Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms [Archive] - Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums

View Full Version : Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms

cebeu

03-13-2011, 16:39

We must seek agreement on gun reforms (http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html)

BushMasterBoy

03-13-2011, 16:40

Yeah..resign!

Aloha_Shooter

03-13-2011, 16:46

... but fire Eric Holder first!

sniper7

03-13-2011, 17:04

Commonsense is not mentioned in the constitution. Fuck off.

ghettodub

03-13-2011, 17:05

sooo, what is bad about anything said in that article? Maybe I didn't spend enough time reading it, but I don't see anything negative. I'm unaware of what "bipartisan" background check changes that were mentioned, so maybe that, but what are the changes if that's the case?

Clint45

03-13-2011, 17:20

Elhuero

03-13-2011, 17:32

We owe the victims of the tragedy in Tucson and the countless unheralded tragedies each year nothing less than our best efforts - to seek consensus, to prevent future bloodshed, to forge a nation worthy of our children's futures.

fuck you barry, I don't owe anybody shit. fix the economy, get gas prices down (in other words, do your job) and leave my guns alone.

ChunkyMonkey

03-13-2011, 17:44

He's keeping it down low to avoid backlash from gun owners yet wrote that piece to please the brady folks. We know what to expect if he gets 2nd term.

2008f450

03-13-2011, 17:49

Focus on the economy you liberal fuck up. The people voted you in to do a job. Stop appologizing for being American and get to work you fuck

Marlin

03-13-2011, 17:56

^^^ Pretty much sums it up there.

Ed_S

03-13-2011, 18:05

I think it should be reworded - 'I think you should all agree with me on gun reform'! As no doubt he'll pull another shady stunt to get his way!

Instead of concentrating on real issues he's rounding up support for a second term e.g.

Brownie pounder et al sensitivity training.......
Equal pay for women........

Let's hope America sees sense and there isn't a second term!

BPTactical

03-13-2011, 18:13

Typical hollow and shallow bullshit from the Chump in Chief.
If he was really concerned about the safety of the citizens he would address the fact that US citizens are dying each day in our southern border states, due to the ineptness of Federal entities that he has oversight of.
He has no credibility.
Even those on the left are discovering his Flavor Aide leaves a sour taste.
And I agree that Sniper7 has a point.
Our Constitution is not a document of "compromise".

SAnd

03-13-2011, 19:23

I'll repeat what I posted in Febuary of 2010-
The big problem with the "middle ground" or compromise is assumes that the opposition will honor a compromise. The words incrementalism, progressive and slippery slope come to mind.

I compromised in 1934 with the National Firearms Act (http://www.co-ar15.com/wiki/National_Firearms_Act) .

I compromised in 1968 with the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (http://www.co-ar15.com/wiki/Omnibus_Crime_Control_and_Safe_Streets_Act_of_1968 ) and the Gun Control Act (http://www.co-ar15.com/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968) of 1968.

I compromised in1986 with the Firearms Owner's Protection Act (http://www.co-ar15.com/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act).

I compromised in 1993 with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (http://www.co-ar15.com/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act).

I compromised in 1994 with the Assault Weapons Ban which fortunately self repealed in 2004.

I'm not inclined to compromise and meet someone half way when they come back and want to take more time after time after time. They keep moving the middle ground.

No more. You want them come and get them.

From my Cold Dead Hands.
Steve A.
　
posted 02 17 2010
http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20291&page=3

2008f450

03-13-2011, 19:25

sniper7

03-13-2011, 19:34

The letter itself seems innocent enough, but reading between the lines it looks like he wants to expand government databases to include more information on each citizen. He made no mention of banning private party sales, although I'm sure that is under discussion.

It looks like he realizes that any attack by his administration on lawful gun ownership will have serious blowback that he wants to avoid.

There was a clear message that state records were lacking. Mentioning loughner being able to get through the cracks meant a crackdown on reporting from all kinda of agencies. I can see CU reporting every student on their list every semester to keep the school gun free.

Any kind of legislation is bad legislation. The only thing I want to see submitted is removing the gun control act and allowing over the counter purchases of NFA. They want restrictions and I want lienancy. The constitution should be law of the land and it doesn't say a damn thing about me buying a machinegun or a fucking flintlock.

