Close
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 54
  1. #31
    QUITTER Irving's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    46,527
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    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.
    "There are no finger prints under water."

  2. #32
    Machine Gunner
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,938

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Irving View Post
    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.

  3. #33
    Door Kicker Mick-Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fremont County
    Posts
    1,576

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clint45 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clint45 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clint45 View Post
    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.
    Mick-Boy

    "Men who carry rifles for a living do not seek reward outside the guild. The most cherished gift...is a nod from his peers."


    nsrconsulting.net

  4. #34
    Grand Master Know It All newracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Timnath
    Posts
    4,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clint45 View Post
    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....



    But not this....



    Like most firearm laws, this is not logical.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bailey CO
    Posts
    6,268

    Default

    Doh....

  6. #36
    Freeform Funkafied funkfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    2,846

    Default NRA Response to BO opinion piece...

    NRA response:
    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
    NRA Benefactor Member
    "If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." Samuel Adams
    Feedback and Disclaimer

  7. #37
    QUITTER Irving's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    46,527
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mick-Boy View Post

    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.
    "There are no finger prints under water."

  8. #38
    Industry Partner BPTactical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Metro
    Posts
    13,933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funkfool View Post
    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.



    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.
    The most important thing to be learned from those who demand "Equality For All" is that all are not equal...

    Gun Control - seeking a Hardware solution for a Software problem...

  9. #39

    Default To: Obama

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

    Translated.. Shove Your Gun Control Up Your Ass !

  10. #40
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver Metro
    Posts
    48

    Default

    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! 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •