User avatar
By SIXGUNNER
#514115
Remember a armed society is a polite society...


People generally are little more than sheep, they will follow the masses into the meat packing plant and by the time they realize why the sheep that was just infront of them is gone to the gallows its too late...
User avatar
By SIXGUNNER
#514117
Rusty Hook wrote:The four bills that have passed the Colorado House of Representatives would limit magazines to 15 rounds, expand background checks to all sales, including private sales, reinstate the ban on concealed carry on college campuses, and require purchasers to pay for their background checks. Most Coloradoans, including most gun owners, support these bills, and I haven't met anyone who is worried they will be killed in their beds if these bills are signed into law.
I personnally wont feel less protected, I dont have a single weapon that would be affected by the new laws. Give me a single action revolver and I will be just fine for the rest of my days.

But it is missing the point, these laws will do nothing but put law abiding people in a bad place. It has been a felony to sell a gun privately to a criminal for 40+ years, how about they inforce this law. How do you impose a law on a law abiding person that charges them to submit to a back ground check to prove they are lawabiding? I dont know how they pass a anti concealed weapons law on college campuses when less than a year ago the Colorado State Supreme court said that schools had no legal right to block law abiding, concealed weapons permitted students from carrying there. 15 rounds? Why not 31, 14, 11, 7 or 23? Its just a number that makes a few bunny huggers feel better about the world while they stick their head in the sand and say we are in a safe world now?

The FBIs own statisticts show less than 3% of all murders/deaths in America are by "long weapons", this includes all rifles and shotguns not just "assault" weapons. So what percentage of these deaths would have been prevented by the attackers being limited to a 15 round mag? :gun
User avatar
By VTNZ
#514127
LTD wrote:
VTNZ wrote:Fuck it, under that logic, lets personalize nukes...

...I mean who are you or anyone else to tell me I can't use military grade surface to air nukes? The retired Col. I just guided yesterday told me they have them; 24km of range; so yea, I'll be dead too, but hey they're fired from a "gun" as it were...held by a human. :Roll Eyes
Well with that logic.....lets just say fuck all of it and see who survives. Anarchy. GMAFB........

Objectively, alot of folks would say if you just look at Bagger's youtube selection, those days are already here...and one the most common defense of owning any size gun/capacity is just that...some fear of anarchy. Gubmint da boogeyman, all that stuff.
But you proved the whole point well...there is no real positive end game to this path of logic. :cool
User avatar
By locogringo
#514140
Brophy points to a section of the bill that defines a high-capacity magazine as one capable of accepting or — that can be readily converted — to accept more than 15 rounds or eight shotgun shells.

“This is where shotgun shells go inside this tube here,” Brophy showed Boyd, “You can screw this part off the top and screw on an extender to this tube to allow it to hold more than eight rounds. It is readily convertible, which by definition in the bill, makes the whole thing a high-capacity magazine.”


This will ban the Remington 870, Express and Wingmaster. Probably the best selling shotgun in the history of shotguns. Do we really want to ban the 870? They have been around for about 60 years. I have had an 870 for at least 25 years. I have downed many quail, pheasant and more dove than I can count with it. Could we just ban the scary black ones?
Last edited by locogringo on Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By RFA
#514143
I tend to side with SIXGUNNER on this issue, with some caveats. I do think the real way to enact change/decrease the number of mass murders is to focus our energies on the mental health/background portion of gun control. Believe it or not, guns do need to be controlled, and at a much higher level than they are now. A criminal cannot walk into a store and buy a gun, yet a person with mental health issues and warning signs of instability can. If you are a law abiding citizen with no mental health red flags, you would have no problem buying a gun after a waiting period of a few days. The checks can be limited to a narrow range of mental issues so everyone that was ever on zoloft wasn't ineligible.

I believe that the assualt rifle/magazine capacity issue was an offering to the public hungry for gun reforms. It may actually prevent an ADDITIONAL murder in the event of a mss shooting. Limiting magazine sizes isn't going to stop someone from shooting a place up, but it's going to make that person reload more, thus give the time for response and/or fleeing. It's also been documented that a mass murderer hits a point of sturation after a certain amount of time (from the book : Columbine), and they no longer feel the need to kill everything in site....they become satiated. This happenned at Sandy Hook and Columbine. Klebold and Harris were leaving people unharmed in the library at the end of thier spree. Maybe time is the factor, maybe deaths.....but anything that limits the carnage is worth considering, even if it means we have to give up a smidgen of our personal liberties, that is a necessary evil. We do it many times a day in a civilized society, from stop lights to building codes.