Colorado Luckydog

03-13-2011, 19:54

If he gets re-elected, he will shove gun reform down our throats, if he can. He has stayed away from it in his first term because he knows there is no way he would get re-elected if he played his hand to early. No one can tell me he wants us to have our guns. He would take every single one if he could. If I said it once, I've said it a hundred times, our government needs an enema and the enema tube should be shoved right up Barry's ass.

theGinsue

03-13-2011, 21:53

I'm happy to see that no one here is naive enough to take Obummers statement at face value.

He's attempting to placate both sides while clearly attempting to lull firearms owners into a sense of clamplacency.

Paraphrasing sniper's comment, Bert (Burt? sp?)...BPTactical... hit the nail on the head with his comment:

Our Constitution is not a document of "compromise".

Any "common sense" gun control measure is nothing less than a surreptitious way to continue to erode the freedoms and protections we have granted under the Second Amendment. The use of phrases like "common sense", "intelligent" and "fair" are used to play on the emotions of both pro-firearm and anti-firearm individuals.

"Why do you need an assault rifle?"
"Why do you need a high capacity magazine?"
"I don't think anyone should have those things because their only purpose is to kill."

These are just a few of the questions and comments I was faced with by a co-worker a week and a half ago. This same person had come to me looking for me to help him get a great deal on a particular new model of the Taurus Judge. Clearly he wasn't against firearms as a whole, just "common sense" restrictions.

What these individuals don't get is that we (firearms advocates) have had to continue to take several steps backwards to draw our next line in the sand - over and over again. We are now so far from the pure and clear direction of the Second Amendment that we no longer enjoy the freedoms and security 2A was intended to provide.

Our Constitution, the supreme law of our land, doesn't use the words "if", "unless", or "except". Our Constitution clearly states

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
(Note the period at the end. This means there is no room for additional comment or interpretation.)

So, what is the answer? How do we protect ourselves from the evil actions of individuals like Jared Loughner? We don't; at least not completely. Any society that is willing to guarantee it's citizens with their inherent RIGHTS must be willing to accept a certain degree of risks from those who would abuse those rights.

Another of of founding documents contains this declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"Unalienable Rights". This is just what the first 10 amendments to our Constitution address. This is why they are called the Bill of Rights. At no place in our Constitution are we guaranteed the right to feel secure from our fellow citizens. Yes, it's true the Fourth Amendment identifies our right to "feel secure" from inappropriate and illegal searches and seizures from our government entities, but this doesn't translate to a total sense of security.

So, I believe that the proper course is to remove so many of the restrictions currently in place which prohibit honest, law abiding citizens, from the ability to protect themselves and for citizens to prepare for the possible occurance of someone wishing to deal violence upon you.

Mick-Boy

03-13-2011, 23:50

Well said Sir.

sniper7

03-14-2011, 00:09

I'm happy to see that no one here is naive enough to take Obummers statement at face value.

He's attempting to placate both sides while clearly attempting to lull firearms owners into a sense of clamplacency.

Paraphrasing sniper's comment, Bert (Burt? sp?)...BPTactical... hit the nail on the head with his comment:

Any "common sense" gun control measure is nothing less than a surreptitious way to continue to erode the freedoms and protections we have granted under the Second Amendment. The use of phrases like "common sense", "intelligent" and "fair" are used to play on the emotions of both pro-firearm and anti-firearm individuals.

"Why do you need an assault rifle?"
"Why do you need a high capacity magazine?"
"I don't think anyone should have those things because their only purpose is to kill."

These are just a few of the questions and comments I was faced with by a co-worker a week and a half ago. This same person had come to me looking for me to help him get a great deal on a particular new model of the Taurus Judge. Clearly he wasn't against firearms as a whole, just "common sense" restrictions.

What these individuals don't get is that we (firearms advocates) have had to continue to take several steps backwards to draw our next line in the sand - over and over again. We are now so far from the pure and clear direction of the Second Amendment that we no longer enjoy the freedoms and security 2A was intended to provide.

Our Constitution, the supreme law of our land, doesn't use the words "if", "unless", or "except". Our Constitution clearly states

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
(Note the period at the end. This means there is no room for additional comment or interpretation.)

So, what is the answer? How do we protect ourselves from the evil actions of individuals like Jared Loughner? We don't; at least not completely. Any society that is willing to guarantee it's citizens with their inherent RIGHTS must be willing to accept a certain degree of risks from those who would abuse those rights.

