|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 26, 2012, 11:45 AM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 25, 2011
Posts: 147
|
I wonder if Obama realizes we use the M16FOW and our enemies use the AK-47?
|
July 26, 2012, 11:46 AM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
Quote:
|
|
July 26, 2012, 12:15 PM | #53 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 981
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs. |
||
July 26, 2012, 12:17 PM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 2,706
|
Quote:
|
|
July 26, 2012, 12:19 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
Do you realize the National Guard was still being called the militia in the 1920s? I think maybe the word "militia" now has a bad connotation, seeing as how some otherwise very nice folks take it upon themselves to try to organize their own private army and call it a militia.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
July 26, 2012, 12:29 PM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,944
|
Quote:
All these controls would do is score politicians a few points and make things more difficult for law abiding citizens. The bigger problem is that after implementing some “reasonable” controls when there is not reduction in violence guess what’s next ever more draconian levels of control.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
|
July 26, 2012, 12:34 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Location: MPLS, MN
Posts: 1,214
|
One thing some states have and some don't (mine does) is a requirement to have a permit to purchase a hand gun or any AR style rifle. I like this solution myself and feel it offer us all the rights we deserve with an extra barrier between the criminals/crazies and the guns. It's nothing more than a slightly more in depth background check (which everyone should still pass if not a felon and not un-stable) but it does require showing up in person at your local police dept or sheriff's office in filling out a form in front of them. There is no cost and if your good, you get your permit to purchase in about a week. It's good for a year, is continuously renewable, and lets you buy a gun and take it with you same day. I think that many would have a tough time even showing up in person or passing the screening. I don't think the Gifford's shooter would have made it and I doubt Holmes would have either. They just would have come off as too unstable I think (and I'm not sure they would even have tried to get the permit). This system also stops the heat of the moment rash thinking to some extent because there is now a waiting period for that first gun. I like the system myself and it hasn't stopped me or anyone I know from getting all the guns we want. I personally feel better knowing that not just anyone can walk in off the street at anytime and buy a handgun or AR style rifle.
__________________
597 VTR, because there's so many cans and so little time! |
July 26, 2012, 12:44 PM | #58 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,944
|
Quote:
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
|
July 26, 2012, 12:47 PM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
The president and all these anti gunners want to live in a fairly land state where only the government at various levels has guns. In history nations that have done this have ALWAYS paid a high price in blood and lives for these policies. Ask the people of North Korea what that price is...
Look at the UK and other places, the government cannot claim they lowered murder or anything else, in fact in some cities crime is higher than ever and the police have taken to skewing what’s reported as a crime to try to lower the numbers... Australia restricted guns to the point when they had a infestation of rabbits they had to hand out dynamite to the farmers to try to help deal with the problem... Funny I never thought dynamite was a safe as a firearm... (Not that it goes off easily) I think its funny that in a election year they are now willing to roll the gun control carpet out in front of everyone.... This is one administration that simply does not learn from the past...
__________________
Molon Labe |
July 26, 2012, 12:48 PM | #60 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 981
|
Quote:
The other end of it is the enforcement of laws, which was a major point in the President's speech. He said that part of the equation is working with LE to make sure that the laws are enforced. That is really all the government can do.
__________________
Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs. |
||
July 26, 2012, 12:50 PM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Location: MPLS, MN
Posts: 1,214
|
I just don't think some of these nut cases would even have the guts to go into their PD. Keep in mind that Holmes was turned away from a range on a 'bad' feeling about him. not saying this is a catch all or guarantee, just an extra barrier. BTW - I'm not suggesting to do what your state does (that's 'gone too far'). Here there are no fingerprints and there is no cost (so everyone can do it). Just requires showing up in person, filling out a background form, and then passing a little scrutiny than the FFL check does. I like the system.
__________________
597 VTR, because there's so many cans and so little time! |
July 26, 2012, 12:50 PM | #62 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
Quote:
Short Answer: None, none what so ever. Chicago has more restrictive firearms laws, how is that working out for them? Your ideals are like many (all) gun control laws, the sound good, give people a warm fuzzy feeling, but haven't reduced crime one little bit. So what do they accomplish besides "infringe" on Law abiding citizens. Infringe.................where have I seen that word before? Quote:
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
||
July 26, 2012, 01:09 PM | #63 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 12, 2012
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 436
|
I really don't think that Obama will take away gun rights. If he's so anti-gun, then why did he do these things?