Is this an excuse to steal our liberties, or an admitting that our society cannot go fully unchecked in certain areas?

I may lean Left in my politics, but this is what I consider a realistic view of how the world works....living in civilized society involves some sacrifices. No one likes them, even liberals. They are what keeps those who have no regard for their brother and sister Americans in check (both big business and mass murderers....although I may be splitting hairs with those two).

To those with guns - you can't run your car without mufflers to gain a few extra horsepower(except for in Wyoming). Accept it.
User avatar
By LTD
#514181
This is all about pro actively saving lives, protecting our children, and keeping crazy people from killing large numbers of people. Is that correct?
User avatar
By RFA
#514200
fuck.


3 paragraphs in, hit submit, and everything disappeared.


my main point: no, the answer lies somehwere in the middle. All guns vs. no guns. There is no absolute, everyone gives and takes in every aspect of their lives, work, spouse, kids.....why not politics? Why is such a complicated system simplified over and over? Dudes holding on to their guns have given in to their 4 year old's tantrums, and anti gun advocates have done the same. The reason why none of these idiot old politicians can't get shit done is because their constituants are waving the banners of their parties in the stands. It's not a fucking game, yet it is to most involved.
User avatar
By SLSS
#514201
RFA wrote:I tend to side with SIXGUNNER on this issue, with some caveats. I do think the real way to enact change/decrease the number of mass murders is to focus our energies on the mental health/background portion of gun control. Believe it or not, guns do need to be controlled, and at a much higher level than they are now. A criminal cannot walk into a store and buy a gun, yet a person with mental health issues and warning signs of instability can. If you are a law abiding citizen with no mental health red flags, you would have no problem buying a gun after a waiting period of a few days. The checks can be limited to a narrow range of mental issues so everyone that was ever on zoloft wasn't ineligible.

I believe that the assualt rifle/magazine capacity issue was an offering to the public hungry for gun reforms. It may actually prevent an ADDITIONAL murder in the event of a mss shooting. Limiting magazine sizes isn't going to stop someone from shooting a place up, but it's going to make that person reload more, thus give the time for response and/or fleeing. It's also been documented that a mass murderer hits a point of sturation after a certain amount of time (from the book : Columbine), and they no longer feel the need to kill everything in site....they become satiated. This happenned at Sandy Hook and Columbine. Klebold and Harris were leaving people unharmed in the library at the end of thier spree. Maybe time is the factor, maybe deaths.....but anything that limits the carnage is worth considering, even if it means we have to give up a smidgen of our personal liberties, that is a necessary evil. We do it many times a day in a civilized society, from stop lights to building codes.

Is this an excuse to steal our liberties, or an admitting that our society cannot go fully unchecked in certain areas?

I may lean Left in my politics, but this is what I consider a realistic view of how the world works....living in civilized society involves some sacrifices. No one likes them, even liberals. They are what keeps those who have no regard for their brother and sister Americans in check (both big business and mass murderers....although I may be splitting hairs with those two).

To those with guns - you can't run your car without mufflers to gain a few extra horsepower(except for in Wyoming). Accept it.
Ditto.
User avatar
By Greenback
#514238
GW.jpg
GW.jpg (13.15 KiB) Viewed 354 times
Some of you are missing the forest for the trees on this one. I was too for some time. Now that it has come into clear focus, the current trashing of the Constitution on multiple levels is alarming. Just in case you need a refresher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

Gun Control — Associations with authoritarianism

Historically, totalitarian regimes have passed gun control legislation, which was later followed by confiscation, with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany during World War II (as well as some communist states) being well known examples.[28][29][30] Once the Nazis had taken and consolidated their power, they proceeded to implement gun control laws to disarm the Jewish population and wipe out the opposition, and the genocide of disarmed Jews, gypsies, and other "undesirables" followed.[31][32][33]

