MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
What if you live in NYC and hunt, roleplay or whatever elsewhere?
I really don't see an issue with having a weapon you are legally entitled to own stored safely with you where ever you live.
Liberals go after Single Shot Black Powder guns now....
What if you live in NYC and hunt, roleplay or whatever elsewhere?
I really don't see an issue with having a weapon you are legally entitled to own stored safely with you where ever you live.
03USMC
Active member
Okay first most states with concealed carry laws. Already restrict the carry of firearms in the places you note. And several give business' the right to restrict carry on their property by way of posted placards.
And for Handgun purchase in the states I familier with, background checks are mandatory prior to the weapon being released from the dealer.
Most of the quality manufactures now manufacture their weapons w/ the safety device internally or provide external saftey devices with the weapon.
Magazine capacity means jack. You can get killed just as dead by a wheel gun as you can by a 9mm with a 16 rd mag.
They already forbid the legal purchase of firearms by convicted felons. It's Federal Code and State Statute. But Criminals don't obey the law. Go figure.
So the upshot is this. Every time some scumbag socially challenged scrote uses a firearm in a criminal manner, the anti-gunners run wailing in the streets and try to go after responsible gun-owners. If the laws are passed will the lawbidding gun-owners deal with it? Yes for the most part they will. Will the criminals? Not a chance. Not a prayer.
major liability
Active member
mmarsh restricting magazine size is just a pain in the ass for gun owners and nothing more. Doesn't make me feel safer in the least.
You can rest assured violent offenders are going to be packing, legally or not. They have to once they're mixed in with the wrong people.
You can rest assured violent offenders are going to be packing, legally or not. They have to once they're mixed in with the wrong people.
mmarsh
Active member
USMC
I know that, but there has been recent attempts to try and allow guns in both schools (In CA or WA, I forget exactly) and bars (provided they don't drink) in AZ.
What I am saying is that I agree with the current legislation, same with blocking Felons from buying them. There are those that believe that once a person is released from jail, all rights should be restored. I don't agree with that at all. They still might get a gun, but I see no reason to make it easy on them.
For background checks, the system is in disarray as states have different rules. That is exactly how the Virginia tech shooter was allowed to buy guns because his mental health issues were forbidden to be published by Virginia law. What we need is one Federal system that is kept live, up to date and MANDATORY. If it well managed it should have no impact on legit buyers.
Saftey Devices -True, but it took alot of persuasion. Keep the manufacturers on their toes is what I am stressing. Lets not get complacent in monitoring this.
On Mag Clips, I totally disagree with you. Here's why. In the 1980s the gunman Colin Ferguesson starting shooting passengers on the LIRR. (Long Island Rail Road). He used (I believe) a 9mm auto with several 15 mag clips. He killed 6 and wounded 19. The second time he reloaded 3 (firemen) passengers he intended to shoot next rushed him and knocked him down.
Now imagine had it been a rifle with 20 or 30 clip or Drum. Those people would be dead as would a bunch of others. The 3-5 seconds they caught the shooter reloading was enough to turn the tables. A slim chance yes, but much better than no chance at all.
A civvie doesnt not need to lay surpressing fire for self-defense. If he cannot hit his target after the first few shots, he probably shouldn't be carrying a gun in the first place. Civvies can survive with say an 8 or 10 and simply buy a second mag. There is simply no reason at all for a civvie to need that much firepower unless its for criminal intent. Is it an inconvience? yes. Can you all survive? yes. Before I left home, I used a single-shot .22 bolt-action rifle, as you see, I lived.
Heck, a 6 round mag would have been a treat for me, although I have to admit I liked loading each round into the breach and locking the bolt forward+backward after each shot.
I know that, but there has been recent attempts to try and allow guns in both schools (In CA or WA, I forget exactly) and bars (provided they don't drink) in AZ.
What I am saying is that I agree with the current legislation, same with blocking Felons from buying them. There are those that believe that once a person is released from jail, all rights should be restored. I don't agree with that at all. They still might get a gun, but I see no reason to make it easy on them.
For background checks, the system is in disarray as states have different rules. That is exactly how the Virginia tech shooter was allowed to buy guns because his mental health issues were forbidden to be published by Virginia law. What we need is one Federal system that is kept live, up to date and MANDATORY. If it well managed it should have no impact on legit buyers.
Saftey Devices -True, but it took alot of persuasion. Keep the manufacturers on their toes is what I am stressing. Lets not get complacent in monitoring this.
On Mag Clips, I totally disagree with you. Here's why. In the 1980s the gunman Colin Ferguesson starting shooting passengers on the LIRR. (Long Island Rail Road). He used (I believe) a 9mm auto with several 15 mag clips. He killed 6 and wounded 19. The second time he reloaded 3 (firemen) passengers he intended to shoot next rushed him and knocked him down.
Now imagine had it been a rifle with 20 or 30 clip or Drum. Those people would be dead as would a bunch of others. The 3-5 seconds they caught the shooter reloading was enough to turn the tables. A slim chance yes, but much better than no chance at all.
A civvie doesnt not need to lay surpressing fire for self-defense. If he cannot hit his target after the first few shots, he probably shouldn't be carrying a gun in the first place. Civvies can survive with say an 8 or 10 and simply buy a second mag. There is simply no reason at all for a civvie to need that much firepower unless its for criminal intent. Is it an inconvience? yes. Can you all survive? yes. Before I left home, I used a single-shot .22 bolt-action rifle, as you see, I lived.
Heck, a 6 round mag would have been a treat for me, although I have to admit I liked loading each round into the breach and locking the bolt forward+backward after each shot.