Another of of founding documents contains this declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"Unalienable Rights". This is just what the first 10 amendments to our Constitution address. This is why they are called the Bill of Rights. At no place in our Constitution are we guaranteed the right to feel secure from our fellow citizens. Yes, it's true the Fourth Amendment identifies our right to "feel secure" from inappropriate and illegal searches and seizures from our government entities, but this doesn't translate to a total sense of security.

So, I believe that the proper course is to remove so many of the restrictions currently in place which prohibit honest, law abiding citizens, from the ability to protect themselves and for citizens to prepare for the possible occurance of someone wishing to deal violence upon you.

I am just amazed at how well this post is put together, the very basics our country was founded on, how simple it is to understand, yet in our fucked up world damn near half of the supreme court justices, half the senate, a good portion of the house, the president of the US, the attorney general, all these high up people see things with an exact opposite viewpoint.

Irving

03-14-2011, 00:39

FireMoth

03-14-2011, 01:05

Common sense would seem to me that since criminals, by definition break laws, that then any law restricting arms simply removes a law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves from said criminals.

So, in short, we have a 'common sense' gun law. The second amendment to the constitution.

Frankly, i think we should take this posture, and run with it. Whats 'common sense' about a pistol being more restricted than a rifle? whats common sense about restricting hearing protection in the form of sound suppressors? whats common sense about making it illegal to put a vertical fore grip on a pistol?

If we start going after common sense gun laws, we'll have to reverse almost all the gun related legislation since 1935

I'm all for that

ghettodub

03-15-2011, 09:40

"Shall not be infringed."

There is no middle ground, nor any "common sense" law when it comes to gun regulation.

agreed. I spent some time reading it, and the NRAs response.

Tweety Bird

03-15-2011, 12:02

sooo, what is bad about anything said in that article? . . .

For a start, how about THIS little tidbit from his piehole:

"we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens. . ."

Reward? How? Is he talking about taking money from one state and giving it to another if they do as HE wants?

Best Data? What the hell does THAT mean?

And lastly, how does providing the "best data" protect our citizens?

BPTactical

03-15-2011, 14:34

Bottom line- we cannot allow this administration to infringe any further whatsoever on OUR Rights.
If we do they will not stop.
We also need to watch our Governor VERY closely on this issue as well.

The only defense we have is a well organized response. $20.00 to each of your 2A defense organizations may be very well spent about now.......

newracer

03-15-2011, 15:30

If Obama gets re-elected we will see some serious anti-firearm laws drafted. Not before then though.

FireMoth

03-15-2011, 17:05

He's counting on the Japanese nuke plant radiation contaminating sea life and giving rise to Godzilla, whos presence will disturb the cosmic continuum and summon gamora from the stars.
The hope is, they will duke it out in the middle east, and Obama can lament the nuclear waste land created by the rubbery monsters, instead of having to take responsibility for it.
Which is more or less his political policy.

So, you see, playing the back 9 is all just part of 'hope'...

Clint45

03-15-2011, 21:20

Best Data? What the hell does THAT mean?

And lastly, how does providing the "best data" protect our citizens?

"Best data" no doubt means most intrusive and complete acquisition of all available data on each individual citizen.

It does very little to protect citizens. The feds have been able to compile vast amounts of electronic data on individuals whom they had a specific interest in very quickly when necessary. Obama wants all law abiding citizens to be subject to the same intense scrutiny as suspected terrorists whenever they attempt to purchase a firearm or apply for a permit. Simply having a clean criminal history is no longer good enough, it would seem.

Maybe they want to see your school, medical, driving and financial records before approving your purchase. "I would like to sell you this shotgun, but I see that you flunked 9th grade Algebra twice and declared bankruptcy ten years ago. Plus you got a ticket last year for parking next to a fire hydrant. I think you are obviously far too irresponsible to own a firearm, and the amount of time you spend looking at porn on the internet shows that you are clearly of substandard morals as well. This application is denied!"

Clint45

03-15-2011, 21:24

"Shall not be infringed."

There is no middle ground, nor any "common sense" law when it comes to gun regulation.

Tell that to: Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts. May as well add DC, California, and Rhode Island to the list as well.

Irving

03-15-2011, 21:53

Tell that to: Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts. May as well add DC, California, and Rhode Island to the list as well.

