still a bad analogy, but I'm tracking now. You're just talking about possession and personal travel, it was that whole "commercial transport" thing that was flummoxing me. Do you know how CCW/CCP's work? From the way you present this it doesn't sound like it. My CCW offers reciprocity in several states (which is why I chose to get it even though it’s not required in my state to carry). Meaning I can carry in those states were I to travel there. BUT, I am subject to their laws, not the laws of my state. I.E. If I were to go to a state with a magazine capacity limit I must abide by that law even though my (issuing) state doesn't have a limit. It is my responsibility to research the laws of any and all states I intend to travel to or through as I carry and abide by all the vagaries and variety. It is clearly stated during the class I went to and on various websites that show reciprocity that ignorance is most definitely not bliss.

You should go back and re-read...I know what the laws are NOW... That is kind of my enitre point (borrowed from Joe). Do you not think it would be better if it were like the DL and if you got it in one state, it would be good in all?

Getting through to you on this one very VERY simple point is like....well...pullin teeth...

oldgrndr@
05-20-2013, 06:18 PM
You should go back and re-read...I know what the laws are NOW... That is kind of my enitre point (borrowed from Joe). Do you not think it would be better if it were like the DL and if you got it in one state, it would be good in all?

Getting through to you on this one very VERY simple point is like....well...pullin teeth...

National Reciprocity is what you mean then. And yes I would love to see that. Frankly, I'd rather see Constitutional Carry nationwide, but baby steps.

But the sticking point is and will be on what standard do we build the baseline? The row that I got into with Joe on page 5 about standardizing things, 39 states issue CCW and there are 5 (or is it 6 now with NY’s ridiculous laws they just passed) that a 15 round M9 mag is illegal. Do we effectively create new laws for the 45 (44?) states that don’t limit capacity? Or do we repeal the 5 (or 6?) that restrict it and which show no benefit as to the advertised outcome of reducing violence? I’m in favor of the later…

garhkal
05-20-2013, 08:15 PM
Couldn't find a complete list either - but here's some examples:

http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post.aspx?post=186b1d1d-5c31-4a09-a0de-ab3671f98751

Good luck getting by on $6 a day.

Thanks joe.. What i was looking for though were states that had laws telling your firms you work for to still pay you while you are time off for doing jury duty..

zachjonesishome
05-21-2013, 12:42 PM
$25 Gun Created With Cheap 3D Printer Fires Nine Shots (Video) (http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/20/25-gun-created-with-cheap-3d-printer-fires-nine-shots-video/)


The only way I would fire one of these would be if it were designed around the cylinder of a revolver.

TJMAC77SP
05-21-2013, 01:28 PM
What, in your opinion, would be an accurate level of training then? And as you think about that and formulate the response ask yourself these questions of and brutally honest with us. Does your interest stem solely from a desire to have “sufficient” training? Or do believe the prerequisites/requirements of the training should also be inherently restrictive or cost prohibitive as to disenfranchise the ability of a significant part of the population? If there is even the slightest hint of yes to the second qualifier then that constitutes class discrimination because “they” are not worthy. Be careful if you declare “they” are not worthy of something as you invariably end up as a “they” to someone else.

You marginalized state CCW programs as paper punching exercises. I countered with a federal level program. And that federal training I cited was used by the entire Air Force populace (with some exceptions) to include augmentees; therefore a federal level program wide spread enough to be correlative to your state-level inadequacy. If you contend this training is also inadequate so be it; the debate continues.

I submit that the training commonly available for CCW’s is largely adequate for the “vast majority.” Give that the crime rates have historically trended down, 37% just in number of raw instances as well as per capita reductions of almost 49% since 1992. And despite a population growth of 56.5M since 1992, the expiration of the “Assault Weapons Ban” in 2004 and an overall shift in concealed carry laws that allow far more people to carry.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

And what the hell does God have to do with it? Are you just invoking to make an emotive argument from a falsely assumed position of moral superiority?

A great deal more than 8 hours and more than once. That would be a simple start.

As to my being brutally honest my opinion of the CCW program in general is quite public and has been stated repeatedly on the MTF.

Truthfully I chuckle to myself at anyone who carries a weapon for personal reasons but again that is again just my opinion.

I still am not seeing where you are getting class distinctions out of my posts. You ARE most definitely reading way too much into my very limited post. Perhaps I am missing your agenda.