According to the Weimar Republic 1928 Law on Firearms & Ammunition, firearms acquisition or carrying permits were "only to be granted to persons of undoubted reliability, and—in the case of a firearms carry permit—only if a demonstration of need is set forth." The Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 was very similar in structure and wording, but relaxed gun control requirements for the general population. However, it prohibited manufacturing of firearms and ammunition by Jews.[34] Shortly thereafter, in the additional Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons of November 11, 1938, Jews were forbidden from possession of any weapons at all.[33][34] On November 9. 1938 , the New York Times reported that "The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks, the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been 'disarmed' with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition."[35][36]

Lawyer Stephen Halbrook, in the article "Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews", asserts that "Gun control laws are depicted as benign and historically progressive. However, German firearm laws and hysteria created against Jewish firearm owners played a major role in laying the groundwork for the eradication of German Jewry in the Holocaust."[39]

Political scientist and lawyer Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago Law School, in discussing the issue of totalitarianism and gun control, has stated: "To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide", but concluded that the firearms laws were not central to implementing the Holocaust.[40]

In Tzarist Russia personal gun ownership was legal, allowing Bolsheviks and other revolutionaries to import a great number of guns for the purpose of overthrowing the Tzar. For example, in 1905, during the Russo-Japanese War, ship "Sirius" delivered to Russian revolutionaries 8,500 rifles paid by the government of Japan. In December 1918 during the Russian Civil War the Bolsheviks made it a crime for citizens other than members of their own party to own guns. Bolsheviks were allowed to own 1 rifle and 1 revolver.[41][42][43] In any case, there was considerable hunting in Russia during the Soviet era.[44] Vasily Zaytsev, the much celebrated Soviet sniper at the Battle of Stalingrad, learned to shoot in the Ural Mountains hunting deer and wolves with his grandfather and younger brother.[45]

Kopel has claimed that the Battles of Lexington and Concord, sometimes known as the Shot heard 'round the world, in 1775, were started in part because General Gage sought to carry out an order by the British government to disarm the populace.[46] According to Harvey, this was not gun control but an act of war: the rebels had already formed a shadow government, were training militias, and tensions between them and the British colonial government were at the breaking point. In either case, Gage sent his troops to Concord to seize and destroy the rebel militia's military weapons depot, and to Lexington to capture two of the rebel leaders, Samuel Adams and John Hancock.[47][48]

I'm not one to sit around in a tinfoil hat but the slippery slope our country is on is no bueno. Disarming law abiding citizens isn't going to do one got damn thing to reduce crime in this country. If bad guys want guns, bad guys will get guns no matter how many you take way from John Q. Public. Look at Chicago - some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and it's one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/st ... wanted=all And this is coming from a liberal rag like the nyt.

This is rich, “Our gun strategy is only as strong as it is comprehensive, and it is constantly being undermined by events and occurrences happening outside the city — gun shows in surrounding counties, weak gun laws in neighboring states like Indiana and the inability to track purchasing,” Mr. Emanuel said. “This must change.”

Read — the criminals are still getting guns and it's all the legal gun owners' fault. Our laws are great — it's the rest of you messing things up for us here in sunny, safe Chicago.

History repeats. Always does.

One final question then it's back to the books for a few more months: why does DHS need 1.6 billion rounds? Seriously. To provide some perspective, experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, DHS is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war. Against who?
User avatar
By SIXGUNNER
#514259
Greenback is exactly right here, the second amendment (you know the one that our founding fathers felt was most important next to freedom of speech) is not about keeping a shotgun to hunt ducks with. It is clearly about the ability to fight back against tyranny from where ever, even from our own government if this should get so bad. By that thinking ANY limitation of people right to own guns is unconstitutional upto and including owning tanks and F35 jets.

Now I'm not saying go buy a F35 but too not understand this is too give up your rights as they were given to all of us in the name of "progress". I don't own a AR-15 but how am I going to tell a Iraq vet that is in a wheelchair for the rest of his life, because of a job he did for this country voluntarily that the weapon they were trained to protect themselves with is not the best tool to do so after he leaves the service because he is home bound now? Why did the Japanese emperor Ito say they wouldn't invade the US during WWII? Because he said it would be suicide, there was a gun behind every blade of grass.

The 2nd amendment protects all of us wether we choose to exercise it or not. Bad guys don't know what houses have guns in them before they break in, so they choose to find softer targets to rob. Everystate that has become a right to carry state has seen huge reduction in violent crime rates in the years following. The states in this country that have the highest crime rates also all have the toughest laws keeping it citizens from having guns (you know to protect the masses and all). Tighter gun laws just give greater rein to criminals to act as they see fit because they see their risk of a person being able to protect themselves being far less.