You mean every state in the union. The second gun law ever made went too far.

Clint45

03-16-2011, 10:04

You mean every state in the union. The second gun law ever made went too far.

I am probably in the minority here as I feel there should be some sort of basic licensure requirement for concealed carry permits of handguns over .32 caliber.

I feel that long guns of all types and low powered pocket pistols should be completely unregulated, but if someone wants to carry a concealed hi-cap 9mm or .50AE Desert Eagle to the nightclub on a Saturday night I would feel a lot better about it if he had passed a background check and took a 3 hour course which taught him not to fire into crowds, leave his loaded weapon unsecured, or shoot himself in the foot. I've met dozens of individuals who carried concealed handguns who didn't even seem to know the most basic firearm safety rules.

Any license, once granted, would be non-expiring and valid in all 50 states, federal lands, and US territories. I think that would solve a lot of problems and restore rights to those currently residing in totalitarian states who want to make it a felony to leave your house with a handgun or order a hi-cap magazine in the mail.

Irving

03-16-2011, 10:08

Clint45

03-16-2011, 11:34

There is certainly something to be said about the difference between areas with high population densities and places with lower population. The way this (and every) internet forum is run is a great example. The difference in rules on a high population board is vast compared to a brand new or specialty forum with just a few posters. Once an area grows past a certain population density, some things start changing. Not much we can do about it.

Sometimes population density is an issue, but consider that most of New York State is rural -- yet they are subject to the whims of a few politicians in NYC. Similarly, the Illinois FOID requirement applies to all citizens of the state due to a few politicians in Chicago. If NYC and Chicago simply wanted to pass municipal statutes that applied only within their borders it would be less of an issue. As it now stands, there is virtually no difference in the charge for carrying a concealed sawed off shotgun in the city and the charge for getting pulled over with a revolver in the trunk of your car in a rural area in either of those states. Major felony with mandatory prison time. That is insane, and everyone knows it, yet the laws not only remain on the books but they have actually become more strict over the years.

Mick-Boy

03-16-2011, 11:53

I am probably in the minority here as I feel there should be some sort of basic licensure requirement for concealed carry permits of handguns over .32 caliber.

Is .32 caliber an arbitrary number here? You don't think there are a bunch of dead people to attest to the leathality of little .25s or .22s? I don't know what you think you'd gain by adding that "common sense" regulation.

I feel that long guns of all types and low powered pocket pistols should be completely unregulated, but if someone wants to carry a concealed hi-cap 9mm or .50AE Desert Eagle to the nightclub on a Saturday night I would feel a lot better about it if he had passed a background check and took a 3 hour course which taught him not to fire into crowds, leave his loaded weapon unsecured, or shoot himself in the foot. I've met dozens of individuals who carried concealed handguns who didn't even seem to know the most basic firearm safety rules.

If someone needs a three hour class to teach them not to fire into a crowd indiscriminately or shoot themself in the foot, they probably shouldn't have a gun in the first place... or a car, or the ability to breed. I can take a hi-cap 9mm into the club right now (OK, not now. But once I'm back in the States I could). I'd be breaking the law but why should that stop me? I'm not trying to start a purse fight but if someone wants to carry a gun (or use it for that matter), a little thing like breaking the law (in this case by not taking the three hour class) probably won't stop them.

Any license, once granted, would be non-expiring and valid in all 50 states, federal lands, and US territories. I think that would solve a lot of problems and restore rights to those currently residing in totalitarian states who want to make it a felony to leave your house with a handgun or order a hi-cap magazine in the mail.
Now on that one we can totally agree. [Beer]

newracer

03-16-2011, 12:05

I am probably in the minority here as I feel there should be some sort of basic licensure requirement for concealed carry permits of handguns over .32 caliber.

So by your thoughts I would need a class and permit to carry this....

http://www.bersa.com/images/pistols/thun380lt_sat_mid.jpg

But not this....

http://www.jcweaponry.com/images/ar15/Pistol_5.jpg

Like most firearm laws, this is not logical.

Mtn.man

03-16-2011, 12:13

Doh....

funkfool

03-16-2011, 12:19

NRA response (http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/obamaletter314.pdf):

March 14, 2011

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We read your editorial submission to the Arizona Star. However, to focus a national dialogue on guns – and not criminals or mental health issues – misses the point entirely. Americans are not afraid of gun ownership. To the contrary, they overwhelmingly support the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. The primary reason why tens of millions of Americans own firearms is that they fear violent criminals roaming the streets undeterred.

We agree with your assertion that "Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing" in light of the shooting in Tucson. In truth, the professional corps of gun control lobbyists moved with lightning speed to exploit the tragedy. These included the Violence Policy Center ("In the wake of these kind of incidents, the trick is to move quickly"), the Brady Campaign ("Gabrielle Giffords Shooting 'Inevitable'") and Mayors Against Illegal Guns-MAIG ("Bloomberg, Mayors Outline Steps to Help Prevent Another Tucson Shooting"). Your article contains talking points nearly identical to the ones circulated by MAIG for weeks in pursuit of its longstanding gun control agenda. In contrast, it was the National Rifle Association that avoided "playing politics with other people's pain" with our consistent response that only thoughts and prayers for the victims and their families were appropriate in the immediate aftermath.

We also agree with your statement that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. Your record as a public official, however, is anything but supportive of the rights of law-abiding gun owners. In fact, when Congress had an opportunity to voice its support for the basic right of lawful Americans to own firearms, you refused to join a bipartisan majority of more than 300 of your colleagues in signing the congressional amicus brief to the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. In addition, you previously stated (and have never retracted) your support for both Washington, D.C.'s and Chicago's handgun and self-defense bans that the Court rightfully struck down in Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Further, you surrounded yourself with advisors who have advocated against the Second Amendment for years (Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel, to name just a few) and you nominated Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, one of whom has already attempted to eliminate the Second Amendment right entirely. More recently, you selected Andrew Traver to head the BATFE, despite his long-standing association with groups that support onerous new restrictions on our rights.

If you do in fact believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, we suggest you demonstrate that in your policies and those of your Administration, which you have not done to date. Simply saying that you support the right to keep and bear arms is mere lip service if not put into action.

The government owes its citizens its most vigorous efforts to enforce penalties against those who violate our existing laws. The NRA has members proudly serving in law enforcement agencies at every level. Rank and file law enforcement want to arrest bad people – not harass law-abiding gun owners and retailers.

As for enforcing the laws on the books, we strongly suggest you enforce those that actually take violent criminals off the streets. To start, we urge you to contact every U.S. Attorney and ask them to bring at least ten cases per month against drug dealers, gang members and other violent felons caught illegally possessing firearms. By prosecuting these criminals in federal court – rather than state court – strong sentencing guidelines would apply and charges would not be plea-bargained or dismissed, nor would criminals be released after serving only a fraction of their sentences. This simple directive would result in roughly 12,000 violent criminals being taken off the streets every year. Surely you agree that this would be a good first step.

Unfortunately, your Administration is currently under a cloud for allegedly encouraging violations of federal law. We suggest that you bring an immediate stop to BATFE's "Fast and Furious" operation, in which an unknown number of illegal firearm transactions were detected – and then encouraged to fruition by your BATFE, which allegedly decided to let thousands of firearms "walk" across the border and into the hands of murderous drug cartels. One federal officer has recently been killed and no one can predict what mayhem will still ensue. Despite the protests of gun dealers who wished to terminate these transactions, your Administration reportedly encouraged violations of federal firearms laws – and undermined the firearm industry's concerted efforts to deter straw purchases through the "Don't Lie for the Other Guy" program. We hope you agree with our belief that this burgeoning scandal merits a full and independent investigation.

There are additional steps you can take to prevent tragic events such as the Tucson shooting from occurring in the future. One of these is to call on the national news media to refrain from giving deranged criminals minute-by-minute coverage of their heinous acts, which only serves to encourage copycat behavior. If media outlets won't show a fan running onto the field during a baseball game because they don't want to encourage that behavior by others – surely they can listen to law enforcement experts and refuse to air the photographs, video messages, or Facebook postings of madmen and murderers.

Another step is to encourage people to report red flags when they see them. In the case of Tucson, a man clearly bent on violence was not reported to the proper authorities by those who had good reason to believe he had serious mental problems. That's not a deficiency in our gun laws, it's a deficiency in our mental health system – and should be treated as such.

