Assault Weapons? [Archive] - Page 4 - Bogley Outdoor Community

MY T PIMP

02-12-2013, 07:50 AM

Okay, stayed away from this section because I tend to get a little fired up, and have the fear of being defined of some way out there radical. But then again, I thought,"Why would people define me as a radical." Not because I am, but perhaps it's what society, and media has defined" Just like the definition Assault Rifle; last time I checked what society has deemed assault rifles, when fractionally calculated with numbers owned has had very little to do with assault. How many zeros would I have to put after a decimal before actually adding in another number to show how many of these weapons have been used in an assault. (mind you that does not count for military purposes, but then again these so called assault rifles are simply semi autos.) Here is my common sense feelings about the whole thing;
1. It is my god given right to be able to protect myself, family, and property, and there for have the right to have comparable weapons and magazine capacities to do so.
2. The 2nd amendment is the last vestige of power that the American people have to show they are ultimately in control over the government. George Washington believed we civilians should have the right to own and bare weapons comparable to its own government's for this exact reason. (That being said we are already at a distinct disadvantage given, nuclear weapons, tanks, jets, bombers, fully automatic weapons, etc..) Which is why it is more important than ever to at least keep what we now have available to us.
3. In the event of an international attempt to occupy and invade this country, we citizens have the right to have weapons at our disposal to help defend the nation. It is by no means a fact that that in it's self has been and is a significant factor of why the USA has gone so long with out a ground invasion from abroad.
4. Recreational and Hunting purposes.

With all of the proposed gun legislation out there, why is there a lack of focus on gun free zones. 9 out of 10 mass and attempted shootings happen at these places. Honestly, we would see immediate results, if gun free zones were required to protect patrons who abide by their gun free policies. The stupidest thing I ever see is a sign on the door of a business, or property declaring it a Gun Free Zone, you might as well call it an invitation to kill. I have no problem with gun free zone properties as long as they have a metal detector at every entrance and an armed guard.

I do not care what the rest of the world thinks of our policies, and I would be lying if I said "I don't think there are outside influences in this matter." Call it conspiracy if you want, but it feels like something is trying to break this nation, bring it down to a what other entities call a level playing field globally. They don't like that capitalism has advanced us so far ahead (now I know some may argue that, but the fact of the matter is, once Americans are turned loose to their dream, their opportunity and reward of accomplishing it is greater than anywhere else in the world). Think about this; imagine you were a french citizen just turned loose to pursue your dream, but your reward for success is very well the possibility of being taxed 75% for your success. I may not have voted for Obama, but being part of the middle class, I was promised better, and in fact are now seeing far worse than I ever expected. As a responsible worker who has always paid for health insurance, I now pay triple the copay, my coverage is not even close to as good as it used to be, and my premiums have sky rocketed, I am now paying more taxes, next year because of Obamacare I won't be able to use a health saving account, my fuel prices have skyrocketed, and now my firearms along with 99.9% of gun owners which we haven't abused in anyway are under threat. So can you Obaminians tell me just what good things I'm supposed to see from this guy?!!!

Iceaxe

02-12-2013, 02:03 PM

"The Gun Is Civilization"
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

Iceaxe

02-12-2013, 02:13 PM

Where Criminals Get Their Guns – Or, Why Universal Background Checks Won’t Stop Crime
February 11 2013

According to an article put out today by TheDailyCaller.com, a study originally done by the Justice Department in 1997 and revised in 2002 found that less than 9% of guns in crimes were obtained through a licensed dealer.

Almost 80% were stolen or borrowed from family members, bought illegally on the street from other criminals or obtained in some other illegal way.

Only 8.3% bought their guns from licensed dealers and another 3.8% bought their guns from a pawn shop.

It can be presumed that those who can pass a background check will buy their guns legally, those who cannot will continue to get them illegally with no regard for what current gun laws are on the books.

Further evidence that universal background checks are just another tax and infringement on the rights of law abiding citizens who purchase their firearms legally.

Full article here:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/11/where-criminals-get-their-guns/

Brian in SLC

02-12-2013, 03:27 PM

I may not have voted for Obama, but being part of the middle class, I was promised better, and in fact are now seeing far worse than I ever expected. As a responsible worker who has always paid for health insurance, I now pay triple the copay, my coverage is not even close to as good as it used to be, and my premiums have sky rocketed, I am now paying more taxes, next year because of Obamacare I won't be able to use a health saving account, my fuel prices have skyrocketed, and now my firearms along with 99.9% of gun owners which we haven't abused in anyway are under threat. So can you Obaminians tell me just what good things I'm supposed to see from this guy?!!!

Couple of things, off topic a bit but:

Gas prices: http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

http://www.utahgasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

Couldn't believe how cheap gas got a short couple weeks ago. Then it popped back up. Still not as high as the recent highs in the last few years, though. Interesting to look at the cycle of it. Up up up, crash, up up up, crash. Crazy stuff.

Health care: curious, because I don't know, but, didn't the limit for HSA's increase? Biggest change was that over the counter drugs without a presciption aren't payable out of an HSA? What exactly did "Obamacare" have to do with not being able to use an HSA? I thought the trend was more HSA's?

Yeah, the insurance deal is terrible but I can't see blaming Obamacare on heath care costs. Free market maybe and declining health, some folks living longer, obesity an epidemic, etc. Kids covered until 25 on their parents insurance. Pre-existing conditions covered. More important than ever to stay healthy. But, I can't see blaming the president for how poor the health care and the health of an average person in the U.S. is.

The tax complaints are interesting. Neither party was going to renew the break we got under Bush. So, that expired.

What good? Cabinet posts lookin' good. REI chick for Dept of Interior? Good stuff. Still gettin' out of Afghanistan. My pension from a former company seems more protected than ever. I like his recent executive orders on gifts and saleries. Bail out money recovered. Jobs and economy seem to be improving or at least holding steady. Heck, I'd actually consider buying an American made car now (and, a Ford rental in Europe last summer was great, the auto industry is makin' a come back).

Arab spring thing has been a tough row to hoe. Will continue to be "interesting" over there. Freedom ain't free I'm guessin'. And, sometimes the vocal minority is a pain in the arse. Instability will continue for a while. Wild times for sure. Time will tell whether or not Obama's policy shift in the region will be good in the short and/or long term.

I think he's doing ok. With regard to the gun thing he didn't just come out and mandate a plan. Had his folks study it. Seems like half the country flew back to DC to meet with he or Biden. And, its been good dialog with the folks who have. Even considering some of the NRA positions. Seems balanced and intelligent. His executive orders around guns have seemed reasonable. He'll dump a plan on congress and they'll fail spectacularly, of course, 'cause no one wants any of that on 'em for the next election cycle but at least he tried (ha ha).

My glass is well more than half full. But, I'm an optomistic person. I don't notice the increase in taxes 'cause my salery is up. Folks at work are leaving for other jobs which indicates to me that there's opportunity out there now, where there wasn't a year or two ago. We hire a number of folks every week. Also a good indicator.

When the stock market crashes again, will we blame Obama? Overbloated and over valued it seems. Won't last.

Anyhoo, sorry for the ramble...back to "Obama's gonna take our guns!"

oldno7

02-12-2013, 04:32 PM

Oh---Look....another unicorn is pooping a rainbow, koombaya(liberal/progressive view)

oldno7

02-12-2013, 04:37 PM

Conservative view--f ing obamacare, no one to date has even read the entire thing.

gun control--yep, we shoot pretty good

shall not be infringed

and heres what zero wants to see.......(bend over baby)

you gots lots more money you owe on this debt and we need your money to fund the eternal welfare,foodstamp, extended WC,zerocare, etc.

Iceaxe

02-12-2013, 05:12 PM

Since I'm on a gambling roll I just placed a bet on how many times Obama says "gun" in tonights speach.

Brian in SLC

02-12-2013, 08:56 PM

63430

Iceaxe

02-12-2013, 09:02 PM

Cars don't kill people... baby unicorn's with a penchant for alcohol do.

Iceaxe

02-12-2013, 09:04 PM

Since I'm on a gambling roll I just placed a bet on how many times Obama says "gun" in tonights speach.

I think I blew this one.... I had 23.

63431

Brian in SLC

02-12-2013, 09:12 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-yVLRu2QDR0

Iceaxe

02-12-2013, 10:23 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-yVLRu2QDR0

If 9 out of 10 people support it as the video states then getting the law passed should be no problemo.

Or the video could be complete horse shit and the law will not pass.

Time will tell....

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

oldno7

02-14-2013, 06:19 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHmxY7zE5uc

Brian in SLC

02-14-2013, 09:15 AM

Quote from a feller I got a kick out of, "guns make stupid people feel powerful."

