Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups


Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-03-2013, 19:27   #26
Brew Crew
concretefuzzynuts's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: VB, VA
Posts: 6,095
Originally Posted by AIRASSAULT18B View Post
You either taped it & replayed it or have a excellent memory. Excellent recall. I believe they are using Gabby & teaching her to make the short but to the point attention getting statements. I feel bad what happened to her but, also the exploitation for political reasons. I thought the NRA-Wayne LaPierre, the woman from the womans group who supports the right to bear arms & the Constitutional Professor destroyed the antis on the Senate Panel. I cant remember all their names as I was watching pacific time zone & half asleep. My impression is the police chief was angry & frustrated . Kelly is trying to blend in as a regular gun owner that just wants whats best for us.(YEA RIGHT) He let us know how legitimate he was by mentioning his purchase of a rifle at Wal-Mart many times. I noticed the all the antis on the panel used polls or info from one of the Brady affiliates & was corrected by the NRA using ATF/FBI stats.

There was a point where one of the antis got fixated on 100rnd mags & he went to the anti chief & received the answer he wanted then to the Professor who let him know you can not breakout parts of the firearm under the 2nd amend because you dont like it. Also I liked how the professor kept correcting the panel about the m16 family having a standard capacity of 30rds & most pistols 15+rds (meaning they needed to stop refering to any mags over 10rds as high cap).

They tried to trap Wayne into the only use of the ar15 according to the NRA was to fight against the govt & he gave the history of the why & how of the second amend & for a second the person asking him the question & the police chief said they could not understand that way of thinking trying to make him look extream. Wayne continued with modern day applications such as govt breakdown, riots, storms, etc which shut them down.

The lady representing the womens group was outstanding as well. The need of a assault rifle vs a shotgun for a woman was put to her by a anti on the panel who looked like he was confident she would have no answer. She then took him apart by citing the differences in strength between men & women to handle a shotgun vs ar15 & if the is multiple attackers the shotgun he described was one on the ban list & other shotguns would have reduced capacity as to render then marginal if there was more then one attacker.

All the progun Senators had facts,charts,photos of weapons showing guns with similar operating systems to the Ban list ones to show how idiotic this whole thing is.

The progun witness were highly knowledgable, calm in their testamony & effective with the facts.

The antigun Senators were angry. They did not have a firm grasp of the weapons or accessories they were trying to get banned. Many times seemed confused of the basic operation/descriptions of the items in question.

The antigun witnesses especially the police chief of Baltimore was angry arguementitive had a scowl on his face the whole time. Kelly is playing it safe although he did have to mention that there was a shooting in Phoenix during the hearing.

All in all I believe we have the better team to represent our rights.
Very good post.

The worst was that condom Senator Dick Turban. He tried to make Mr. LaPierre look bad and not only mis quoted him but cut him off and went to the anti-gun police chief. The chief was obviously the "empty chair" there.
GTDS Member #7
GOTOD Member #757
Snub Club Member #757
NRA Member
concretefuzzynuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 20:40   #27
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by domin8ss View Post
LaPierre can't say anything against universal background checks. He's on record in 1999 testifying in favor of universal background checks. The opposition would pounce on him as a hypocrite. There is already an ad that is suppose to air in the DC area tonight during the Super Bowl showing this testimony.
True, but this is 14 years later, when we have statistics that criminals go elsewhere.

He's smart enough to say "people change their minds freqnently. We have years of factual evidence to show that this won't work."

LaPierre's current push is the bureaucracy created by a universal BC system.

A real universal background check system for both in-store and private sales would require two things:

1) The cooperation of every person buying and selling a firearm privately

2) In order to track the cooperation of everyone, each firearm serial number would have to be registered in order to make sure it isn't bought or sold without a background check.

Ultimately, they can't do it. There's no way to enforce background checks on private sales, unless every weapon is registered and they do random checks at people's houses.

So I take it back. It is possible. And while not probably in the next couple years, it is a big concern for the future.

Last edited by Kelo6; 02-03-2013 at 20:49..
Kelo6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 21:42   #28
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 413
I'm not going to disagree with you because I'm with you on every point you made. The point you need to argue isn't with me, but with those that will do what I said. Many of the same people that are calling for more gun control are also the people who backed Obama in his presidential reelection campaign. Those same people were also quick to accuse Romney of being a flip-flopper. They'll very likely pull the same thing against LaPierre. That would hurt the NRA's credibility in the public perception. We don't need that. Their goal is to divide gun rights advocates. We need to stay united and strong in order to win this. So, lets make a play straight out of their book. What else can we say to turn the attention to another point in the topic without looking like a flip-flopper?

Last edited by domin8ss; 02-03-2013 at 21:47..
domin8ss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 21:59   #29
-> 10mm <-
FloridaGun's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 175
Bought a gun from walmart.... That's nothing to brag about, walmart has some ****ty guns. IMO
10mm - The All-Purpose Round

-FloridaGlockers #500 -Kalashnikov Klub #51

GOA and NRA Lifetime Member
FloridaGun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 00:52   #30
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by domin8ss View Post
I'm not going to disagree with you because I'm with you on every point you made. The point you need to argue isn't with me, but with those that will do what I said. ... What else can we say to turn the attention to another point in the topic without looking like a flip-flopper?
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was picking a fight with you

You are absolutely right, though. We do need to stand together.