Last edited:
5.56X45mm
Milforum Mac Daddy
Negative..... Criminals own firearms because they break laws. Law Abiding citizen own firearms because it's a legal right given to us by the Constitution. Making laws that restrict firearms from ownership does not solve a single issue because at the most basic point. CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW LAWS.
Gator
U of B and B Alumnus
Way I see it the Federal Government is also restricted by the US Constituton from entering into the Gun Control Debate to begin with, other than ensuring States comply with and fully extend Constitutionally protected rights.
The USSC should pick up this issue this term due to the D.C. Circuit ruling, I hope I'm proven correct in my assertion if the High Court picks it up, and will be, in my view, proven correct if the High Court lets the D.C. Circuit ruling stand.
The USSC should pick up this issue this term due to the D.C. Circuit ruling, I hope I'm proven correct in my assertion if the High Court picks it up, and will be, in my view, proven correct if the High Court lets the D.C. Circuit ruling stand.
mmarsh
Active member
Indeed, a catch-22.
5.56
While many guns used in crimes are stolen, some are not. There ARE unscrupoulous dealers that will sell the weapon legally even if they know its true intent. Gun-shows in certain states are notorious for evading the gun control laws. When I was in college, Michigan legal dealers used to supply guns to the gangs of Indianapolis, Cincinatti, Dayton, and Chicago. They knew all the tricks about how not to get caught.
The NRA myth that all gun-owners are law-abidding citizens is not always true.
Tsunami
Active member
I don't agree with the clip issue - do you know what a pain in the a** it is to reload clips when your paying by the hour on a range???? The larger the capacity - the happier the gun owner! 
Conceal and carry is a joke - they passed the law in my state and the very next day everybody posted those damn signs indicating they were not allowed on their premises. So what - I can take a evening walk w/ my handgun - as long as I avoid national parks! No thanks - conceal and carry is a joke.
Restricting firearm sales is only good for those of us who already have a nice collection - it drives prices up and makes the collection worth $$$$!
:sarc:
Conceal and carry is a joke - they passed the law in my state and the very next day everybody posted those damn signs indicating they were not allowed on their premises. So what - I can take a evening walk w/ my handgun - as long as I avoid national parks! No thanks - conceal and carry is a joke.
Restricting firearm sales is only good for those of us who already have a nice collection - it drives prices up and makes the collection worth $$$$!
:sarc:
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
They will ban guns, its inevitable barring a civil war, then knives, then baseball bats and hickory handles, then wooden spatulas and salad tongs until eventually men will have their testicles removed and will be placed on a course of synthetic testosterone which no longer has that nasty aggressive side effect.
mmarsh
Active member
-----------------------------------------------------
A common misconception is that liberals don't use guns. Which is absurd, just go into New England during hunting season. Not every hunter or sportsman votes GOP. Also common in the West and Southwest.
Even if there were any Democrats (which their aren't) that wanted to fully ban guns would lose the next home state election in a landslide. Even in BLUE New York State a candidate who wanted to abolish guns would lose.
*On a side note, the most pro-gun control candidate right now is a Republican.
Its like the abortion issue, every Republican knows that to fully abolish Abortion would result in every single GOP candidate in thrown out off office. The can use it to rally the base, but thats it. Its simply political suicide.
The Gun and abortions issues are "wooden rifles".
major liability
Active member
Any ban of mags larger than 10 rounds wouldn't work anyways, because so many legal gun owners already have larger magazines. The prices would just go up, and criminals would continue to get any size magazine and any select-fire weapon they want illegally. It's really not that hard.
I think people should be allowed to own fully automatic firearms because the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow citizens to match army riflemen in firepower. In case the government goes totally out of control for whatever reason.
I think people should be allowed to own fully automatic firearms because the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow citizens to match army riflemen in firepower. In case the government goes totally out of control for whatever reason.
You know what, BD, I already told the deaf liberal about that. ^^ She didn't realized and surprised. So, yeah, I got her really bad.
mmarsh
Active member
Once again I challenge anybody to name a a Democrat in Washington DC who is running on a total gun ban platform. Even if you pick the most liberal part of the party you wont find one. That does not include a private opinion, or who is trying to make a stump speech. I am talking about those who are willing to put their careers on the line introducing legislation.
---------------------------------------------------
ML
US Chief Justice Warren Burger did say after his retirement that the 2nd Amendment did not guarentee the individuals right to a gun. The role envisioned by the Founding Fathers the role of the militia had been superseded by a National Defense. That the dangers as the 2nd Amendment was supposed (Marauding Indians, French and English) were suppose to protect us from does actually exist.
That the Constitution does permit Congress to regulate firearms.
-This was back in the 1990. Thats about as close as we have gotten to a ruling.
You can find that here:
http://www.guncite.com/burger.html
To all:
About the Mags issue. So far most of you have repeated the same issue that its a pain to reload. I don't deny you that. But so is driving at 65mph on the freeway. But we all survive with that too. There is still no justifiable reason to keep larger mags or drums for civilian use. Being a lazy-ass is not a justification, -I speak from experience.
Last edited:
5.56X45mm
Milforum Mac Daddy
I hate tell you but Congress did a report back in in the 1980s and said that the second amendment was a individual right, not a colective one.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
Go there to read the report
http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
Go there to read the report
mmarsh
Active member
That doesn't matter, Congress doesn't interpret the Constitution only the USSC can do that. If the USSC rules the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to individuals there ain't squat Congress can do about it aside from a constitutional amendment, which would be very difficult.
Last edited:
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
No polie would admit to having an agenda of total ban on firearms but the proof is in the actions year after year from certain individuals exercising what's called the "salami effect" slowly slicing away, whittling rights away till we wake up one day and wonder WTF happened.