|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 18, 2013, 08:25 PM | #26 |
Member
Join Date: January 17, 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 15
|
These stricter gun laws are so stupid. Any of ya'll notice that the places with the strictest gun laws are also the places with the highest crime rates. Granted, these are very large cities but stats are stats. The citizens of these cities are sitting ducks for the criminals.
|
January 18, 2013, 08:55 PM | #27 |
Member
Join Date: October 2, 2012
Posts: 42
|
Which is why once I retired from the state police I voted with my feet and never looked back. You can talk & write letters till your hand falls off & you will NEVER change the way they think
|
January 19, 2013, 08:51 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2011
Location: New England
Posts: 1,449
|
So does anyone understand what this means, "reduces access to high powered ammunition." Very subjective.
|
January 20, 2013, 09:14 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,185
|
Excellent point, bigfig. I am in favor of stricter gun laws in the northeastern states and CA. That way the criminal element would tend to migrate in that direction and leave my area. Just kidding, I don't want to throw any of my fellow Americans "under the bus". Well, maybe a few, but I won't go into that as it gets too political. Back to the point, how is gun control in Chicago curbing gun violence or crime in general? I guess I am just not smart enough. Maybe that is why I am not in public office.
__________________
This is my gun. There are many like her, but this one is mine. I'm not old. I'm CLASSIC! |
January 22, 2013, 03:00 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 9, 2013
Posts: 235
|
Umm...its not. Has nothing to do with it.
Crime and murder in NY went down when Juliannie cracked down HARD on gangs and thugs a few years back. Chicago under Daily was too soft to put that pressure on the bad guys. Result = crime still high in Chicago because they refuse to be hard on the really bad illegal gun toting criminals. Although i just read that Rhom is introducing some new laws that increase jail time and fines for breaking the hand gun laws. That might acutally work, because if a little slap and time is all you get for toting around an illegal registered 30 round glock, then they are going to still do it time after time. It's not that hard to be better about all of this, it's just that Politics gets in the way! |
January 22, 2013, 06:18 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 6, 2012
Location: Berkshire Hills
Posts: 741
|
The insurance law is a great idea. That way any ex boyfriend/stalker/husband can be assured that his down on her luck/unemployed ex woman will not be able to afford a gun permit. Should work out well to curb violence.
Also, those older people on fixed incomes won't pose such a threat to burglars.
__________________
NRA Patron Member SAF Life Member GOAL Member |
January 22, 2013, 06:36 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 26, 2009
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 428
|
I don't get the reasoning behind publishing gun owners names and addresses. It is like they are saying we are as a bad as a sex offender or something. Actually I don't get the reasoning behind any of it. Very afraid for the future.
|
January 29, 2013, 08:51 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 4, 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 152
|
The US is in dept up to it's eye balls to China. China is using this as leverage and telling Obama to dis-arm it's public. The big question is , why does China want the US public disarmed? It will be done in small steps. Obama has 4 years to start the process.
|
January 29, 2013, 08:56 PM | #34 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 29, 2013, 11:11 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: SW FLORIDA
Posts: 318
|
Funny, first it was 10 rounds per magazine now it's the magical seven. OK, why and where did they choose 10 and now seven is all the rage. Oh, yeah, because the ultimate goal is ZERO.
|
January 31, 2013, 09:25 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 10, 2011
Location: West Miami,Florida
Posts: 118
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." G.K. Chesterton From The Cleveland Press, March 1, 1921 |
|
January 31, 2013, 09:40 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,171
|
The US is in dept up to it's eye balls to China. China is using this as leverage and telling Obama to dis-arm it's public. The big question is , why does China want the US public disarmed? It will be done in small steps. Obama has 4 years to start the process.
Wow...just...wow...I don't even know where to begin with this one... |
January 31, 2013, 10:45 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2010
Posts: 316
|
MA Gov following NY
I see the reasoning behind the 10 round or 7 round limit in semi autos. Its simple! It won't help anything, so in a year or two, they will come back and say, the ban has not worked as good as we hoped so we are going to ban ALL semi-autos regardless of how many bullets they hold. After that, in a year or two, they will revisit the laws and say, the ban on semi-autos has not worked as good as we hope, so we are going to ban all handguns, pump rifles and shot guns. In a few years after that, they will come back and say, the ban on hand guns, pump rifles and shot guns has not worked as good as we hoped so we are going to ban.... This is how they are going to operate. If we open the door for this new round of gun bans, we are all down the tubes as a free nation.
|
January 31, 2013, 11:11 PM | #39 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
February 1, 2013, 09:27 AM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
|
|
February 1, 2013, 11:48 AM | #41 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Even if they're banking on that, the Court isn't going to reverse precedent that quickly. It would call their very credibility into question.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
February 1, 2013, 12:43 PM | #42 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 17, 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
Posts: 610
|
Quote:
Mentioning what I think of the NYPD on here would probably get me in trouble, but it's practically impossible to respect them (and I don't) when you hear their response after they realize that suddenly the have to follow the law to like the rest of us dirty commoners. Give em all 7 round mags and let the criminals deal with them. Quote:
|
||
February 1, 2013, 05:29 PM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
|
|
February 1, 2013, 06:07 PM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 24, 2007
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 347
|
Quote:
How is it fair that 5 cops with 150 bullets in there magazines Holding down 2 thugs with 40 bullets vs. 2 thugs holding me down but I only get 10! I can't retreat from the thugs but the LEOs can back off till more cops show up! 99% of the time it is civilians that meet the thugs first! Also why do they get to be exempt when they are off duty? ps. It was also ruled that they do not have to protect! |
|
February 2, 2013, 07:58 AM | #45 |
Member
Join Date: March 31, 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 55
|
I don't wish magazine capacity limits upon anyone, civilian or military. It's nonsense and nobody should be forced to face any threat to their health with inferior equipment.
|
February 2, 2013, 10:41 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 17, 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
Posts: 610
|
Quote:
Did they complain about the law's unconstitutionality? Or that it limit's EVERYONE'S ability to defend themselves? No, they didn't care about any of those things. It's only once they learned that they themselves would be inconvenienced did they start whining. Screw them. Once the police start getting the idea that they are somehow special and better than the mere "civilians" they must constantly deal with then their well-being is of little concern to me at that point. If I lived where you do with the police force that you have. Perhaps one of the counties where the Sheriffs specifically refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws, then my opinion would be much the same as yours. However when you deal with cops like these all these years, it's hard not to view them as a nuisance at best and and outright enemy at worst. |
|
February 3, 2013, 11:52 AM | #47 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
With respect to LEOs and capacity limits, there are two important concepts that really ought to be kept separate. One is: What are the odds of needing a firearm for defensive purposes? The second is: How many rounds does one need, in the event that one does need a firearm for defensive purposes. Those two issues often get tangled up in the discussions about LEOs and capacity limits.
Due to the nature of their work, LEOs have a higher probability of needing to use a firearm. I, as a civilian, do not do things like make traffic stops or strike up conversations with people who are unruly. LEOs do. That means that it is more likely that a LEO will need his gun to defend himself. By extension, this also means that LEOs face an increased probability of multiple attackers, as compared to myself. However, once that "probability threshhold" has been crossed, and it's clear that a defensive gun use is in play, a law enforcement officer faces a human or humans, just as you or I would. Further, LEOs have the advantages of being able to get backup, and (normally) having notified someone of their whereabouts before making contact.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
|