Fun article in the SLC trib:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/entertainment2/55810564-223/gun-autism-government-guns.html.csp

Kirby: Utah gun lobby being commandeered by crazies
By Robert Kirby
| Tribune Columnist
First Published Feb 12 2013 08:37 am • Last Updated Feb 12 2013 08:06 pm
When it comes to political causes, everyone is passionate about their own. Passion is in fact the fuel that drives most political causes. Unfortunately, passion is also the first enemy of civility and logic.
Evidence of this is in how various groups promote their respective causes "on the hill." A good example would be supporters of SB55, a bill calling for health insurance coverage for autism.
To illustrate their point, families brought their autistic children to the Capitol Friday. In the middle of the rotunda was a pit containing 18,532 colored plastic balls — one for every autistic child in Utah.
As visual aids go it was very effective. Even a dullard like me with no real first-hand autism experience could relate. I saw the pit and thought, "Wow, that’s a lot of kids. Is there something to this SB55?"
Here’s another question: How far do you think SB55 would get if the parents of autistic children threatened to shoot federal employees if they didn’t get what they wanted?
At the same time the autism lobby was calling for government support, a gun rights group was outside on the front steps of the Capitol advocating support for the Second Amendment.
For the record, I am not anti-gun. I own guns. I own guns in a number generally associated with "a lot." Also, I’m not a huge fan of big government. But I’m even less of a fan of extremism.
Unlike the autism support crowd inside, there were a number of problems with the visual aids of the "gunners" outside. In a word, them.
Among the more reasonable appearing gun ownership types were the unwitting poster children for the gun control lobby.
About a third of the crowd showed up in urban camouflage, conspicuously toting weapons of various calibers and rates of fire, and waving flags and signs daring the federal government to do something about it.
Even a dullard like me with lots of first-hand firearms experience could relate. I watched the crowd and thought, "Wow, that’s a lot of scary gun owners. Maybe there’s something to this gun control thing."
Among the symbols of pro-gun defiance was a flag featuring an assault rifle and the words, "Come And Get It."
Really? If it came to an actual fight over your guns, do you honestly think it would be a fair one? The government could deprive you of your guns by simply flying a bomb through your bedroom window some night.
Also, if you’re the kind of person who thinks responsible gun ownership is to go around daring someone to engage you in a fire fight, I think it ought to be against the law for you to own a Pez dispenser never mind an assault rifle.
But my favorite visual aid was a Confederate battle flag on which was superimposed an assault rifle. Perhaps it was intended to be an affirmation of states’ rights. If so, it wasn’t a very good one.
It takes a pretty clueless gun owner to think he’s going to change anyone’s opinion by waving a symbol of historical racism in support of the Second Amendment. The last time that flag was used to support a states’ rights cause the federal government burned the South flat.
This isn’t a problem with the crazies themselves, but rather the more reasonable Second Amendment advocates who allow their cause to be commandeered by nut jobs.
In that case the biggest detriment to responsible gun ownership isn’t going to be the people who don’t like guns. It’s going to be the ones who obviously like them way too much.

Brian in SLC

02-14-2013, 09:21 AM

From Wayne himself, "no loopholes".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qd7jFd4qSs

Iceaxe

02-14-2013, 09:31 AM

From Wayne himself, "no loopholes".

The NRA has revised their position from 15 years ago.

When bad things happen the people demand increased safety. The government responds by taking away more of your rights.

Freedom comes with a price tag.

63445

Iceaxe

02-14-2013, 09:58 AM

From Wayne himself, "no loopholes".

Come on Brian, you are better then that. I know you do your homework.

FYI - The instant background check was actually the NRA’s proposal. It was offered as an amendment to the Brady Bill. But things have changed in the past 20 years.

The NRA poistion now is that background checks are an ineffective invasion of privacy. It is no longer an effetive legislative option because of the powerful “mental health lobby.” The NRA once supported universal checks but states changes in special interests surrounding mental health and privacy have derailed the effort and led to NRA leaders throwing in the towel.

Unless mental health is computerized and all records placed in a central database, along with HIPAA laws being changed and the support of the AMA, the only thing Universal background checks will accomplish is to provide a database for gun confiscation (mandatory gun buy backs), as they are ineffective in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

:cool2:

stefan

02-14-2013, 11:04 AM

Unless mental health is computerized and all records placed in a central database, along with HIPAA laws being changed and the support of the AMA, the only thing Universal background checks will accomplish is to provide a database for gun confiscation (mandatory gun buy backs), as they are ineffective in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

are you intentionally ignoring background checks and criminals here?

Iceaxe

02-14-2013, 12:19 PM

are you intentionally ignoring background checks and criminals here?

:roll: Not at all...

I'll make this really simple for you.... Until doctors are forced to submit the medical records of the mentally ill into a database that is accessible to those doing a universal background check, doing a universal background check is not worth the time or effort.

Currently the medical profession opposes such a database, and because of their lack of support the NRA has withdrawn support for a Universal Background Check. The part of the video the pro-gun crowd conveniently dismisses is the "No Loopholes". Until the medical records loophole is closed the universal background check is nothing but a giant loophole you could drive a tank through.

Something else to keep in mind, something like 90% of guns used in crimes were obtained illegally. Criminals by definition do not follow the law. If the existing laws were enforced, theoretically those guns would be off the street and those criminals would be locked up for illegal possession.

Iceaxe

02-14-2013, 01:00 PM

Wait, I hear all the anti-gun folks saying, “Don’t worry, no one is talking about confiscation of your guns.”

Well, apparently Missouri Democrats are.

The Missouri state legislature is strongly Republican controlled so the bill is likely to go nowhere, but it’s further proof that the anti-gunners goal is confiscation.

Here is the worrying part of the bill:
Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

Full Bill Here: http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM

Byron

02-14-2013, 02:13 PM

/\ /\ /\ That's friggin' crazy. Never vote for a Democrat, any Democrat, ever.

Brian in SLC

02-14-2013, 02:17 PM

Until the medical records loophole is closed the universal background check is nothing but a giant loophole you could drive a tank through.

Something else to keep in mind, something like 90% of guns used in crimes were obtained illegally. Criminals by definition do not follow the law. If the existing laws were enforced, theoretically those guns would be off the street and those criminals would be locked up for illegal possession.

I think, though, that if you've been deemed mentally incompetant by a judge, isn't that record available as part of the background check now?

And, you got a criminal who uses a gun in a crime, are you sayin' the police don't run the gun through the database to see if it was stolen, then, tack that on to their crime too? My trip to the ATF downtown here in SLC would say, yeah.

I guess I've never quite understood the arguement that if existing laws were enforced, that these illegally obtained guns would be off the street. Wouldn't that be the cart in front of the horse?

If the guns were "registered", then, stolen guns recovered would go back to the owners, yes? Good thing? I kinda think so. Was in my case.

With Obamacare now covering pre-existing conditions, then, maybe some of this medical information would be more available? Dunno. Might grease the skids, though. Your insurance company knows exactly what medical issues you've had, HIPAA or not. Maybe the gun and insurance lobbyists could get together and buy a congressman a steak for dinner, and, have them slip a little something in a bill at 12:04am when no one's looking...

Brian in SLC

02-14-2013, 02:26 PM

Always some interesting stuff in here:

http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/documents/2012Q4.pdf

Brian in SLC

02-14-2013, 02:30 PM

/\ /\ /\ That's friggin' crazy. Never vote for a Democrat, any Democrat, ever.

Well, there's plenty of crazy on boths sides of the aisle, that's for sure.

Iceaxe

02-14-2013, 03:55 PM

I think, though, that if you've been deemed mentally incompetant by a judge, isn't that record available as part of the background check now?

NOPE! In fact last time I check (two weeks ago) only half the states allowed any access to mental records. Utah was one of the states that did not allow access, but Utah has since agreed to submit their mental records to be included in background checks.

And, you got a criminal who uses a gun in a crime, are you sayin' the police don't run the gun through the database to see if it was stolen, then, tack that on to their crime too?

That is exactly what the police do. But what does that have to do with a universal background check or gun registration? And in case you don't know the answer "not a dam thing", as we are taking about completely different databases.

I guess I've never quite understood the arguement that if existing laws were enforced, that these illegally obtained guns would be off the street. Wouldn't that be the cart in front of the horse?

It's kinda sarcasm.... meaning if the criminals obeyed the law they would not have the gun to begin with, so why is anther law that the criminals will not obey going to stop them? Or passing anther law that is completely unenforceable going to change things. If the criminal is caught with the illegal gun right now he can be locked up for something like 5 years just for having an illegal firearm. Same reason you see the "let's just pass a law against Meth" stuff floating around, it's pointing out the absurdity.

If the guns were "registered", then, stolen guns recovered would go back to the owners, yes? Good thing? I kinda think so. Was in my case.

And how would that change anything? If your guns are currently stolen they are returned to you (so long as you report the theif, which is a good thing).

FYI: Canada recently eliminated their long gun registration law because it was of no advantage to law enforcement and was costing a lot to maintain. In other words they figured the money would be better spent in other places.

With Obamacare now covering pre-existing conditions, then, maybe some of this medical information would be more available? Dunno. Might grease the skids, though. Your insurance company knows exactly what medical issues you've had, HIPAA or not. Maybe the gun and insurance lobbyists could get together and buy a congressman a steak for dinner, and, have them slip a little something in a bill at 12:04am when no one's looking...

I don't know all the details of HIPAA, from my own personal experience it has some major flaws. I know the medical industry in highly opposed to releasing any records so that is a very difficult obstacle.

:popcorn:

Brian in SLC

02-14-2013, 06:08 PM

NOPE! In fact last time I check (two weeks ago) only half the states allowed any access to mental records. Utah was one of the states that did not allow access, but Utah has since agreed to submit their mental records to be included in background checks.

Not talking about mental health records. Talking about being adjudicated as mentally defective. I think that's in the database.

I think some/most of the HIPAA stuff comes from being denied insurance, IMHO, for pre-existing conditions.

Registration...dunno. Is it coming? Is it a good idear?