From http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-...ard-gun-rights Quote:
|
|
July 26, 2012, 01:27 PM | #64 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
Quote:
That bill was a rider to another bill he had no choice in signing. It was not a stand alone bill. He did in fact come out with an executive order reversing another's executive order allowing firearms into National Parks.
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
|
July 26, 2012, 01:40 PM | #65 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Quote:
Quote:
How does a background search for ammo achieve anything? If NICS checks work properly for guns, criminals will not have guns in which to use ammo; if they do not work for guns, they will also not work for ammo. Requiring all sales to go through FFLs would only enrich gun dealers. If you think all purchasers need to be checked through NICS (and I do not), open NICS up to individual use. Please explain how eliminating "online sales" achieves anything. Buying a gun "online" simply means you have reached an agreement to conduct a transaction with/through an FFL or a face-to-face transaction with an individual. As to ammo, see above. |
|||
July 26, 2012, 01:46 PM | #66 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Quote:
|
|
July 26, 2012, 01:51 PM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 4,556
|
Far as I'm concerned, he (Obama) can keep shooting himself in the foot...
There is LESS support for stricter gun regulations- not more- among the voting public. Other than the far-left liberals, that won't let facts interfere with their arguments, informed Americans and firearms owners know that allowing self-defense weapons into the hands of law-abiding citizens has lowered violent crime and murder rates- not raised them... The Democrats- even Reid- understands that the majority of centrist and right-leaning Dems will not support stricter gun regulations. How are those strict gun control laws working out in Chicago for ya, Rahm? Only the gang-bangers and criminals have guns... The problem is, it starts under the guise of "high capacity magazines"... Who needs them, "they" say... Well, I would fairly say, no one... BUT...the problem is, if you ban magazines with say, capacity of 50 rounds or more- it will open the FLOODGATES... They won't be happy stopping there. They'll continue to whittle away at our 2nd Amendment rights. So, there must be a line in the sand...right now. What "they" also don't realize is that anyone that trains with their weapons, can effect mag changes in two seconds. There was just an episode of TAC TV where Vickers competed with Sterling subgun against a competition handgun shooter. Despite the fact that the handgun shooter had to effect a mag change, he was every bit as accurate, and effective against the clock and targets as Vickers with the subgun... The non-shooting (and some of the shooting, as well) public is just plain ignorant...and I don't mean that in a mean way, just in the pure definition of the term. They don't understand the FACTS. |
July 26, 2012, 01:53 PM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 12, 2012
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 436
|
Kraigwy, I'm just stating facts... everything else is just talk.
I voted for Obama in 2008 and will again this year. |
July 26, 2012, 01:54 PM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Latest Pres. statement on gun laws -
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...ws-130201.html Looks like the AK statement doesn't indicate push for new laws but a general look, blah, blah. Romney basically said the same thing. It will blow over, the Olympics will fill the cable news shows. Some ranting and that's it.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 26, 2012, 02:03 PM | #70 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,552
|
Quote:
Since when do criminals pay a whole lot of attention to the law? All you are suggesting will simply make it more difficult for law-abiding people to participate in the shooting sports. Places like Chicago do not allow people to carry guns... and look at the statistics about gunshot deaths there, it clearly is working isn't it? I'm all for keeping weapons out of the hands of the lunatic fringe, believe me. You won't do it by passing more gun laws. |
|
July 26, 2012, 02:09 PM | #71 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
Quote:
One of the events in Service Rifle Matches is the Rattle Battle, or Infantry Trophy Match fired at Camp Perry and other major matches. The ITT requires high cap. magazines. You basically start out with a team of 6 shooters, you are issued a set amount of ammo and fired at different ranges. Starting at 600 yards the targets are exposed for 50 seconds. During that time the team fires at 8 targets. They then move to shorter ranges doing the same thing in the same time period. The more hits you score and the furthest ranges, rather then the shorter, the higher your score. If you tried to fire the match with 5 or 10 round magazines you'd run out of time before you got you rounds off. The same thing with pistol shooting. Many active type shooting matches, such as steel challenge, etc, depend on high cap magazines to be competitive. It's about time, and high cap magazines help you with the time. I am well aware that not everyone shoots competition, but to say NO ONE but criminals and soldiers have a use for military style "service rifles" and/or high capacity magazines is misstating facts and doing a dis-service to thousands of competitors of shooting sports.
