Irony! [ROFL1]Quote:
Originally Posted by dwalker460
Printable View
Irony! [ROFL1]Quote:
Originally Posted by dwalker460
Nope, sarcasm. get used to it.
Shall not be infringed MEANS shall not be infringed.
Go read those pesky Amendments and Preamble again, maybe the truth will finally sink in.
I am gonna to go back on my answer a little bit. It is very important for people to understand the responsibilities that come along with carrying a firearm. I just dont like the part where some politician decides what is best for all. It is kind of the one size fits all mentality.
What works for one person might not work for the next.
Did you know that if you are applying for a CO driver's license and you are 21 years of age or older, you need not have any driver's training at all? Just show up and take the test. If you pass, you get a DL.
Driving is a privilege and not a Constitutionally protected right that every citizen is born with.
Since my two adult children were both homeschooled, we did not have access to driver's ed through the public schools. Does anyone think that their high school driver's ed class made them a good driver? I used this program: http://driveredinabox.com/state-information/colorado/ It was good for documenting what the state required for applicants under the age of 18. There was some nice information included, however, the time spent with my kids in the car was 1000 times more important than what the state required. I also had both of the drive with several other adults, who I believe are safe and responsible. Sometimes variety in instruction can have multiple benefits.
For the record, IMO, the CO driver's test is a joke. My kids could have passed it after the second time I took them on the road. I would not let them take the test until they met my standard. The only down side to teaching them how to drive is the constant nagging fear that if someday in the future they are involved in an accident fatality (theirs or someone else), I will have to live with the responsibility, real or perceived. I chalk it up to being an adult.
I don't know why firearms training would be any different?
Good parenting is something that no legislature will ever be able to define. That doesn't seem to stop them from trying.
Be safe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brobar
The 2A does say that you can have a tank.
It's the Mrs. and the HOA parking restrictions that say "No".Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodburbon
I can't afford the ammunition or the JP5 the tank runs on. Don't they get 2 gallons to the mile?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
I feel the same way about automatic weapons. I don't want one, because I can't afford the ammunition. If the GOV did away with the dumb full auto restrictions, I still would only shoot one round at a time.
Here is another oddity or idiosyncrasy in government regulation. With all of the other noise abatement requirements for motorcycles, cars, airplanes, etc... Why doesn't the government want us all to have suppressors on our rifles? How many ranges have to deal with never ending neighborhood complaints about the noise. If it was easier to obtain and utilize suppressors, some manufacturers might even begin including them as part of a package deal or making models with integrated barrel/suppressors. Think of all the health issues related to hearing loss that would benefit from the voluntary use of easily obtained suppressors.
Maybe we can convince some progressive legislator that suppressors be taken off the NFA, for the good of the children [Flower]
I think your suggestion has significant merit. Repeal of the restriction on suppressors *is* a health issue, and one that is recognized in some European countries where suppressors may be purchased OTC. It also has merit as a counterweight to many of the new restrictions now being pursued.Quote:
Originally Posted by cstone
It was not too long ago that I posted a question about suppressor legislation in GD that was later moved to NFA. In it, I bared my ignorance of the origins of the restrictions on suppressors and learned a LOT about the legislative history. That thread may be found here --> http://www.ar-15.co/threads/84059-Qu...or-Legislation. Perhaps others will learn something as I did. For example:
* Whereas I thought the restriction of suppressors was due to anticipated use as an assassin's weapon, it was also because of their use by poachers.
* Teufelhund made the following suggestion:
* asmatao was a fount of information with references to the context surrounding some of the passage of past gun control laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelhund
* It motivated me to research a summary of the major federal gun legislation that's been passed since 1900 and posting it in post # 25 of that thread.
Returning to your point about suppressors, it seems to me those restrictions need to be seriously re-evaluated. Now is as good a time as any. I'll be looking into what I, and others, can do to get this on the radar screen of those who can advance the idea.
I oppose it due to incrementalism. Today this measure. The next incident then leads the Marxists to say "That didn't work, we need to restrict rights even more."
In general, I don't trust Internet-only training. I've taken too much of it to place that kind of faith in training that should be important. I probably wouldn't have objected had this proposal been voiced while Owens was governor and the GOP held both houses but I don't trust Hickenlooper or Morse any further than I can see them in my telescope (a Celestron 8 not spotting scope or rifle scope -- clarified for anyone who might think it was a veiled threat of some kind).
Having said that, I oppose it because of what everyone else has said -- this is just the first piece of incrementalism. We've already given several inches and it's clear they want several miles so why give them yet another inch?