I think I heard quoted the other day, and, haven't vetted it, but, 80% of folks in the US don't own guns. And, the folks out there fightin' for the 2nd amendment right to arm bears, uhh, I mean bear arms, are, probably due to the media influence, nut ball crazy lookin' idiots. I agree with "reasonable people" that its a shame that either side will define this issue. Let's have some common sense and ground here.

oldno7

02-14-2013, 06:24 PM

If you want "common sense", which infringing on the 2nd Amendment does not qualify, try banning cell phone use in automobiles.

then you, "uncommon" common sense types can pick on a privilege vs. a right.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/23/us-cellphones-driving-idUSTRE68M53K20100923

oldno7

02-14-2013, 06:39 PM

Dear Mr. xxxxxxx

Thank you for taking the time to write with your concern regarding possible infringement upon Second Amendment rights, in light of the tragic events in
Newtown, CT.

As a parent, grandparent, and great grandparent, I am heartbroken by the tragedy which occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012. With the loss of 26 lives, including 20 children, a dark cloud has been cast over our nation. As we mourn the passing of so many fellow Americans, there has been a call to act by the Obama Administration, Members of Congress and the American public to find legislative solutions to curb gun violence.

Up to this point, the legislative efforts which have been discussed, have taken a single-sided approach to the problem. However, experts in the area of these types of shootings have identified many common contributing causes, including various issues with mental illness and treatment, violence in our culture through media, breakdown of the family unit, breakdowns in background checks for weapons purchases, response times of law enforcement, and the emergency action plans for schools. As we move forward, we must focus on carefully considered, comprehensive approaches that include all of these factors. Anything less is a disservice to victims and their families.

As you may well know, throughout my service to the people of Utah, I have long opposed any encroachment upon the Second Amendment to the Constitution. I strongly believe that the Constitution clearly guarantees the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. In addition, I have consistently opposed legislation that erodes the right to bear arms, as it has been shown that such legislation does little to deter the commission of crimes with guns.

I stand committed to actively work to support legislative efforts to curb violent attacks in concert with the rights and liberties guaranteed to us by the Constitution. There is no single contributing factor to these tragedies. All stakeholders must be willing to approach any action with an open mind and to resolve not to rely on political rhetoric, but instead to depend on available facts.

Again, thank you for your interest in such an important matter. Rest assured, I will continue to uphold the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and will work to help provide the tools necessary to curb future violent attacks.

Your Senator,

Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator

Sombeech

02-14-2013, 10:02 PM

We can all agree that the main reason the Gun Control conversation is so big right now and again is because of Sandy Hook.

But what is being proposed would have had zero, nada, negatory good buddy, goose egg, and absolutely no influence on the shooter because he stole the gun. Yet the Gun Control crowd just breeze on past that "slap in the face fact" and keep on a pushin' for more restrictions on law abiding citizens.

It would be nice to discuss proposals that would have actually had some impact at Sandy Hook if they were in place, since, ya know, Sandy Hook is the main reason these conversations are so relatively hot right now.

Iceaxe

02-15-2013, 12:38 AM

I think I heard quoted the other day, and, haven't vetted it, but, 80% of folks in the US don't own guns.

I don't know how or where you are getting your numbers. Are they counting children or something? But last time I looked something like 48% of all households owned at least one firearm.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

oldno7

02-15-2013, 05:16 AM

I didn't watch zeros entire speech, but it seems he never mentions keeping schools safe.

It was never about schools and children for this admin. it's always been about banning guns.

Sandy Hook was a mere prop that they use when it is convenient.

oldno7

02-15-2013, 07:08 AM

the liberal/progressives call them gun nuts---the rest of us call them Patriots!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vb2Ggo4QhBs

Brian in SLC

02-15-2013, 08:34 AM

IIt was never about schools and children for this admin. it's always been about banning guns.

Sandy Hook was a mere prop that they use when it is convenient.

You are wrong. Never been about banning guns. First four years? Nothing. Nada. Assault weapons ban sunsetted and did Obama do a single thing? Nada. Congress? Nada.

Its never been about banning guns.

Its mostly about endless and mindless rhetoric from unintelligent people.

Iceaxe

02-15-2013, 08:44 AM

I didn't watch zeros entire speech, but it seems he never mentions keeping schools safe.

I watched Obama's speech and I noticed he never once mentioned drones and the large number of people he was killing with them. Not one mention of the civilians killed, the US citizens killed, or the foreign nationals who oppose the US that have been killed.

Mark my words, this drone shit is going to come back and bite the US in the ass big time. Even our closest allies are distancing themselves from the US use of drones. They want no part of what is US assassination by executive order. The Obama administration is now attempting to get the use of drones on US soil against US citizens. That's the gun ban people should be worried about.

Brian in SLC

02-15-2013, 08:55 AM

I watched Obama's speech and I noticed he never once mentioned drones and the large number of people he was killing with them.

Will be interesting to watch. If you watch the foreign press, these drone attacks have gotton a fair amount of airplay across the puddle. "They" (you know, the other side) use them as propaganda against the US no doubt.

Well, we picked up Harry Truman floating down from Independence
We said "What about the war?", he said "Good riddance"
We said "What about the Bomb, are you sorry that you did it?"
He said "Pass me that bottle, and mind your own business"

Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Thursday promised to be more forthcoming with the American public on his administration's campaign of lethal drone strikes amid criticism over the targeting of suspected U.S. terrorism suspects abroad.Obama, under pressure from the left and right to allow greater scrutiny of the secret decision-making process for killing Americans overseas, vowed to work with Congress to craft a "mechanism" to be more open about how the drone war is conducted.
"What I think is absolutely true is it's not sufficient for citizens to just take my word for it that we're doing the right thing," Obama said in an online video question-and-answer session sponsored by Google.
Asked whether the U.S. government could target a citizen on American soil, Obama appeared to rule that out.
"There has never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil," he said. "We respect and have a whole bunch of safeguards in terms of how we conduct counterterrorism operations outside of the United States. The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States."
The issue moved to the forefront last week when Obama yielded to congressional demands and in a policy reversal provided access for House of Representatives and Senate intelligence committees to a classified legal opinion on killing U.S. terrorism suspects with drone strikes abroad.
The release on the eve of a Senate confirmation hearing last Friday appeared intended to avoid a clash in testimony by John Brennan, the president's choice for CIA director. He has overseen the use of armed, unmanned aircraft in counterterrorism operations in places like Afghanistan (http://www.bogley.com/places/afghanistan), Pakistan and Yemen.
During last week's debate, some lawmakers proposed creation of a special federal "drone court" that would approve suspected militants for targeting. But a number of U.S. officials said at the time that imminent action on this was unlikely.
However, Obama, in his annual State of the Union address on Tuesday, said he intended to engage with Congress to make sure "our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world.
"CHECKS AND BALANCES"
On Thursday, Obama said it was his responsibility to work with Congress to ensure that "we have a mechanism to also make sure that the public understands what's going on, what the constraints are, what the legal parameters are."
"That's something that I take very seriously. I'm not somebody who believes that the president has the authority to do whatever he wants or whatever she wants, whenever they want, just under the guise of counterterrorism," Obama said, insisting on the need for "checks and balances."
Civil liberties groups have criticized the drone program as effectively a green light to assassinate Americans without due process in the courts under the U.S. Constitution.
In 2011 a drone strike killed U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki, described by U.S. investigators as a leader of al Qaeda's Yemen (http://www.bogley.com/places/yemen)-based affiliate. His 16-year-old son, also a U.S. citizen, was killed in a separate drone strike in Yemen that year. The administration has fought lawsuits filed by Awlaki's relatives.
Administration officials insist that Obama is acting legally to protect the United States from further attacks like the September 11, 2001, strikes.
The president, who banned the harsh interrogation techniques of the Bush era when he took office in 2009, has intensified the drone program started by his Republican predecessor.

Sombeech

02-15-2013, 09:27 AM

Its mostly about endless and mindless rhetoric from unintelligent people.

But by only placing rules on intelligent people....?

Brian in SLC

02-15-2013, 10:44 AM

But by only placing rules on intelligent people....?

We all got rules...even the great unwashed masses...

What one would hope for is something intelligent and reasonable to come out of all this. Pipedream.

I'll have to say, even when I didn't agree with the prior president's policies, I didn't personally denigrate the man. Folks that refer to Obama as "barry" and "zero" show little respect for the office. I guess I should just ignore them and their opinions...

PunchKing

02-15-2013, 11:03 AM

I'll have to say, even when I didn't agree with the prior president's policies, I didn't personally denigrate the man.

You didn't watch SNL and other mock him for silly things like "bushisms", and you didn't laugh at jokes about him? I don't buy that at all. I don't see anything terribly wrong with mocking someone for their actions or words. I am not saying that having silly pet names for the President of the US is cool or that I use any of them I just want to bring this into perspective.

Everyone gets made fun of sometimes...

Iceaxe

02-15-2013, 11:04 AM

I'll have to say, even when I didn't agree with the prior president's policies, I didn't personally denigrate the man. Folks that refer to Obama as "barry" and "zero" show little respect for the office.

What's the matter Brian... that damn Bill of Rights getting in the way of things again? I know, I hate freedom of speech as much as the next guy... Sticks and stones don't break bones, but words do...

One of the great things about this country is we get anther chance in 4 more years.... I try to respect the office, if not the man.

But I do have a question, What's with "zero", what is that referring to? I understand the Barry as that was the name he went by until college and what some family members still call him.

My biggest grip with Obama getting re-elected has little to do with the man personally. My grip was that Washington would be stuck in four more years of the same-old-same old. Somehow that has got to change, we probably need to vote them all out and start with a fresh batch. I'd also really like to see term limits set on congress as it was never meant to be a life long job.