In closing, we agree that gun owners in America are highly responsible. This is in large part due to the NRA's 140 years of dedication to promoting safe and responsible gun ownership, an effort on which we take a back seat to no one. We welcome any serious discussion on policies that focus on prosecuting criminals and fixing deficiencies in the mental health system. Any proposals to the contrary are not a legitimate approach to the issue.

Sincerely,

Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President National Rifle Association

Chris W. Cox
Executive Director
NRA-ILA

Irving

03-16-2011, 12:32

I can take a hi-cap 9mm into the club right now (OK, not now. But once I'm back in the States I could). I'd be breaking the law but why should that stop me? I'm not trying to start a purse fight but if someone wants to carry a gun (or use it for that matter), a little thing like breaking the law (in this case by not taking the three hour class) probably won't stop them.

What law is this? I carry into clubs.

BPTactical

03-16-2011, 15:39

NRA response (http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/obamaletter314.pdf):

When I read this I was quite happy to see LaPeirrer(sp) basically tell Oboingo to pound sand.

Happy enough to renew my NRA membership.
[Beer]

I am probably in the minority here as I feel there should be some sort of basic licensure requirement for concealed carry permits of handguns over .32 caliber.

Lame statement-what difference does it make if a 5.7 round or 16" naval shell goes through your gourd?
Dead is dead and IIRC more people have been killed by a 22LR than any other round in civilian shootings.

Yes Clint45, you are the minority.

sagebrush

03-16-2011, 16:17

Molon Labe !!!!!!!!!!

Translated.. Shove Your Gun Control Up Your Ass !

Buzzkill69

03-16-2011, 17:24

Some very good comments in this thread! I agree that every time we concede a little ground to the Gun ban agenda we move the line closer to extinction and the loss of our 2nd amendment right. It was interesting to see the progression of gun law's through the years as posted by SAnd. Here is another bit on the NRA response from CNN that I didn't see posted:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/16/nra.obama/#

The NRA is very firm on there stance and I can't be happier about that. Obama's deviant tactics make me want to puke! [Puke]I am worried that he will be able to somehow pull off another Sith mind trick on everyone like he did to get into office.

Elhuero

03-16-2011, 17:49

pretty good response by lapierre

BPTactical

03-16-2011, 17:52

Molon Labe !!!!!!!!!!

Translated.. Shove Your Gun Control Up Your Ass !

F?ckin A Bubba!
I have a MOLON LABE bumper sticker and have had a couple folks ask what it means.

Anybody know who can print some bumper stickers with Sagebrushes eloquent words? I'm in!

Clint45

03-16-2011, 18:28

Lame statement-what difference does it make if a 5.7 round or 16" naval shell goes through your gourd?
Dead is dead and IIRC more people have been killed by a 22LR than any other round in civilian shootings.

Yes Clint45, you are the minority.

I certainly would not object if Congress decided to do away with all gun laws entirely, even if that meant no background checks and no more "stop and frisk" searches due to suspicious bulges. If everyone could have whatever gun they wanted and carry it concealed, even machinepistols, I'm not going to complain about that one bit. Thing is, that just ain't gonna happen. I doubt if my somewhat reasonable proposed gun law would pass either. Too many states want their citizens to remain unarmed under penalty of mandatory prison, even if it is an octogenarian with a .25 automatic in her handbag.

Choice of .32 was not arbitrary. .32 ACP is traditionally a police pistol round and civilian self defense round in many European countries. In South America calibers above .38 were prohibited for civilian use (which led to Cooper's use of the .38 Super in the Colt 1911). Restrictions on caliber for civilian caliber is hardly a new idea. And thank you for pointing out that 5.56mm and 5.7mm are smaller than .32 -- oops.

sniper7

03-16-2011, 18:42

I certainly would not object if Congress decided to do away with all gun laws entirely, even if that meant no background checks and no more "stop and frisk" searches due to suspicious bulges. If everyone could have whatever gun they wanted and carry it concealed, even machinepistols, I'm not going to complain about that one bit. Thing is, that just ain't gonna happen. I doubt if my somewhat reasonable proposed gun law would pass either. Too many states want their citizens to remain unarmed under penalty of mandatory prison, even if it is an octogenarian with a .25 automatic in her handbag.