And I think there is a lot more we can say.

It's illogical to think that criminals will stop buying guns from each other.
It's illogical to think that criminals will stop stealing guns.
It's illogical to think that criminals will stop being criminals.

Universal Background Checks will not be used against the criminal element. They steal the guns and buy ones without serial numbers.

What UBCs DO require is national registration and monitoring, to be sure that those "40%" of private sales are being run with background checks.

In order for that to happen, every weapon will need to be registered.

But we all know that's their whole agenda in the first place. The UBC system will create a huge about of bureaucracy and government over-reach.

They can't enforce the laws we have now. How will they mandate and monitor the registration and transfer of even more firearms?

We, as American citizens, need the ability to choose to defend ourselves. That is, to exercise our 2A right. If other people choose not to, that's up to them.

If other people don't want to exercise free speech, so be it. If they don't want to protect themselves from unlawful search and seizures, or to have an attorney present during questioning, I DON'T CARE. I really don't.

I care when they chose to demonize me, or criticize me for CHOOSING to exercise MY rights, which are their rights as well.

The anti-gun crowd have the SAME RIGHTS WE DO. It's not like it's an "Us vs Them" scenario. They are citizens as well!

My appeal is to find common ground. Common ground in the fact that we're tired of having criminals run free in our society.

Last edited by Kelo6; 02-04-2013 at 01:03..
Kelo6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 00:53   #31
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Cont. From above:

To find common ground, I wrote something along those lines just today, which you can ponder. I hope it is thought-provoking.

The criminal element preys on victims using whatever weapons they can access. The man who ambushed and killed the firefighters on Christmas Eve killed his mother with a HAMMER in 1980. Quite frankly, I wish he'd had a gun. His mother would have suffered less. And I wish he had been kept in prison instead of being released, only to kill more human beings. If the judicial system had done its job, those firefighters would be alive today.

SCOTUS has determined that Law Enforcement has no legal obligation to protect citizens! Law Enforcement's job is to investigate crimes and arrest the suspects. Then the judicial branch has the opportunity to prosecute those suspects using due-process of law.

The majority of Americans have become weak and unwilling to fight. We have been slowly taught to depend on the government (whether Federal or Local) for our protection.

In conforming to this way of thinking, we have bowed down to the criminal element. We subjugated ourselves at their feet, giving them the opportunity to decide our fate. We refuse to prepare to protect and defend ourselves because "it won't happen to me" or because "I live in a good neighborhood." or even more commonly because, "the police are trained for that sort of thing. That's their job." But the fact is, it isn't their job. They are there to collect evidence AFTER we call for their help. And I respect that. They have a lot of work to do dealing with criminals every day. I am not anti-law enforcement. I have volunteered with a local LE agency for three years, and have seen first-hand the actions of criminals and their effect on victims.

The fact is, criminals are criminals. They will prey on their victims and attack whomever they please, until we stand up and fight back.

When will we stand up and fight back for our communities? Where is our willingness to actively, personally, defend our children? Where is our desire to rid our communities of the criminal element?

This will only happen if we beat them. It is a war. We must win. The law-abiding people in their own communities must become active. Every day we remain passive, every day we decide not to prepare for the worst "just in case". Every day we do those things, is another day that the criminal element gains ground.

More importantly, we need to seek more funding for our Jails and Prisons to keep criminals off the streets.

When they come after you, I hope and pray you are prepared to win. Willing to say "enough is enough!" Willing to shoot back. Willing to fight back. And I hope you don't find yourself out-gunned and/or unprepared.

And no, I don't live in fear. I'm smart about where I go and when I go there. I'm smart about who I associate with. I have sought training in self defense, both with firearms and without.

I am not afraid. I am prepared. Prepared to defend myself. Prepared to defend my family. And in defending myself and my family, I am defending my community. Sending a message to the criminal element that we cannot, will not, and do not accept that kind of behavior. If they try their criminal ways here, they will not get the goods/rewards that they are seeking.

What will you do?
Kelo6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 00:54   #32
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Cont. Again, because it was too long...

As To the AWB itself:

An AWB is discriminatory.

Collapsing stocks, pistol grips, and vertical grips can be vital to smaller shooters who need them to support the weapon effectively. A lot of those smaller shooters are women.

AR-15's are light-weight and easier to use. Again, a benefit to small shooters, who are more likely to be targets of the criminal element.

An AWB discriminates against women.

"Barrel Shrouds"
Not many in Congress can even tell you what it does, but those of us that know, realize that it is a heat shield. It's designed to PROTECT the shooters hand from getting burned.

Prohibiting that, is like prohibiting the safety-shield on a table saw.