Your choice of citing a military training regimen and classifying it as a 'federal' program is disingenuous but again, it is inadequate training and there is nothing to indicate that a federal level CCW will result in any better training for those who want to carry a weapons at all times. Citing the SF augmentee training did nothing to refute my position and still doesn’t do so

As to my ‘invoking’ God. It is a phrase. Like when something pisses me off and I say “Goddammit !” Or “Jesus Christ !”. Maybe when I am puzzled and say “What the Fuck ?!”. Did you really miss that or am I missing some other point your are attempting to make? “Moral superiority”….where did that one come from? Because I used "God' in a post (I am thinking of the puzzled phrase)?

JD2780
05-21-2013, 01:32 PM
The AF pistol training is silly at best. You need consistent range time, stress shoots ( who shoots at another human when fully relaxed and not feeling any stress at all), shoot don't shoot situations. Shooting needs to be done more than once every 6 months.

TJ why do you chuckle at people that carry? Just curious.

TJMAC77SP
05-21-2013, 02:01 PM
The AF pistol training is silly at best. You need consistent range time, stress shoots ( who shoots at another human when fully relaxed and not feeling any stress at all), shoot don't shoot situations. Shooting needs to be done more than once every 6 months.

TJ why do you chuckle at people that carry? Just curious.

Well, one reason is becuase I think the Man With a Hammer Syndrome is an ever present danger.

As to range training. I am an old SNCO so of course have a 'war story'

Back in the 80's there was a CATM instructor at Tyndall AFB. This kid had competed at AF Level marksmanship competitions and had won medals in those competitions.

His wife had decided to leave him and given his volatile temper she spoke with his supervisor and asked him to come by the house on a particular Saturday in the hope this would temper the airman’s reaction to the news. The SSgt supervisor arrives and the airman is in recliner acting apparently calm. At some point he goes to the kitchen and returns with a beer. He sits down but as the wife passes him and starts up a staircase the airman jumps up with a large kitchen knife in his hand. The SSgt pushes the wife up the stairs and puts himself between the airman and his wife. He gets slashed on the forearm and some other place (can’t remember the details). The airman sees the blood and thankfully departs the scene in a panic. Cops were called but before the base police react (that is another story altogether) and think to go to the range and check the security container where CATM personal protection weapons are kept the airman has already gone there and taken his M-9 along with several loaded magazines. He gets back off base but by the then the BOLO is widespread and he is spotted by a local cop. Pursuit commences and he is stopped in a trailer park. He exits the vehicle, taking cover behind it. Two cops in two cars return fire. The airman fires in excess of 40 rounds. None hit the cops thank God and very few if any even hit the cop’s cars. The airman is taken down by a cops 12 gauge blast under the cars which sweeps the airman’s legs out from under him.

Lot of talk on base over the next few weeks, some supportive of the airman (again a story for another day and thread) but some comments were saying that given the airman’s high degree of training and skill with weapons, if he wanted to hit the cops he would have.

I say bullshit. Given the high bullet count I think it is simple human nature. He was getting shot at. Something those thousands of paper targets never did. He was obviously trying to kill those cops (and was convicted of that). Given the fact that mobile homes are physically akin to beer cans, it is a miracle no one was hurt by his very wild shooting. One can kill paper all day and still not be able to legitimately predict their behavior in a deadly force environment. Might be why much military tactical training leaves behind simple paper target shooting once simple marksmanship is attained

oldgrndr@
05-21-2013, 06:07 PM
A great deal more than 8 hours and more than once. That would be a simple start.

As to my being brutally honest my opinion of the CCW program in general is quite public and has been stated repeatedly on the MTF.

Truthfully I chuckle to myself at anyone who carries a weapon for personal reasons but again that is again just my opinion.

I still am not seeing where you are getting class distinctions out of my posts. You ARE most definitely reading way too much into my very limited post. Perhaps I am missing your agenda.

Your choice of citing a military training regimen and classifying it as a 'federal' program is disingenuous but again, it is inadequate training and there is nothing to indicate that a federal level CCW will result in any better training for those who want to carry a weapons at all times. Citing the SF augmentee training did nothing to refute my position and still doesn’t do so

As to my ‘invoking’ God. It is a phrase. Like when something pisses me off and I say “Goddammit !” Or “Jesus Christ !”. Maybe when I am puzzled and say “What the Fuck ?!”. Did you really miss that or am I missing some other point your are attempting to make? “Moral superiority”….where did that one come from? Because I used "God' in a post (I am thinking of the puzzled phrase)?