I know... a bit off topic... but I'd like to know the history of "zero".

ratagonia

02-15-2013, 11:10 AM

You didn't watch SNL and other mock him for silly things like "bushisms", and you didn't laugh at jokes about him? I don't buy that at all. I don't see anything terribly wrong with mocking someone for their actions or words. I am not saying that having silly pet names for the President of the US is cool or that I use any of them I just want to bring this into perspective.

Everyone gets made fun of sometimes...

I am shocked, shocked I say, to learn that a satirical, topical, "edgy" comedy show made jokes about our president!!! Next thing you know, Colbert and Stewart will be doing the same... a slippery slope for sure!

:cool2:

Brian: "Folks that refer to Obama as "barry" and "zero" show little respect for the office. I guess I should just ignore them and their opinions."

I agree, and my reaction is much the same. I just ignore them and their opinion.

:moses:

PunchKing

02-15-2013, 11:18 AM

On a similar note... From one of the few musicals I have enjoyed...

http://youtu.be/RXnM1uHhsOI

Iceaxe

02-15-2013, 11:22 AM

I know... a bit off topic... but I'd like to know the history of "zero".

Never mind... I found it...

Why Obama is being called 'President Zero'
Baltimore, Maryland

Poor Mr. Obama. They're calling him "President Zero." Why? Because August produced zero new jobs.

But we Daily Reckoners were way ahead of the story. Almost everywhere we look we see a circle with a hole in it.

How many new jobs have been created in the last 10 years? Zero. There were about 130 million jobs in America in the year 2000. There are about 130 million today.

How much more does the average wage-earner make? Zero. Adjusted for inflation, he made about $16 an hour in 2001. He still makes about $16 an hour.

How much more are stocks worth? Zero.

How much more does a house sell for? Zero.

By all the important measures, Americans are Zero better off than they were a decade ago.

Brian in SLC

02-15-2013, 12:15 PM

What's the matter Brian... that damn Bill of Rights getting in the way of things again? I know, I hate freedom of speech as much as the next guy... Sticks and stones don't break bones, but words do...

Yeah, I know. Folks want their ignorant rants protected too. I'm fine with that. When called on their BS they're quick to run and hide behind the first amendment. Doesn't mean I have to like it. Easier for me to put their square peg in that square hole.

Westboro Babtist Church comes to mind. Well guess what? Those folks make me ill, and, so does the rest of the hate speech that masquerades as protecting my rights. It absolutely reeks of ignorance. And, that's fine. I'd rather know than have that stuff hidden in a closet. Bring 'em out and let 'em shine. Their chickens will come home to roost, sooner or later.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/14/if-you-want-to-make-the-case-for-keeping-your-guns-stop-threatening-to-kill-the-president-images/

stefan

02-15-2013, 12:15 PM

:roll: Not at all...

I'll make this really simple for you.... Until doctors are forced to submit the medical records of the mentally ill into a database that is accessible to those doing a universal background check, doing a universal background check is not worth the time or effort.

Currently the medical profession opposes such a database, and because of their lack of support the NRA has withdrawn support for a Universal Background Check. The part of the video the pro-gun crowd conveniently dismisses is the "No Loopholes". Until the medical records loophole is closed the universal background check is nothing but a giant loophole you could drive a tank through.

Something else to keep in mind, something like 90% of guns used in crimes were obtained illegally. Criminals by definition do not follow the law. If the existing laws were enforced, theoretically those guns would be off the street and those criminals would be locked up for illegal possession.

eyeroll right back 'atcha, shane. you jumped from mental patients to confiscation, seemingly ignoring everything else. and spare me the distorted NRA rhetoric about criminals, it's already been demonstrated that background checks can and do filter out a large number of criminals (not zero as they'd like you to think).

I agree the existing laws should be enforced and the NRA shouldn't obstruct progress to accomplish that either.

i read this article a few years ago and found it the other day. feel free to punch holes in it and show where it's wrong. i'm sure you'll have a lot to say ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/25/AR2010102505823.html

rockgremlin

02-15-2013, 12:34 PM

I watched Obama's speech and I noticed he never once mentioned drones and the large number of people he was killing with them. Not one mention of the civilians killed, the US citizens killed, or the foreign nationals who oppose the US that have been killed.

Mark my words, this drone shit is going to come back and bite the US in the ass big time. Even our closest allies are distancing themselves from the US use of drones. They want no part of what is US assassination by executive order.

X2

This is one of the reasons why the rest of the world hates us, and I would posit that this attitude is what led to the toppling of the Twin Towers.

Iceaxe

02-15-2013, 12:48 PM

What color is the sky in your world? I see no mention of gun confiscation in what you quoted.

As an FFL holder I can tell you the article is filled with errors. Somewhere earlier in this thread I detailed some of them. FYI - the ATF has changed drastically over the past 10 years. The article referenced above pulls most of it's "facts" from an article written over 10 years ago, it's not even original journalism. Anything written on what they do and how they do it that is more than a couple years old is nothing but fire starter.

Do you understand that gun registration and universal background checks are two separate issues, each with there own own problems?

If registration is so valuable why did Canada just dump it? I know the reason, do a little homework an educate yourself. It was a 10 year process so it takes some time to understand all the reasons.

I could possibility get behind background checks. As an FFL holder, a CCP holder, and someone who has passed numerous government background checks that allowed me access to restricted areas of Hill AFB, Dugway and Area 51 for my job I have no problems.

But I probably don't know shit. I have only been a gun dealer and FFL permit holder for 30 years and deal with this stuff daily while you read a couple internet blogs so I'm sure you know much more than me.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Iceaxe

02-15-2013, 01:21 PM

For the record. I'm not a cheerleader for the NRA. I think they are often over the top and would be more effective if they toned it down a couple notches. They have a lot of good information and facts that are accurate in what they say and would be better off not trying to sensationalize everything.

There are numerous other pro gun groups that are doing a much better job of educating the public. And make no mistake, the general public is becoming educated. Most now understand the difference between a real assault weapon and what gun control defines as an assault weapon. Most understand a high capacity magazine is a standard capacity magazine. Many understand mental health has to be included in a background check for the check to be effective.

Anyhoo... I have tried to be very fair in all my replies. I lived firearms daily for my entire life. My family contains gun dealers and gunsmith's, they are state, national and Olympic shooting champion's. I have tried to use my in-depth knowledge to fairly educate when legitimate questions have been asked.

My personal take is gun control in the form of banning specific firearms because they are a tangible item you can physically touch is silly. If you want real gun control that will make a difference you need a multi pronged approach that closes ALL the loopholes and keeps the 2nd Amendment intact.

I'm also a big believer in personal rights and personal accountability.

YMMV

If you really want to learn ask real questions and discuss. Don't post links to a decade old article and than run and hide.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Brian in SLC

02-15-2013, 01:42 PM

If you really want to learn ask real questions and discuss. Don't post links to a decade old article and than run and hide.

You really want to impart something useful to folks, then don't denegrate them and act like smug, know-it-all asshole.

Iceaxe

02-15-2013, 02:35 PM

You really want to impart something useful to folks, then don't denegrate them and act like smug, know-it-all asshole.

Sorry to call Stefan out on that.... but look back through the thread and that is his standard operating procedure. I'm not going to waste my time on that type of crap considering he doesn't even bothers to read the replies which is evident from some of his posts.

There have been many that asked legitimate questions and I hope I have at least supplied them with some useful information. If you ask me a question I expect you at least extend the courtesy of reading the reply.

Iceaxe

02-15-2013, 02:49 PM

X2

This is one of the reasons why the rest of the world hates us, and I would posit that this attitude is what led to the toppling of the Twin Towers.

Oliver Stone just did a 10 part documentry titled "Untold History of the United States" for Showtime. It's an excellent series.

http://www.sho.com/sho/oliver-stones-untold-history-of-the-united-states/home

Episode 10 is tilted: Bush & Obama - Age of Terror

It should be a must watch and I highly suggest it for anyone with Showtime. It does a good job of explain why the rest of the world hates us. The rest of the series was good, but Episodes 8, 9 and 10 were by far the most interesting to me (they cover Regan through Obama).

oldno7

02-15-2013, 03:44 PM

Its mostly about endless and mindless rhetoric from unintelligent people.

I noticed that too and was wondering if you might ever come up with an intelligent idea.......

but you can always hope, zero will bring some change--I guess destroying the Constitution was what he had in mind for change.......

ahh but he only has been struck down once by a court this year by acting against the Constitution.

Byron

02-15-2013, 05:23 PM

You really want to impart something useful to folks, then don't denegrate them and act like smug, know-it-all asshole.Hey man, I'll proudly carry that banner!!!:cool2: In regards to Ice, I'll gladly listen to him all day...nodding in agreement.

hank moon

02-15-2013, 09:37 PM

If registration is so valuable why did Canada just dump it?

If the 2nd amendment is so valuable, why have so many other countries rejected it? :cool2:

Iceaxe

02-15-2013, 10:11 PM

If the 2nd amendment is so valuable, why have so many other countries rejected it? :cool2:

I wasn't aware any other countries ever had our Bill of Rights as part of their constitution? It's hard for the people to reject rights they never had. I know many fight and die for the dream of one day enjoying our freedoms.

Here is my personal two cents on the issue.... the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is one of the most brilliant works ever produced by man.

And almost before the ink was dry the government was attempting to undermine and systematically disassemble it, because lets face it, free people are really hard to control.

When I read the Constitution and take the time to understand what it says and what it means I am truly amazed and thankful at what our forefathers gave us. No where in the Constitution does it say personal freedom is the easy or safe approach.

YMMV

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

oldno7

02-16-2013, 05:17 AM

If the 2nd amendment is so valuable, why have so many other countries rejected it? :cool2:

The 2nd IS very valuable--Without it, the Government has no checks and the rest could easily fall.

As far as what any orher country does--who cares!!

Heres a little info to make that more clear:

A 2012 survey by Gallup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gallup_Organization) found roughly 640 million adults would want to migrate to another country in the world permanently if they had the chance to.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration#cite_note-8) Nearly one-quarter (23%) of these respondents, which translates to more than 150 million adults worldwide, named the United States as their desired future residence, while an additional 7% of respondents, representing an estimated 45 million, chose the United Kingdom. The other top desired destination countries (those where an estimated 25 million or more adults would like to go) were Canada, France, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Germany and Spain.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153992/150-million-adults-worldwide-migrate.aspx

Iceaxe

02-16-2013, 07:29 AM

If the 2nd amendment is so valuable, why have so many other countries rejected it? :cool2:

If the 1st and 3rd Amendments are so valuable why don't all the other countries have them?

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

hank moon

02-16-2013, 06:20 PM

I was trying to make the point that comparisons between U.S. and Canada (vis a vis this issue) are a bit on the silly side. ;-)

Iceaxe

02-16-2013, 06:32 PM

I was trying to make the point that comparisons between U.S. and Canada (vis a vis this issue) are a bit on the silly side. ;-)

Obviously you didn't look into the Canadian situation or you would understand the error in you thinking. But what do I know, I only followed the reasoning behind the Canadian reversal for the past 10 years.

But yes... It's not a direct correlation but the reasoning is sound.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Iceaxe

02-16-2013, 06:42 PM

Mark my words.... the 2014 election is going to be a Democratic blood bath...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
MAGPUL INDUSTRIES ANNOUNCES IT WILL LEAVE COLORADO IF GUN BILL PASSES
MOVE WOULD COST STATE 600 JOBS, $85 MILLION

Denver, Colorado – February 15th, 2013 - Magpul Industries, an Erie, Colorado, based manufacturer of firearms accessories, announced today that it will be forced to leave the state if House Bill 1224, which would ban standard capacity magazines, becomes law. The announcement was made to Governor Hickenlooper, state legislators, members of the media, and in a full-page advertisement to appear in the Denver Post on Sunday.

Richard Fitzpatrick, Founder, President, and CEO of Magpul Industries, said that regardless of any amendments that may be worked into the bill, he will no longer be able to continue to do business in Colorado if his core product is made illegal.

“Our company could not, in good conscience, continue to manufacture our products in a state where law-abiding citizens are prohibited from purchasing and owning them. ” Fitzpatrick said. “The passage of this bill will do nothing to enhance public safety, but will force us to immediately begin taking our business to another state.”

A proponent of the bill argued that with the amendment language, the choice to stay or leave was up to Magpul. Fitzpatrick responded, "Our relationship with our customers across the country would be severely damaged if this bill passes and we stay. We've already heard word of potential boycotts if that happens. They (legislators) really need to understand that our customer base is as passionate about freedoms as we are, and staying here if this bill passes would cripple the company. Make no doubt about it...we have no choice, and would be forced to leave in order to save the business."

Magpul cited the example of the Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show, which was canceled earlier this year after the organizers announced that it would not permit a popular category of firearm, like the ones Magpul makes accessories for, in the show. Public outcry from the customer base forced exhibitors to withdraw from participation, causing the cancellation of the show, and an estimated loss of $70 million of show revenue for hotels, restaurants, merchants, and other businesses in Pennsylvania, where the show was to be held.

Magpul Industries directly employs 200 people, supports another 400 supply-chain jobs, and contributes over $85 million annually to Colorado’s economy. Doug Smith, Chief Operating Officer for Magpul, says that it is a difficult position to be in. "We could choose to stay in a state that wants our jobs and revenue, but not our products, and lose half the jobs we are fighting to save, or potentially the entire business, when our customers stop buying. Or, we can take the company and those 600 jobs out of Colorado to continue our growth and the growth of American manufacturing in a state that shares our values. This is not really a choice. It's an unfortunate and inevitable result of the actions of the Legislature if this bill passes."

Magpul was started over a decade ago by Fitzpatrick, a former U.S. Marine. It has become one of Colorado’s fastest growing businesses, successfully marketing its products to American and allied military forces, police departments, sporting goods stores, and thousands of responsible private citizens. Fitzpatrick says that the rich western culture and strong values of individual freedom and responsibility, traditionally found in Colorado, were one of the reasons the company chose to remain in the state.

“It is heartbreaking to me, my employees, and their families, to think that we will be forced to leave,” Fitzpatrick said. “But if HB13-1224 passes, we will simply have no choice.”

Several other CO companies are lining up behind Magpul. I hope they consider Utah.

:nod:

hank moon

02-16-2013, 07:01 PM

Obviously you didn't look into the Canadian situation or you would understand the error in you thinking. But what do I know, I only followed the reasoning behind the Canadian reversal for the past 10 years.

True, I did not look into it. For me, the differences between our culture, history, politics, population density, etc. are too great to draw any meaningful comparison on an issue such as gun control.

EDIT: I just spent a few minutes looking into it (linx below) What I found reinforces my view (IMV) that comparisons between U.S. and Canada are unfounded w/respect to this issue. The laws passed in Canada wouldn't pass constitutional muster here, not by a long shot (hee hee). At least not on a federal level. Gotta keep an eye on those pesky states' rights, though. A two-edged sword.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2000/canada-where-gun-registration-equals-c.aspx

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2010/canada-the-lessons-of-lost-liberty.aspx

Iceaxe

02-16-2013, 07:16 PM

True, I did not look into it. For me, the differences between our culture, history, politics, population density, etc. are too great to draw any meaningful comparison on an issue such as gun control.

If you had of looked into it you would have noticed it was not about gun control and mostly about law enforcement. It was taking resources away from areas where it was needed more.

Which is pretty much what I have maintained from the start.... if you are going to do something, do something that will make a difference.

I mean really... going after assault rifles is silly, They are used in less then 2% of firearm related crimes. If you want to go after a tangible object you should aim (har har) for handguns. They account for something like 90% of illegal activities where firearms are involved.

If you are going after universal background checks do it right and make sure mental health records are included.

Limiting magazine capacity is silly so long as I can carry an unlimited number of magazines.

Enforce and prosecute the laws currently on the books before creating new laws that will be completely unenforcable. Many of the problems the gun control crowd point out are already covered by a current law.

Gun control advocates need to do their homework, otherwise they are only harming innocent law-abiding citizens. Not to mention they sound like a complete idiot to anyone with basic knowledge of firearms.

63505

hank moon

02-16-2013, 07:35 PM

If you had of looked into it you would have noticed it was not about gun control and mostly about law enforcement. It was taking resources away from areas where it was needed more.

My takeaway was the Canuck laws made a bunch of previously legal guns (including many pistols) illegal, as well as requiring a retroactive registry (long guns), thereby creating a PITA for gun owners and a massive, corrupt, and ineffective bureaucracy that (after less than 20 yrs) was eventually exposed as such and eliminated.

oldno7

02-16-2013, 07:50 PM

Upstate NY Sheriff to cuomo, et all

http://issuu.com/nssfpublications/docs/saratogapoliceassociation_letter?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage

Bluff-Canyoneer

02-17-2013, 04:30 AM

Never mind... I found it...
Why Obama is being called 'President Zero'
Baltimore, Maryland
How much more are stocks worth? Zero.
By all the important measures, Americans are Zero better off than they were a decade ago.

I'm going to have to call BS on this one. For starters, Obama has been in office only four years, not ten. How can he be responsible for the stock market's performance six years before he took office?

Here are the facts, as opposed to Glen Beck/Rush Limbaugh level hysterics:
63506

For those of you who didn't stay in high school long enough to learn how to read a chart, the market is up 88.94% since Obama took office. At the same point in Bush's term, the market was down 10.50%, and at the end of his second term was down 36.68%.

Lacking any supportive evidence, I'll conclude the rest of the points in Axe's post are just as wrong as this one.

Bluff-Canyoneer

02-17-2013, 05:19 AM

Never mind... I found it...

Why Obama is being called 'President Zero'
Baltimore, Maryland
How many new jobs have been created in the last 10 years? Zero. There were about 130 million jobs in America in the year 2000. There are about 130 million today.
By all the important measures, Americans are Zero better off than they were a decade ago.

I checked the employment figures as well. Looks like more jobs created after four years in office by Obama than King George:
63507

Source: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/

Bluff-Canyoneer

02-17-2013, 05:53 AM

Upstate NY Sheriff to cuomo, et all

http://issuu.com/nssfpublications/docs/saratogapoliceassociation_letter?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage

While I agree with some of what they say, these guys would be more believable if they could handle 8th grade math:
63508

5/769 = .0065 = 0.65%

The actual rate is 100 times what they claim, though still negligible.

hank moon

02-17-2013, 01:29 PM

While I agree with some of what they say, these guys would be more believable if they could handle 8th grade math:
63508

5/769 = .0065 = 0.65%

The actual rate is 100 times what they claim, though still negligible.

they are just putting their .02 cents in :haha:

Iceaxe

02-17-2013, 05:07 PM

I'm going to have to call BS on this one.

I'm not really sure where you are going with this? Are you saying Obama is doing better than a president that will go down in history as on of the worst of all time? Which is not a great yardstick.... Or are you saying Obama is doing a good job?

Being the smartest kid in the dumb reading group isn't much to brag about.