"Threaded Barrels"
Again, provides no practical advantage to the shooter. It's a cosmetic bonus that allows law-abiding enthusiasts to customize to their hearts content.

These "assault weapons" are accurate, which is why we buy them. We seek to shield ourselves from accidental shootings of unintended targets.

And most importantly, these AWB are RARELY used in crimes. I believe the most recent DOJ statistic, is some 1.7%


The Heller decision (as stated by Professor David Kopel) established, that citizens have the right to own and possess those weapons that are commonly used for self defense.

This includes handguns with 11-19 rounds, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles with 30rnd magazines. Law Enforcement uses 30rnd magazines all the time (including ALL of the recent mass shootings), to defend themselves and others. This was reiterated multiple times by Professor Kopel during the senate hearing. Standard-capacity magazines of self-defense weapons today are 11-19 rounds for handguns and 30 rounds for rifles.

SCOTUS has already determined that we're in the right.

From the DC vs. Heller Decision:

Pg 2 of the PDF on

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
This is what Professor Kopel was talking about. Those weapons that are "in common use for lawful purposes."

This is also critical, those who believe that the 2nd Amendment is arcane:

From page 8 of the decision:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modernforms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Malitia service is not a condition of possession (from Page 9):
The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right unconnected with militia service.
And from pages 10 and 11:
In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is,as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’”
We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.”
So if all else fails, if the AWB does get passed, I think there is plenty of legal precedent to get it repealed.

I'm sorry for that ridiculously-long series of posts. I hope it was worth reading.

Last edited by Kelo6; 02-04-2013 at 00:58..
Kelo6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 19:51   #33
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 180
Originally Posted by janice6 View Post
While trying to portray themselves as "hunters", what they are really saying is: "Here are the type of firearms we will let you have.........for now".
Exactly - until they determined we can't have high powered rifles for large game hunting because a cartridge like 7mm Mag and 30.06 are so powerful that a misplaced shot in the wide open can travel for a few miles and possibly hit another hunter, a car, etc. Isn't is nice the Gov't is always looking out for us? NOT!
damnyankee20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 22:30   #34
CLM Number 224
Señor Member
Texas357's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: CCTX
Posts: 10,042
I read that 90% of murders are comitted by felons. Rather than keeping better track of guns, why not keep tighter controls on felons?
"The more ignorant the individual, the more credulous he becomes, and the more prone to believe in the fearful and satanic nature of the many things that pass his comprehension." - Charles W. Olliver

"I nominate you for President of Texas!" - Dr. Octagon
"I accept your nomination, and thank you for your vote."- Texas357
Texas357 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 22:47   #35
Senior Member
GLJones's Avatar
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 528
Send a message via AIM to GLJones
In addition to everything here, you have to think like a political elected sheriff or chief. The goal is arrests and convictions. That is how they are measured. If they can make it easier to arrest people for 'technical' violations or breaking the myriad of fuzzy laws, they can increase their record. It is a LOT easier to arrest you for having a 'hi-cap' magazine than actually tracking, finding and arresting a real violent criminal.
Niner #105
Big Dog #1004
Glock 26,30,36 and AR15
GLJones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 16:13   #36
Comrade Bork
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 874
It's been done before

Originally Posted by domin8ss View Post
It's funny that Congresswoman Giffords was very pro-gun until she got shot. She, and her husband, know the shooter was mentally instable at the time of the attack, yet they are supporting anti-gun legislation.
Jim Brady got shot & ever since, Sarah has been able to put food on the table & then some by beating the Antigun drum.

Giffords is doing the same.
Comrade Bork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 16:25   #37
Jerry's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Originally Posted by Comrade Bork View Post
Jim Brady got shot & ever since, Sarah has been able to put food on the table & then some by beating the Antigun drum.

Giffords is doing the same.
Not only does it help her poot food on the table.... She has made enough to buy her son a nice new rifle.


Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 02-07-2013 at 16:28..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 07:25   #38
Senior Member
BRabbit's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 957
The pro-gun/pro-rights side needs to rely on facts and logic and realize that the anti-gun/anti-rights people operate on emotion and won't be swayed from their beliefs. Facts and logic, calmly and repeatedly presented will get across to the American people. The biggest hurdle however, is the MSM not giving equal time to the pro-rights people as they do the anti-rights crowd thus preventing the message from getting out. The majority of the MSM is complicit in attacking gun rights, and nothing but "entertainers" vs "journalists" in contrast to many years ago, and this is reflected in the low regard that people have for them as well as for politicians.

The strongest tool the pro-rights people have right now is the "alternative" media and the ability to learn of proposed legislation and to organize in real time using the web, vs back in 1993/94 when one had to rely on television, newspaper, and a monthly periodical. The pro-rights side is better organized and prepared than was the case 20 years ago. Knowledge and reaction is much faster today in regards to what happens in DC.

Last edited by BRabbit; 02-13-2013 at 07:31..
BRabbit is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:39.

GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups

Users Currently Online: 1,510
481 Members
1,029 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42