Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Restless28, Jan 13, 2013.
Sir, if you don't get it, you are never going to get it.
This compromise article should be mandatory reading: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html
If you ever get curious, research the legal term "voluntary acceptance".
Accepting a license or permit to enable any activity is considered acceptance, acknowledgement, and agreement that the activity is (legally) a privilege.
At law a privilege is the precise opposite of a right.
I do not think that anyone in this thread has mentioned this cute little question....
WHY IN THE HELL IS THIS THE BUSINESS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ANYWAY???
Did you know that they had to pass the gun free schools legislation twice?
Yea, the first time they forgot to add the lame BS about how guns within 1000 feet of a school had a detrimental effect on interstate commerce. It is their go-to excuse for interfering in state and local affairs.
Let the states deal with it. Different states, different solutions.
Eventually enough data will emerge to see whether allowing concealed carry by teachers, administrators and custodians has a better outcome than magazine size restrictions and assault weapon bans. Eventually states with less effective laws will copy those with more effective laws. It is how it was meant to be.
Instead we have become so used to seeing the federal government looked to as the entity to solve all our problems.
Reagan was right, Government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem.
Ah... see right there is why I don't believe in a license to conceal carry as it relegates our RIGHT to bear arms to a PRIVILEGE. Anyhow, I will look it up, informed is armed. Thanks
Well, folks, I'm not winning anyone over on the universal background check thing, but if you would, please read...
On the day of the Connecticut massacre, I was reading the news online. The story of the crazy Chinese guy slicing up school kids broke. After reading that story, I started scanning the opinion posts. I saw quite a few pro-gun comments, things like "See! Those kinds of things can happen with knives. Ban all knives. This proves it's not about guns!"
Well, I've always been pro-gun-rights, and not the "sporting guns" variety either. I support people's right to own so-called assault weapons. Nonetheless, I really get tired of hearing all the dumb, tired arguments about banning knives and baseball bats. We all know that guns are better at killing than knives. We know that semi-automatics are superior as weapon to bolt actions. So I wrote a comment, similar to this:
Look, those kids were hacked and sliced, but so far none of them died thank goodness. Now we should think about how that would have gone if the crazy guy had a gun instead. Because here's the thing: As soon as some madman in the US goes into an elementary school and murders a bunch of kids with a gun, then that might be the end of the Second Amendment as we know it. We need to figure out ways to at least try to prevent that from happening.
That's paraphrased, but pretty much what I wrote. That same day, just a short time afterwards, the story broke about Sandy Hook.
I had hoped that pro-gun people would finally see what we're facing. The Second Amendment might survive another mall shooting, but if another elementary school (or day care center, or playground) is shot up, then it's all over, even with a Republican House of Representatives.
I don't hear any rational discussions from pro-gun folks though. I just keep hearing about "them damned liberals," and "Obama" and "guns don't kill people," and "from my cold dead hands" and all of that same bull****. If we don't figure out some alternatives and show that we really care, then it is only a matter of time. The other side will appear as though only they have ideas for preventing massacres, and those people will take control of Congress in 2014 or 2016 or 2018, and then you will see some really serious infringement.
and you seriously believe that by compromising (yet again) on "common sense" or "compassionate" legislation that its going to stop anything? You think they are going to stop with black rifles? Or 10 round mags? I mean did you see NY is trying to impose a 7 round restriction now? You know what it currently is? 10 (Ten). Its a pipe dream to think there is anything positive to come by way of compromise. Its not a matter of not caring by the gun owning community - just like these restrictions have nothing to do with reducing gun violence.
"This is not a "gun" issue. This is a legal system and mental health system issue."
Respectfully, it is both. The kids were killed by a madman with guns. We need to try to prevent madmen from getting guns. It seems to me that one positive step - which has nothing to do with banning anything - would be to make sure law-abiding gun owners are not unknowingly selling their guns to people who are "mentally defective."
No, a background check would not have prevented this particular crime. It might, however, prevent a future crime. One more massacre like Sandy Hook and you can be sure that our gun laws will look like Great Britain's in short order.
I agree totally.
Think of Massachusetts..
They require a state license to own any firearm.
Even if you never open the box in which it comes packaged, even if you never take it outside of your home, you're required to have a license to possess it.
Ergo, the state of Massachusetts has abrogated the 2nd amendment.
The problem is , people are looking in the short term. In the future, maybe not in our generation, or our childrens, but some time in the future, citizens may be called on to defend themselves and our homeland. Just because you cannot imagine it happening, does not mean it won't. It was a very real possibility in the 1940's, and who is to say what may be in the future. Do you really want to disarm average citizens on a knee jerk reaction to a terrible, but avoidable situation like Sandy Hook? Do you want to leave future generations unarmed and totally vulnerable to terrorists or foreign nations?
History tells us it can and probably will happen. I don't want my offspring cursing my name because we didn't have the courage to insist on retaining our God given right to defend ourselves.
Do you really want to disarm average citizens on a knee jerk reaction to a terrible, but avoidable situation like Sandy Hook? Do you want to leave future generations unarmed and totally vulnerable to terrorists or foreign nations?
No! No! Whatever gave you that opinion of me? I'm talking about background checks, not gun bans. I think that guns which are currently legal should remain legal. What I'd like to see are universal background checks and some sort of "safe storage" law to make it more difficult for thieves to steal guns and for kids and insane people to access them. I have a biometric strong box for my Glock. It opens in an instant and I can grab my pistol, fully loaded, with a round in the chamber. I can access it as quickly as if it were in my dresser drawer. Difference is, criminals have to pry it off the wall and cut it open, and kids can't get to it at all. That doesn't take away my right to own a gun. It doesn't require me to register my guns.
yay...AR pricing is going back to normal. Nothing is happening. I cannot wait until the big day tomorrow. /sarcasm.
Not at all. Obama supporters don't buy guns. They either want them banned or have the government give them to them through "spreading the wealth" or "hope and change".
BTW, member since 2006 and you have 12 posts and this subject brought you out of your slumber to post ad nauseam. I smell a rat, er, troll.
It is most respectfully not both. By that same argument it could have been a car, plane or unicycle but it wasn't. It just happened to be a gun. We had a good system in place to keep mad men in asylums but now we want to cuddle their balls and hope they take their meds. I am sorry I will not agree with you.
You can say what if all day long but here is the deal, gun violence is not an epidemic like the media and bs politicians make it out to be. Last year more folks were killed by a fking claw hammer than semi-auto rifles. Is it horrible a bunch of kinds got kill? HELL YES, but messing with our guns and 2nd is not going to change that or keep it from happening.
If you are missing the underlying issues with this premise I can no longer help you. It is horrible but there are MUCH more dangerous issues to deal with than guns I hate to tell you.
I would also like to see some sources. From what I've read, they are going after mag capacity, renewing the AWB and being much more aggressive about it, even threatening Executive action.
How many targets will you face, and how quickly? Unknowns.
I'm really hoping this is true. My main objective this year is to get my hands on either a Noveske, LWRC, or LaRue OBR.
Agreed, but how do we know Obama won't try to do it with an executive order?
Yea I can tell you if everything starts to get back to normal I will have all guns I want purchased as well as plenty of ammo for the foreseeable future.
I had a big list of purchases for this year (for me anyway) and this has been messing with my mojo.