I know you’ve been involved in other threads on this topic, as have I. I don’t recall your specific stance, therefore I asked here again so I don’t ascribe a position unwarranted.
As I understand it one of the leading reasons law enforcement carry is for defense of the individual officer. I.E. “personal reasons” just because that choice is a mandate to you vice your decision doesn’t take away from that. Do you laugh at yourself?
If your position is that you’re a cop and qualified to carry and I’m not a cop and therefore not qualified (regardless of how much training I’ve sought out on my own). That’s a class distinction and therefore discrimination. Again I don’t recall if your previous thread activity translates to that as it has for some others on MTF. So once again, does the training need to be toughened just to improve adequacy or to prevent (some/many/most?) civilians from qualifying? “A great deal more than 8 hours and more than once.” Can be viewed as an attempt to make it too difficult to attain just by virtue of the time allotment. And especially since that 8 hours never comes cheap when it is required. See, what I did there was tell you I could read it this way and then asked if that was what you intend. Or I can put words in your mouth like you complain about others doing.
So calling training employed nationally, above the state level, to all members of the respective (military) organization which is a defined entity of federal power as a federal program is disingenuous!?!? I don’t object to your qualifying it as inadequate, I’ve said the same. I’m baffled by your lack of acknowledgement that the dots exist, let alone connecting them.

“In God’s name” is also a turn of phrase as is my usage of “what the hell…” It takes a peculiar wit (aka I’m just weird) to get the humor I injected there. However it’s first and foremost an invocation and as such would be an attempt to argue from assumed moral superiority. Both of our usages would have been considered (at least marginally) blasphemous even just a few decades ago. I’ll admit my train of thought can be disjointed at times but for someone with a signature block like yours this is almost comical.

TJMAC77SP
05-21-2013, 07:23 PM
I know you’ve been involved in other threads on this topic, as have I. I don’t recall your specific stance, therefore I asked here again so I don’t ascribe a position unwarranted.
As I understand it one of the leading reasons law enforcement carry is for defense of the individual officer. I.E. “personal reasons” just because that choice is a mandate to you vice your decision doesn’t take away from that. Do you laugh at yourself?
If your position is that you’re a cop and qualified to carry and I’m not a cop and therefore not qualified (regardless of how much training I’ve sought out on my own). That’s a class distinction and therefore discrimination. Again I don’t recall if your previous thread activity translates to that as it has for some others on MTF. So once again, does the training need to be toughened just to improve adequacy or to prevent (some/many/most?) civilians from qualifying? “A great deal more than 8 hours and more than once.” Can be viewed as an attempt to make it too difficult to attain just by virtue of the time allotment. And especially since that 8 hours never comes cheap when it is required. See, what I did there was tell you I could read it this way and then asked if that was what you intend. Or I can put words in your mouth like you complain about others doing.
So calling training employed nationally, above the state level, to all members of the respective (military) organization which is a defined entity of federal power as a federal program is disingenuous!?!? I don’t object to your qualifying it as inadequate, I’ve said the same. I’m baffled by your lack of acknowledgement that the dots exist, let alone connecting them.

“In God’s name” is also a turn of phrase as is my usage of “what the hell…” It takes a peculiar wit (aka I’m just weird) to get the humor I injected there. However it’s first and foremost an invocation and as such would be an attempt to argue from assumed moral superiority. Both of our usages would have been considered (at least marginally) blasphemous even just a few decades ago. I’ll admit my train of thought can be disjointed at times but for someone with a signature block like yours this is almost comical.


Ok, I get the feeling that you are attempting to insult me or possibly my intelligence but unfortunately you are correct and your train of thought here is disjointed to say the least. Let me try to address what I do understand.

I am not a cop, although I used to be (for over 25 years). I haven’t been one in over ten years. I own a handgun but do not have a CCW and have no intention of getting one. I don't feel compelled to carry one all the time and having done so previously I find it a pain in the ass. Made more so if I had to worry about what to do when entering proscribed locations which almost every state CCW law has provisions for (usually places that serve alcohol, public buildings etc.). Aside from military duties when I lived in Florida and carried a handgun under a ‘G’ license for off duty employment with no such restrictions it was a pain in the ass. In that case I actually had a reason so tolerated it. Since I no longer have such a need (in my perception) I do not carry one.