Any errosion of gun rights is arbitrary and has been proven over and over to work in the opposite way, more violent crimes, and a higher murder rate follow. I am not a guy who shouts from a soap box very often but get your heads out of the sand and stand up for your rights...
User avatar
By SLSS
#514269
I think there are two sides of the issue. The first is the right to bear arms, which is interpreted differently by different folks, including the reason for it being in the constitution, and as I'm not a constitutional scholar, I'm staying our of that.

The practical, everyday political side is where I think we are fucked up. I'm not pro or anti. I have a couple shotguns, and consider a handgun occasionally. I have to admit, I live in such a rural area that a couple big dogs have us feeling pretty secure, though there's the occasional meth head around that makes you wonder. But I just can't jin up the level of paranoia I would need to think it's coming to a worry about a government takeover, or the one I really don't get, the Blue Hat's taking over.

I wish the NRA had taken a different course, and rather than spending it time and money getting the minority (in this country) of gun owners more worked up about 2nd amendment rights and how they should be able to have any and all the firepower they want (I would personally opt for an Abrams A1), they had spent the time on a campaign to educate the general public on the fact that an AR 15 is just the modern equivalent of what the Rifleman carried- it just looks scarier.

The point that RaFfa was making- that the higher capacity mags are a compromise with folks who want to do away with more- is, I think accurate. I really don't see the need for them, but I'm not going to argue it. It is the background checks- both public and private sales- and better, more available mental healthcare records tied to those checks, that would seem to me to be the answer.

I do think criminals are going to have guns either way. I think the average civilian gun owner way over estimates the affect they can have against them- i.e. all the prattle that was heard about what would happen if most adults were armed at Gabbie Gifords/Columbine/Newton shooting. I just don't see having a gun as equivalent to having good training and better judgement. I do know that having a gun makes you feel more capable of doing something in that situation, I'm just not convinced it would bear ot in reality.
User avatar
By Cary
#514274
RFA wrote:I tend to side with SIXGUNNER on this issue, with some caveats. I do think the real way to enact change/decrease the number of mass murders is to focus our energies on the mental health/background portion of gun control. Believe it or not, guns do need to be controlled, and at a much higher level than they are now. A criminal cannot walk into a store and buy a gun, yet a person with mental health issues and warning signs of instability can. If you are a law abiding citizen with no mental health red flags, you would have no problem buying a gun after a waiting period of a few days. The checks can be limited to a narrow range of mental issues so everyone that was ever on zoloft wasn't ineligible.

I believe that the assualt rifle/magazine capacity issue was an offering to the public hungry for gun reforms. It may actually prevent an ADDITIONAL murder in the event of a mss shooting. Limiting magazine sizes isn't going to stop someone from shooting a place up, but it's going to make that person reload more, thus give the time for response and/or fleeing. It's also been documented that a mass murderer hits a point of sturation after a certain amount of time (from the book : Columbine), and they no longer feel the need to kill everything in site....they become satiated. This happenned at Sandy Hook and Columbine. Klebold and Harris were leaving people unharmed in the library at the end of thier spree. Maybe time is the factor, maybe deaths.....but anything that limits the carnage is worth considering, even if it means we have to give up a smidgen of our personal liberties, that is a necessary evil. We do it many times a day in a civilized society, from stop lights to building codes.

Is this an excuse to steal our liberties, or an admitting that our society cannot go fully unchecked in certain areas?

I may lean Left in my politics, but this is what I consider a realistic view of how the world works....living in civilized society involves some sacrifices. No one likes them, even liberals. They are what keeps those who have no regard for their brother and sister Americans in check (both big business and mass murderers....although I may be splitting hairs with those two).

To those with guns - you can't run your car without mufflers to gain a few extra horsepower(except for in Wyoming). Accept it.

Of all the dick-drawers I know, you make the most sense...
Friday Cheer Through Pics

I want to ride with the red dog one day........ […]

Thumbing Through Some SBSs

is there something wrong with you? rhetorical.[…]

whatcha tying?

I thought I’d tie pretty flies one day. Then[…]

great. now I'm googling tattoo's feet.

Subsribe to The Drake Magazine