63529

And your stocks chart while technically correct is very misleading when you look at the overall picture plotted on a true timeline.

63528

PS: If this is going to turn into an Bush/Obama debate I will split it into it's own thread. I'm not saying Bush was worth a shit, I'm just saying some of your graphs were a little misleading.

stefan

02-17-2013, 06:57 PM

What color is the sky in your world? I see no mention of gun confiscation in what you quoted.

uhh, shane, i was obviously referring to your previous post that i quoted where you said

Unless mental health is computerized and all records placed in a central database, along with HIPAA laws being changed and the support of the AMA, the only thing Universal background checks will accomplish is to provide a database for gun confiscation (mandatory gun buy backs), as they are ineffective in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

but at 835 replies who's keeping track ...

As an FFL holder I can tell you the article is filled with errors. Somewhere earlier in this thread I detailed some of them.

not sure what errors you're referring to and i'm not sure you've really made the case for where and what the errors are specifically in this article (are you somehow talking about your comments on the dailyshow bit?). if you're going to casually mention "errors", it's far more convincing when you point the specific errors in the text and how your understanding is different, otherwise it's not really convincing. one of a few things you commented on was your inspection history (atf?), but it's not clear how your inspection history is necessarily indicative of the majority of gun dealers around america. for example, the article states the following info through 2009 (feel free to point out "errors"). are you somehow suggesting 2012 is wildly different from 2009?

In defense of its role investigating gun crime, the ATF pointed out that last year its agents made 10,892 arrests, including bringing cases against 4,076 gang members.

But the ATF does not have enough personnel to fully inspect the firearms and explosives dealers under its charge. The bureau has about 600 inspectors to cover more than 115,000 firearms dealers - about 55,000 collectors and about 60,000 retail sellers.

Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine found in 2004 that the ATF had inspected only 4.5 percent of U.S. gun dealers and rarely shuts one down. At that rate, he noted, inspecting all the dealers would take more than 22 years.

Former ATF official James Zammillo said that when he assumed the newly created role of deputy assistant director of industry operations in the wake of the inspector general's report, he took steps to expedite and streamline oversight. He said he prioritized dealers for inspection in three- and five-year cycles based on several factors, including analysis of their gun traces and compliance histories.

Since the report, the ATF has stepped up the pace of inspections, going from 5,000 in 2005 to 11,000 in 2009. By law, the ATF can inspect dealers for compliance only once a year. But despite improvements, officials acknowledge that, on average, dealers are inspected only about once a decade.

"We are under-resourced," Melson said earlier this year at a Las Vegas gun show for manufacturers and dealers. "We don't have the people to do inspections every three years. It takes eight to nine years to inspect."

The ATF's hands are often tied when it comes to regulating dealers, according to interviews with current and former agency officials, as well as thousands of pages of internal files obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests.

are you saying acting director melson was wrong when he made these comments 2010? what are errors in the above excerpts?

FYI - the ATF has changed drastically over the past 10 years. The article referenced above pulls most of it's "facts" from an article written over 10 years ago, it's not even original journalism. Anything written on what they do and how they do it that is more than a couple years old is nothing but fire starter.

it seems you're glossing over details perhaps in a weak attempt to discredit something. the article is not entirely referencing facts from over 10 years ago, as dates and information throughout indicate otherwise. and yes journalism often repeats short-term historical information to present the reader with context for current (circa 2010) information (this shouldn't be surprising to you, it's standard practice).

Do you understand that gun registration and universal background checks are two separate issues, each with there own own problems?

i do. it should have been clear from the preceding comment in my post that the point was about on how many issues the NRA affects

But I probably don't know shit. I have only been a gun dealer and FFL permit holder for 30 years and deal with this stuff daily while you read a couple internet blogs so I'm sure you know much more than me.

gotta love comments like these. i am aware of your extensive experience, shane, and wouldn't suggest otherwise. do i think you know more than a ton? i have no doubt of it. do i think you know everything about the realities of gun business, the atf, etc in the US of A? not unless you're everywhere seeing what is going on with your own two eyes which is an impossible task for anyone. also, i rarely read blogs, and i wouldn't call bona fide news articles "blogs"

it seems like from the small number of inspections since 2005, dealers lose a fair number of guns. how many do you think are lost in total each year?

stefan

02-17-2013, 08:26 PM

oldno7

02-18-2013, 06:17 AM

Charlton Heston

Just came across this. He explains the passion that some of us have, and some never will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MrnOFMk8NPM

Brian in SLC

02-18-2013, 08:23 AM

Charlton Heston could recite a nursery rhyme and it would be riviting.

"From my cold, dead hands." Powerful imagery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHXRWj6zf78

Michael Moore's ambush of him in Bowling for Columbine was AWFUL.

Interesting that Heston was a vocal supporter for the Gun Control Act of 1968 and also a civil rights activist.

How could you argue with Moses, Ben Hur, Taylor?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IKVj4l5GU4

Soylent Green is people!

Bluff-Canyoneer

02-18-2013, 03:43 PM

I'm not really sure where you are going with this? Are you saying Obama is doing better than a president that will go down in history as on of the worst of all time? Which is not a great yardstick.... Or are you saying Obama is doing a good job?

No. Your post implied the stock market had gone nowhere under O. I was just setting the record straight. You can't set the benchmark for his (or anyone's) performance at six years before they showed up. It should be measured relative to what we started his term with.

And your stocks chart while technically correct is very misleading when you look at the overall picture plotted on a true timeline.
Both show the exact same thing. The market was way down under W, and way up under O. However, the President has little control over the market, so we can't really attribute the market's change to one man.

PS: If this is going to turn into an Bush/Obama debate I will split it into it's own thread. I'm not saying Bush was worth a shit, I'm just saying some of your graphs were a little misleading.
I respectfully disagree. Change always is measured relative to a base. The base level was different when O took office than when W did.
Measuring returns can be tricky. It takes a 100% gain to offset a 50% loss (i.e. if something falls from $50 to $25, a 50% loss, we need a 100% gain to get back from $25 to $50).

Finally, I would like to apologize for the hostile tone of my first reply. I've been putting in some really long days and not getting enough sleep. It's OK, even good that we disagree about some things, but not OK for any of us to be a jerk about it.

I don't know, nor have I ever met, a single person on Bogley, but still get some joy out of the daily back and forth.

oldno7

02-18-2013, 05:54 PM

By popular demand

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOJQFNOQqCY

rockgremlin

02-18-2013, 07:11 PM

It isn't an assault rifle, but still a rifle nevertheless. I'm not sure if this image is real but it really looks legit. Kewl shot shot. :lol8:

http://www.lowbird.com/data/images/2013/02/scope-soldiers-sniper-rifle-recoil-2048x2560.jpg

02-18-2013, 07:15 PM

:2thumbs:

oldno7

02-19-2013, 05:37 AM

It isn't an assault rifle, but still a rifle nevertheless. I'm not sure if this image is real but it really looks legit. Kewl shot shot. :lol8:

Cool indeed, looks like a Remington 700 action, likely a .308. Just finished "American Sniper", now reading "Lone Survivor".

Our military is top notch, we wouldn't still be at war in Afghanistan if they were allowed to do their job without political intervention. imo

http://www.lowbird.com/data/images/2013/02/scope-soldiers-sniper-rifle-recoil-2048x2560.jpg

Cool indeed, looks like a Remington 700 action, likely a .308. Just finished "American Sniper", now reading "Lone Survivor".

Our military is top notch, we wouldn't still be at war in Afghanistan if they were allowed to do their job without political intervention. imo

oldno7

02-19-2013, 06:20 AM

And one question as I head out the door.

We all know of proposed and/or passed legislation that turns millions of law abiding gun owners into criminals,

So what legislation is proposed or passed that is meant to disarm criminals?

Haven't seen anything about disarming gangs.

How about MANDATORY time for using a firearm in the commission of a crime?

Can anyone actually say that any proposed legislation will have an impact on criminals?

rockgremlin

02-19-2013, 07:27 AM

Brian in SLC

02-19-2013, 08:40 AM

chirping crickets............rolling tumbleweeds..............

Geez, not hard to find...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act

Further up the thread I linked some of the stat's the state of Utah keeps. One interesting bit is why/how folks lose their CCW permit. So, you can see how "criminals" lose their permits and in some cases, their guns.

See also up thread about California going after felons with guns.

Mandatory penalties for felons caught with a handgun in some states.

Remember Ruby Ridge? That all started over federal firearms issues.

Ect ect ect.

Some light reading for ya...as an example of the data that's out there...

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/woofccj.pdf

Federal firearms cases in 2008:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/229420.pdf

Chirping crickets or stickin' your head in the sand?

02-19-2013, 09:53 AM

This is all about what some do not like. Has nothing to do with schools full of kids, movie theaters, politicians speaking to their base nor black on black crime.

hank moon

02-19-2013, 12:26 PM

Where the fun never ends...

http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/hbillint/HB0114.htm

02-19-2013, 12:58 PM

Nothing they are going to come up with would have changed the outcomes. There is no defense of a person that has made his/her mind up to end their life and if they decide to partake in a mission on killing as many people as possible or a list of specific persons there is only one outcome, death of that person. Laws don't apply to criminals. Just as you leave your house, lock your doors as you head out to a restaurant. Windows, doors and locks are for honest people. A criminal will enter your home if they see fit. Alarms, it doesn't matter. By the time the alarm company calls the house to check on a false alarm, then calls a police department and gives the address, the police to enter that information and dispatch a Po-Po and the Po-Po to finally arrive...Bad guy, long gone. A sprint up to the master bedroom, jewelry, money, guns and a missing pillowcase. In and out within minutes. Now explain how this waiting period works for them? Explain how the number of ammunition works for them?
It's about a power grab. It's about not liking the 2nd. Uneducated people always react this way to things they know nothing about.