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
|
July 26, 2012, 02:16 PM | #72 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,817
|
Quote:
Let's take a look at the original quote from the OP: Quote:
Anyway, Obama specifically mentioned "hunting and shooting" as part of a "cherished national heritage." My contention is that the omission of "self defense" indicates that Obama or at least his speech-writers do not consider self defense to be part of that "cherished national heritage." My conclusion: this indicates to me a belief that while hunting and shooting are worthy of protection, SD is not (either in the speech writer's mind, or Obama's). In the realm of legislation and caselaw, consider how the restrictive jurisdictions have briefed out the issue of "whether there is an RKBA outside the home." Those attorneys charged with upholding restrictive laws have consistently claimed that Heller stands only for the proposition that there is a 2A right to keep and bear arms inside the home, and only inside the home. Heller did not deal with carry outside the home, and courts will not (typically) answer a question that was not asked. That said, the omission from the discussion of any RKBA outside the home is being held up to mean that there is no RKBA outside the home. It is my sincere hope that you are right and that the administration has absolutely zero designs on restricting the RKBA. I do not, however, believe that to be the case.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
July 26, 2012, 02:22 PM | #73 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
|
Quote:
That is like suggesting that guns are the cure to crime. If that were the case then crime rates in the US would, surely, be close to nil. Guns are a defence against crime. That is all. Now, I whole heartedly agree that UK firearm law is excessively restrictive and should, at least be revised to allow for personal/home protection. I would suggest that far more effective cures to crime would be greater education, equality and opportunity for people from all backgrounds and walks of life in a given country.
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic. Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
|
|
July 26, 2012, 02:28 PM | #74 |
Staff
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,355
|
I'm confused.
AK47s, by which I think Obama means part-plastic, pistol-grip, detachable-mag, semi-auto weapons like the AR-15, do not belong in the hands of street criminals. I think we can all agree on that, but no actual or proposed law is likely to be able to address that problem, and it's a very minor problem compared to criminals with guns generally. What I cannot agree with is this administration's apparent belief that such weapons belong in the hands of gun runners who will carry them across the border and pass them on to people who shoot our border patrol agents. Calling for public policy that will remove evil guns from the hands of criminals is like calling for a manned space mission to Alpha Centauri. Except that the latter would be ridiculed for being unrealistic, while gun-haters eat up anti-gun proposals without considering if they will actually achieve their perceived goals, and without considering collateral damage.
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner) “Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum) “It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg) Last edited by tyme; July 26, 2012 at 02:54 PM. |
July 26, 2012, 02:39 PM | #75 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 981
|
I'm gonna try to stay out of this after this post, as I believe most of what I have to say has been said already, either by me or by others.
The speech the President gave was in response to a terrible and regrettable incident. As the President, he was obligated to say something, and he did. I have listened to that speech a few times now, and I can't see any legitimate way to interpret it as an attack on gun rights. He said that the government needs to take what measures it can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. He said that the government, in the form of law enforcement, should make greater efforts to ensure the enforcement of the existing laws. He also said that social programs should be supported, particularly programs aimed at helping to stop kids from getting to the point that they resort to violence. He did not say that he wants to take away the rights of lawful gun owners. He did not say that he wants to ban assault weapons. He made no mention of firearms used for self-defense by law-abiding citizens. I think a lot of people are reacting to their own fears and preconceived notions here. Because he is a Democrat, it is assumed that he is automatically an anti-gun activist, despite the fact that there is no real evidence to support that. That is the same as assuming that all Republicans have secret stashes of weapons and ammo in their cellars. The truth is that there are many different variations out there. I, for example, am a Democrat, but I love my guns, and I will stand up right next to you in defense of my right to own them. I know Republicans who don't like guns, and think there ought to be more restrictions on them. To put it succintly (I know, too late) we are involved in a debate over the meaning of statements that were not even made. In a debate like that, there is no winner. Soapbox dismounted.
__________________
Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|