Choice of .32 was not arbitrary. .32 ACP is traditionally a police pistol round and civilian self defense round in many European countries. In South America calibers above .38 were prohibited for civilian use (which led to Cooper's use of the .38 Super in the Colt 1911). Restrictions on caliber for civilian caliber is hardly a new idea. And thank you for pointing out that 5.56mm and 5.7mm are smaller than .32 -- oops.

dude, I am 25, I often carry a suspicious bulge around even if I am not CCW'ing.

why don't you show me some stats of all the police that carry around a .32 acp. I would have to put money on it...a LOT of money that it might be something more along the lines of .40 cal with .45 and 9mm right behind it. 12 gauge and .223 would be the shotgun and rifle calibers with .308 and .300 win mag behind the rifle in popularity.
MAYBE .32 might be a back-up ankle gun for SOME guys, but I am guessing more guys carry around a .38 snub nose or even a .380 with the recent popularity spike in that caliber.

also, this is not south america. this is the United States, land of the free, home of the brave, where more people own guns than some countries' people own cars.

Fuck the anti-gunners, fuck obama, and fuck anyone who says the constitution says anything more than is written on the paper. nowhere does it mention classes about guns, nowhere does it mention calibers, nowhere does it mention if the "arms" are fully automatic or fucking flintlock.

it says the people have the right to bear arms. no ifs ands or but's about it. there are no conditions attached to it.

if there are conditions, then freedom of speech should be limited on the internet, on television, radio and anything else that wasn't around during the time the bill of rights were inked out.

Irving

03-16-2011, 18:52

He said in many European countries. Not here. I've never even seen a .32acp round.

Elhuero

03-16-2011, 19:03

I'm all for MOLON LABE

and I do think it will come to that eventually. when? who knows.

just hope folks realize what that means.

Mick-Boy

03-16-2011, 22:07

What law is this? I carry into clubs.

You're right. I was repeating half remembered information and it turns out I was talking out my ass.

[thread hijack]Has the CCW law in Colorado been revised in the last couple of years?[/thread highjack]

Irving

03-16-2011, 22:41

Well, I'd probably carry into clubs either way.

Clint45

03-17-2011, 00:15

My biggest problem with gun laws is that some of them arbitrarily turn normally law abiding citizens into felons with no legal recourse. Even if the prosecutor acknowledges that you had no criminal intent and were unaware you were even braking the law he will do his best to convict you anyway -- and the jury will probably go along with it. Appeal will be thrown out and conviction will not be overturned. Rights may be lost forever, including right to be gainfully employed in most professions, even if you have a good lawyer who is able to get you out of a prison sentence.

No-one should EVER be charged with a felony for simple possession of a gun. If they don't have a permit and are carrying concealed, confiscate their gun and write them a $500 ticket. Felonies should only be handed out for hurting people and stealing stuff. Unregistered SMG or SBS? Okay, make it a $1000 ticket. 10 years in federal prison for a rifle with a malfunctioning sear or a shotgun barrel a quarter inch below the legal limit is ridiculous. Same thing goes for threatening to prosecute someone for replacing a thumbhole stock with a folder. The penalties don't fit the crime and don't even seem to make sense.

Aloha_Shooter

03-17-2011, 05:06

What law is this? I carry into clubs.

You CAN carry into clubs but note: "It is unlawful to possess a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances."

Source: http://www.usacarry.com/colorado_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Byte Stryke

03-17-2011, 11:05

You CAN carry into clubs but note: "It is unlawful to possess a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances."

Source: http://www.usacarry.com/colorado_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

well by god if you have a cold and take anything for it you are in violation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoephedrine

Irving

03-17-2011, 20:18

You CAN carry into clubs but note: "It is unlawful to possess a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances."

Source: http://www.usacarry.com/colorado_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

I was aware of that part, but thank you for posting it anyway. Not everyone may be aware of that.

funkfool

03-17-2011, 20:27

F?ckin A Bubba!
I have a MOLON LABE bumper sticker and have had a couple folks ask what it means.

Anybody know who can print some bumper stickers with Sagebrushes eloquent words? I'm in!
Correia on THR used to do hats - that's where I got mine...
Lately tho.. I'll use Life Liberty Etc (https://www.lifelibertyetc.com/Products)...

But I'm sure someone here on the board can do it cheaply... *crickets*

halletts

03-17-2011, 20:28

http://www.redstate.com/mikehammond/2011/03/16/the-perfect-purchaser/

The last line is classic.