Brian in SLC

02-19-2013, 01:10 PM

Uneducated people always react this way to things they know nothing about.

Quoted for Truth!

Applies to both sides of the debate...

rockgremlin

02-19-2013, 01:33 PM

....and ...and....and...

Geez, I agree with both of you nerds - wholeheartedly. Does that make me bi?

The crickets just got trampled by elephants.

Brian in SLC

02-19-2013, 02:03 PM

The crickets just got trampled by elephants.

Are you sure it wasn't donkeys? Ha ha...

Iceaxe

02-19-2013, 05:02 PM

Are you sure it wasn't donkeys? Ha ha...

:roflol:

goindeep

02-19-2013, 05:39 PM

I am pro guns, but sad to see that there was another shooting today in Orange County California that cost 3 lives, 4 if you include the killer who shot himself in the head afterwards.

http://news.yahoo.com/shooting-spree-across-calif-county-leaves-4-dead-215222142.html

Iceaxe

02-19-2013, 07:07 PM

Where the fun never ends...

http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/hbillint/HB0114.htm

Just to keep the record straight.... if you do your homework you will find this bill is NOT being supported by most gun owners. The bill has earned some great nicknames like "Snipe Hunt Bill" and "Divert Citizen Attention Bill". Most gun owners consider the bill silly and a complete waste of time and money.

Here is more on HB 114 and why it is not being supported by gun owners:
http://utgunrights.com/alertsupdates/2013/bills2013.htm#hb114

The website is pretty hardcore pro gun, but if they hate the bill that should tell you everything you need to know.

:cool2:

Iceaxe

02-19-2013, 07:20 PM

In the following video Judge Andrew Napolitano discusses some of the legislation coming out of many states that would limit the federal government’s control on guns in those states. Definitely worth the time to watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jsENU_R6nI

02-19-2013, 10:03 PM

A genius from Colorado. Hope you females have a good set of lungs to blow the whistle, this elected official doesn't find you competent enough to shoot your attacker. And Obama wants you to believe we have a war going on with you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCvng-jSp60

rockgremlin

02-20-2013, 07:10 AM

02-20-2013, 07:39 AM

Maybe Super Genius will win tomorrow. I cannot believe this guy has a seat as high as he does in our government. :facepalm1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIuk3G9Xixc

Brian in SLC

02-20-2013, 08:25 AM

Ol' Joe is great!

Get a shotgun!

02-20-2013, 10:24 AM

Ol' Joe is great!
AR's are too hard to shoot, fire your shotgun twice out the backdoor...that'll scare them away :facepalm1: Amazing he is number two. All because of Georgia, what timing. Wonder who O's first choice was?

Brian in SLC

02-20-2013, 10:42 AM

The feller has great energy...hilarious.

Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun.

From wiki:

Barack Obama's vice presidential running mate had been a subject of speculation since the end of the primaries. As of August 2008, some of the most popular choices for VP included, but were not limited to, Clinton, Biden, Indiana (http://www.bogley.com/wiki/Indiana) Senator Evan Bayh (http://www.bogley.com/wiki/Evan_Bayh), Kansas (http://www.bogley.com/wiki/Kansas) Governor Kathleen Sebelius (http://www.bogley.com/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius), Virginia (http://www.bogley.com/wiki/Virginia) Governor Tim Kaine (http://www.bogley.com/wiki/Tim_Kaine), retired General and former Secretary of State Colin Powell (http://www.bogley.com/wiki/Colin_Powell), New Mexico (http://www.bogley.com/wiki/New_Mexico) Governor Bill Richardson (http://www.bogley.com/wiki/Bill_Richardson), and retired General Wesley Clark (http://www.bogley.com/wiki/Wesley_Clark).

02-20-2013, 11:11 AM

Hmmmmm, wonder who it would have been :wtf:

Evan Bayh or Richardson :gulp:

rockgremlin

02-20-2013, 11:28 AM

Maybe Super Genius will win tomorrow. I cannot believe this guy has a seat as high as he does in our government. :facepalm1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIuk3G9Xixc

He was Boner Candidate runner up this morning.

Iceaxe

02-20-2013, 12:33 PM

WTF is up with Colorado?!?

In the past month Colorado officials have advised that women can't be trusted with guns, people should use ballpoint pens for self defense and women who are facing a rapist should pee on themselves.

Are the people of Colorado really this retarded?

Here is the in-depth and video on each of the above dumbass CO comments:
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/what-the-hell-is-going-on-in-colorado-use-pens-for-defense-pee-on-yourself-women-cant-be-trusted-with-guns/

Byron

02-20-2013, 06:05 PM

WTF is up with Colorado?!?

Hey man, don't look at me! Twenty years ago, when I moved here, people like that would have been laughed out of the room...but all these sissies and liberal freaks from California and the east coast flooded into the place and what used to be red is now quite solidly blue. What really gets me are the spaced out nimrods from Boulder, it's like those people up there actually enjoy screwing themselves...it's like a mini San Francisco. Unfortunately, it's having a bleed through to the rest of the state...the "urban hipster wantabees" in Denver and Boulder are deciding the elections.

It sucks, because I really don't think we can ever go back. If my business weren't so solidly established, I'd bail out of here.

oldno7

02-20-2013, 08:17 PM

New NRA add............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qSpMSG-F2Cw

oldno7

02-21-2013, 06:29 AM

Florida Sheriff's Unanimously sign letter.

http://cspoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Second-Amendment-Proclamation.pdf

02-21-2013, 08:17 AM

and women who are facing a rapist should pee on themselves
Let's not forget :puke8:on themselves either :haha:

but all these sissies and liberal freaks
That's what happens when they move in

Iceaxe

02-21-2013, 08:29 AM

A friend from CO wrote me and said those idiots from California ruined their state and now they are going to ruin CO. :lol8:

oldno7

02-22-2013, 06:46 AM

A letter to obama from a Columbine Survivor:

Mr. President,
As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:
Universal Background Checks
First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.
Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.
Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.
It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.
Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons
The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.
Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.
10-Round Limit for Magazines
Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”
Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?
Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.
Selling to Criminals
Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”
Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?
Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops — because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market.
Criminals and murderers will always find a way.
Critical Examination
Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.
Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?
You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:
First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.
Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.
This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.
Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.
Respectfully,
Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd

oldno7

02-22-2013, 06:49 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=D7icttUa9GU

rockgremlin

02-22-2013, 07:43 AM

A friend from CO wrote me and said those idiots from California ruined their state and now they are going to ruin CO. :lol8:

New Mexico has already fallen as well, and it's only a matter of time before Nevada, Arizona and Utah follow suit. In fact, Nevada is toeing the line right now, some years red, some blue.

oldno7

02-22-2013, 07:45 AM

MN. Proposed Legislation:

MN H.F. No. 241, as introduced – 88th Legislative Session (2013-2014) (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0241.0.html&session=ls88) Posted on Jan 31, 2013:

10.20 Sec. 7. PERSONS POSSESSING ASSAULT WEAPONS ON EFFECTIVE DATE ACT; REQUIRED ACTIONS.
Any person who, on February 1, 2013, legally owns or is in possession of an assault weaponhas until September 1, 2013, to do any of the following without being subject to
prosecution under Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133:
(1) remove the weapon from the state;
(2) surrender the weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction;
(3) render the weapon permanently inoperable; or
(4) if eligible, register the weapon as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133, subdivision 5.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.

oldno7

02-22-2013, 10:03 AM

Great 2A Speech

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ada_1361502132

02-22-2013, 10:34 AM

And Colorado rejects Jessica's Law :facepalm1:

oldno7

02-22-2013, 12:16 PM

Black Conservatives

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/22/black-conservatives-gun-control-has-racist-roots-video/#ooid=dzNTZrOTrZ97m2tk0D4jpk7qDc2TZrJu

accadacca

02-23-2013, 08:56 PM

The NRA prez spoke in Utah tonight...

accadacca

02-24-2013, 07:55 AM

24186643

SALT LAKE CITY

Sombeech

02-24-2013, 08:08 AM

"Utah has a high suicide rate. If we want to prevent suicides in Utah, perform background checks," Holyoak said.

Wow, pretty strong promise, can it be backed up?

accadacca

03-08-2013, 09:17 PM

https://fbcdn-photos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/s720x720/11425_483436908371858_459086918_n.jpg?dl=1

accadacca

03-11-2013, 05:32 PM

Great video showing what could happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTyCD2n6HAQ&sns=em

Brian in SLC

03-11-2013, 09:09 PM

Wonder what the date of the video is?

Seems amazing to me that in 2010/2011 58 people were killed by guns in homicides. Total. .1 per 100k.

Interesting to consider the British situation. Not sure its apples to apples for us here in the colonies...

From the wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

A Home Office study published in 2007 reported that gun crime in England and Wales remained a relatively rare event. Firearms (including air guns) were used in 21,521 recorded crimes.