Hope that answered whatever point the first part of your post made (I think). Still not getting the ‘class distinction’ and although you weren’t really asking this as a serious question I do indeed laugh at myself….often.

As for the rest…I really don’t get it. I really don’t. Maybe someone else does and can assist.

garhkal
05-21-2013, 07:24 PM
A great deal more than 8 hours and more than once. That would be a simple start.


So what.. 16 hrs every 6 months or so?

TJMAC77SP
05-21-2013, 07:26 PM
So....live targets?

Who picks the targets?

Pullinteeth
05-21-2013, 07:31 PM
I say bullshit. Given the high bullet count I think it is simple human nature. He was getting shot at. Something those thousands of paper targets never did. He was obviously trying to kill those cops (and was convicted of that). Given the fact that mobile homes are physically akin to beer cans, it is a miracle no one was hurt by his very wild shooting. One can kill paper all day and still not be able to legitimately predict their behavior in a deadly force environment. Might be why much military tactical training leaves behind simple paper target shooting once simple marksmanship is attained

So....live targets?

RobotChicken
05-22-2013, 08:17 AM
:frusty Well if 'Gitmo' is an example of their sharpshooting skills, they are costing us $million a head a year!! :clock (per miss)

oldgrndr@
05-29-2013, 09:44 PM
TJ,

This is exactly what I mean by class discrimination. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/29/tea-party-and-democrats-team-up-to-defeat-push-to-give-lawmakers-gun-perks/

A few key quotes "In Texas, the House defeated a measure 38-103 on Sunday that would have given prosecuting attorneys and lawmakers permission to carry guns anywhere they wanted to in the state."

"Rep. Kenneth Sheets of Dallas, a vocal opponent of the gun bill, believes that giving lawmakers extra gun privileges would only deepen the distrust many feel towards the government. “If we’re going to push for gun rights we need to push for equal gun rights,” he told FoxNews.com, adding that a Texas mother going to a grocery store should have the same right to protect herself and her children as a lawmaker would."

"In North Carolina, concealed handgun permits come with strict requirements on where users can and cannot carry their guns. ... ... ..., Republican Rep. Stephen LaRoque tried to push forward with plans to rewrite his state’s stringent law. ... ... ... If it had passed both chambers and gotten the governor’s signature, it would allow anyone elected or appointed to a North Carolina public office to carry a handgun or pocket knife to any location in the state."

"In New York, state lawmakers there are trying to pass a provision in their gun laws that would allow retired police officers to keep assault weapons and high-capacity magazines they bought and used when they were on the force."

In reference to the very last one about retired cops. What do you call someone with a line number for MSgt? Answer: TSgt The parallel would be... What do you call a retired cop? Answer: Civilian

TJMAC77SP
05-30-2013, 12:02 PM
TJ,

This is exactly what I mean by class discrimination. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/29/tea-party-and-democrats-team-up-to-defeat-push-to-give-lawmakers-gun-perks/

A few key quotes "In Texas, the House defeated a measure 38-103 on Sunday that would have given prosecuting attorneys and lawmakers permission to carry guns anywhere they wanted to in the state."

"Rep. Kenneth Sheets of Dallas, a vocal opponent of the gun bill, believes that giving lawmakers extra gun privileges would only deepen the distrust many feel towards the government. “If we’re going to push for gun rights we need to push for equal gun rights,” he told FoxNews.com, adding that a Texas mother going to a grocery store should have the same right to protect herself and her children as a lawmaker would."

"In North Carolina, concealed handgun permits come with strict requirements on where users can and cannot carry their guns. ... ... ..., Republican Rep. Stephen LaRoque tried to push forward with plans to rewrite his state’s stringent law. ... ... ... If it had passed both chambers and gotten the governor’s signature, it would allow anyone elected or appointed to a North Carolina public office to carry a handgun or pocket knife to any location in the state."

"In New York, state lawmakers there are trying to pass a provision in their gun laws that would allow retired police officers to keep assault weapons and high-capacity magazines they bought and used when they were on the force."

In reference to the very last one about retired cops. What do you call someone with a line number for MSgt? Answer: TSgt The parallel would be... What do you call a retired cop? Answer: Civilian

I personally wouldn't classify any of those examples as 'class discrimination'. I guess I just have a different definition of the word.

garhkal
05-30-2013, 08:23 PM
I loved this comment to that news article..
Time for the 28th Amendment to the Constitution: Congress shall pass NO law that benefits legislators more than any other citizen.

oldgrndr@
07-11-2013, 03:59 PM
I am far to young to know what actually happened during the Mccarthy years and the Red Scare but from what I've heard this kind of tripe is out of the same camp.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/07/11/gun-geo-marker-app-tries-to-locate-homes-businesses-gun-owners/

william.jonesjr21
08-11-2013, 09:03 AM
Honestly if we were ordered to disarm the US citizens wouldn't that be contradictory to the purpose of the US military. Contradictory to the constitution specifically the 2nd ammendment right. If we were ordered to take the guns from our own families then we are no longer the military in my eyes. Were are merely the tyrany our forfathers fought for independence from many years ago. Let us not forget.

MRMIXITUP
08-15-2013, 12:34 PM
What will happen if Obama Orders the U.S. Military to Confiscate Guns in America?

I'll be the happiest man on the planet.

Giant Voice
08-15-2013, 01:50 PM
I'll be the happiest man on the planet.

Guess I'll get called up to the Florida Militia and find this guy!lol

Chief Bosun
08-20-2013, 02:20 PM
Honestly if we were ordered to disarm the US citizens wouldn't that be contradictory to the purpose of the US military. Contradictory to the constitution specifically the 2nd ammendment right. If we were ordered to take the guns from our own families then we are no longer the military in my eyes. Were are merely the tyrany our forfathers fought for independence from many years ago. Let us not forget.

I'm no lawyer, sea or otherwise, but I suspect the only way the military could be compelled to do that would be if martial law was declared in the US. That would indicate there was some kind of national emergency (such as a civil war) that justified that course of action. Short of the Civil War starting up again, I just don't see it.

spqrking
08-20-2013, 03:05 PM
Look at the past. It would be civil war states would recall troops who came from within their boarders and local militias would form. This is not a small issue its the same principal that started the civil war considering slaves were seen as property and not people at the time its the same issue. The government is attempting to come in your home and take your property and the people and individual states will not stand for that.

Pullinteeth
08-22-2013, 01:35 PM
Look at the past. It would be civil war states would recall troops who came from within their boarders and local militias would form. This is not a small issue its the same principal that started the civil war considering slaves were seen as property and not people at the time its the same issue. The government is attempting to come in your home and take your property and the people and individual states will not stand for that.

You really need to think before you type because first of all, the civil war wasn't (entirely) about slavery. Second, after the Civil War, states rights were pretty much a thing of the past.

spqrking
08-22-2013, 02:24 PM
You do understand that slavery at the time was the primary understood and known solution to the war correct? At the time that was a huge issue for southern living and despite how we feel about it today at that time it was like reaching into your home and taking your television. Other then the opposing cultures and the changes in industry vs agricultural society slavery was at the forefront of the debate because of its intrical ties to said agricultural living. Please go read a book... Also states rights are not the issue you think states will continue to think of themselves of apart of this nation if the overreaching we are discussing takes place? Think again succession would be a real possibility starting with Texas I'm sure and other conservative states.

Pullinteeth
08-22-2013, 06:15 PM
You do understand that slavery at the time was the primary understood and known solution to the war correct? At the time that was a huge issue for southern living and despite how we feel about it today at that time it was like reaching into your home and taking your television. Other then the opposing cultures and the changes in industry vs agricultural society slavery was at the forefront of the debate because of its intrical ties to said agricultural living. Please go read a book... Also states rights are not the issue you think states will continue to think of themselves of apart of this nation if the overreaching we are discussing takes place? Think again succession would be a real possibility starting with Texas I'm sure and other conservative states.

I have NEVER heard anyone say that slavery was a solution to ANY war... If you don't think that states rights are not an issue, you have never read the Consititution. The Civil War ended the period in our history in which states maintained their status as individual entities as originally outlined when the U.S. became a country. It firmly established the Federal government would from that point forward crush any attempts at seccession.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, - a sacred right-Abraham Lincoln