In the year Apr 2010 to Mar 2011 there were 11,227 recorded offences involving firearms, broken down as follows.
By weapon type:

Long-barrelled shotgun = 406
Sawn-off shotgun = 202
Handgun = 3,105
Rifle = 74
Imitation firearm = 1,610
Unidentified firearm = 957
Other firearm = 670
Air weapons = 4,203

Only those items proven to be "imitations" (which includes BB/soft air types) or air weapons are classed as such, otherwise they are placed by default in the main "live" categories, e.g. an imitation pistol not proven to be such would be counted as a live "handgun." "Other firearm" includes CS gas (223 crimes), pepper spray (118), and stun guns (149).
By crime type:

Violence against the person:

Homicide = 60
Attempted murder/GBH with intent = 757
Other = 3,317 (1,212 of which involved imitations)

Robbery = 2,965
Burglary = 151
Criminal damage = 3,287 (2,916 of which involved air weapons)
Other = 690[80] (http://www.bogley.com/forum/#cite_note-80)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU

Brian in SLC

03-11-2013, 09:18 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS9b5Qg3ohk

Byron

03-11-2013, 10:04 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS9b5Qg3ohkOMG!!! This video is AWESOME!!!! Mow 'em down!

2065toyota

03-12-2013, 09:59 AM

This attachment I cannot 100% verify and am not willing to spend much time. If it is wrong or offends anybody, then disregard it

64051

Brian in SLC

03-12-2013, 10:05 AM

2065toyota

03-12-2013, 11:37 AM

Another fake founding fathers quote...heavy sigh...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/opinion/jefferson-fake-gun-quotation

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/when-governments-fear-people-there-libertyquotation

So you are using CNN and Monticello.org to refute a quote. I can't argue 100% that its a true statement from Jefferson, but if I was going to use something I would at least use Wikipedia. There you have at least a 50/50 chance of fact

2065toyota

03-12-2013, 11:41 AM

Henry Waxman Facts:

HR 4296 - Regulation of Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons - Key Vote National Key Votes Henry Waxman (http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/26753/henry-waxman) voted Yea (http://votesmart.org/bill/2674/8220/26753/regulation-of-semi-automatic-assault-weapons#8220) (Passage) (http://votesmart.org/bill/2674/8220/26753/regulation-of-semi-automatic-assault-weapons#8220) on this legislation.
Read recent statements Henry Waxman made (http://votesmart.org/candidate/public-statements/26753/henry-waxman) in this general time period.

HR 6842 - Repealing Portions of the D.C. Firearm Ban - Key Vote National Key Votes Henry Waxman (http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/26753/henry-waxman) voted Nay (http://votesmart.org/bill/8051/22402/26753/repealing-portions-of-the-dc-firearm-ban#22402) (Passage) (http://votesmart.org/bill/8051/22402/26753/repealing-portions-of-the-dc-firearm-ban#22402) on this legislation.
Read recent statements Henry Waxman made (http://votesmart.org/candidate/public-statements/26753/henry-waxman) in this general time period.

S 397 - Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill - Key Vote National Key Votes Henry Waxman (http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/26753/henry-waxman) voted Nay (http://votesmart.org/bill/3392/8068/26753/firearms-manufacturers-protection-bill#8068) (Passage) (http://votesmart.org/bill/3392/8068/26753/firearms-manufacturers-protection-bill#8068) on this legislation.
Read recent statements Henry Waxman made (http://votesmart.org/candidate/public-statements/26753/henry-waxman) in this general time period.

HR 424 - Minimum Sentences for Gun Crimes - Key Vote National Key Votes Henry Waxman (http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/26753/henry-waxman) voted Nay (http://votesmart.org/bill/2915/8175/26753/minimum-sentences-for-gun-crimes#8175) (Passage) (http://votesmart.org/bill/2915/8175/26753/minimum-sentences-for-gun-crimes#8175) on this legislation.
Read recent statements Henry Waxman made (http://votesmart.org/candidate/public-statements/26753/henry-waxman) in this general time period.

Brian in SLC

03-12-2013, 12:19 PM

So you are using CNN and Monticello.org to refute a quote. I can't argue 100% that its a true statement from Jefferson, but if I was going to use something I would at least use Wikipedia. There you have at least a 50/50 chance of fact

100%? My bet is you can't argue it at all.

The "fact" that Monticello has a page refuting it doesn't deter you from thinking its a real quote? Wow.

64052

2065toyota

03-12-2013, 01:00 PM

64053

ratagonia

03-12-2013, 01:36 PM

So you are using CNN and Monticello.org to refute a quote. I can't argue 100% that its a true statement from Jefferson, but if I was going to use something I would at least use Wikipedia. There you have at least a 50/50 chance of fact

Monticello.org - good source. Reputable. Lays out the argument well, has footnotes to original sources. Hard to do better than that.

Tom

2065toyota

03-12-2013, 02:45 PM

I got back involved in this thread in a moment of weakness. Monticello could be, I don't know. It was hard to past the CNN referral though

Rob L

03-12-2013, 03:38 PM

Why are they called "assault" weapons unless they are intended to be used to assault people? :assault:

Iceaxe

03-12-2013, 04:00 PM

Why are they called "assault" weapons unless they are intended to be used to assault people? :assault:

If you are asking a serious question... An "Assault Weapon" is a military weapon that is not easily avaiable to the American public... the term is applied by pro gun control groups to numerous semi-auto (hunting and sporting) rifles sold in the US to try and inflect fear and terror into those who are ignorant on the subject.

:cool2:

Brian in SLC

03-12-2013, 09:45 PM

So...assault weapon?

64078

Says, "restricted military/government law enforcement/export use only". But, legally ownable by a civilian, yes? Its a Colt LE6920.

And, the clones of the above share how many interchangeable parts? 100%?

Are these, then, by your definition, "assault rifles"? If not, then, what's the diff?

Military version of the above is an M4? Has the same except, what, a couple parts (shorter barrel, auto sear)? Photo below?

64079

Civilian version:

64081

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is it still only a kitten?

Ha ha.

2065toyota

03-12-2013, 10:10 PM

The point really is, that even if it is a duck. How is banning them going to serve any purpose when these types of firearms really aren't even the problem?

Brian in SLC

03-12-2013, 10:19 PM

The point really is, that even if it is a duck. How is banning them going to serve any purpose when these types of firearms really aren't even the problem?

Ahh..."the problem". Mass shootings? Which is the only demographic of homicide by firearm that hasn't seen a fairly constant decline over the last couple of decades?

Unfortunately, they kinda are "a" problem. Maybe not "the" problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIqESwzCGg4

Iceaxe

03-13-2013, 05:12 AM

Says, "restricted military/government law enforcement/export use only". But, legally ownable by a civilian, yes? Its a Colt LE6920.

That was stamped on all outlawed "assault rifles" during the last ban. The firearms covered by that ban were pretty arbitrary, but you already know that.

The historical military definition of an assault rifle has always included full auto capabilities.

The Ford or Chevy you drive to work is not a NASCAR racer, even if it passes your walks and quacks test...

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

accadacca

03-13-2013, 06:38 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS9b5Qg3ohk

Awesome! :roflol:

Brian in SLC

03-13-2013, 09:10 AM

The historical military definition of an assault rifle has always included full auto capabilities.

What folks seem to reference as the "military definition" is this 1970's document for identification of small arms in Eurasian Communist countries, which, is the reference that most folks point to. The "assault rifle" definition is buried beneath the AK-47 description.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/117824077/Small-Arms-Identification-and-Operation-Guide-Eurasian-Communist-Countries

Which, is a pretty narrow source for this "historical military definition".

64082

Pretty amazing that folks are hangin' their hat on this. There's no "assault rifle" definition in any mil spec type or general training document on the M4, M-16, etc, it seems. You get one document published by the DIA of the US Army, buried under a section on the AK-47, and, that's the definition for everyone for an "assault rifle"? That's just silly.

You want a definition that's been codified? Here's a source:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf

[LEFT]DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2].

PunchKing

03-13-2013, 09:47 AM

http://youtu.be/cKxhlXZ3hcY

I have always wondered why "assault" or even semi-automatic needs to be attached to any firearm. It seems to me the majority are, wouldn't it make more sense to add bolt action rifle and use that more frequently and just assume that if it isn't specified that it is semi-automatic or and "assault rifle" whatever that means.

Iceaxe

03-13-2013, 11:36 AM

A "semi auto assault rifle" is not an "assault rifle" by definition..... thanks for proving my point.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Brian in SLC

03-13-2013, 11:51 AM

A "semi auto assault rifle" is not an "assault rifle" by definition..... thanks for proving my point.

Uhh...like this, "hey, what kind of assault rifle is that?" "Why, its a semi auto".

Still an assault rifle.

Kinda like your car analogy.

ATF definition with regard to the import restrictions from 1989:

For purposes of this suspension, assault-type rifles were rifles which generally met the following
criteria:a. military appearanceb. large magazine capacityc. semiautomatic version of a machinegun

Iceaxe

03-13-2013, 01:08 PM

64083

Iceaxe

03-13-2013, 01:29 PM

Uhh...like this, "hey, what kind of assault rifle is that?" "Why, its a semi auto".

Still an assault rifle.

Kinda like your car analogy.

Yup... kinda.... they are both called Corvettes... and they are both yellow..

The first was used to win the 24 hours of Le Mans and the GT Manufacturers Championship.

The second was used to pick up a six-pack of beer at the local 7-11 and to fingerbang the divorcee down the block.

They are not the same thing in either case... but you and the guy that just picked up a sixer are welcome to think so...

64084

64085

But both the grocery getter and the semi-auto assault rifle are useful...

You are welcome to call your rifle anything you wish, that is really of little importance to me... we both know why the pro gun control folks refer to them as "assualt" rifles, and it's to scare and intimidate. Same reason the NRA refers to them as Black Rifles.

Anyhoo.... I'm more interested in the "will not be infringed" part of the discussion... and less with the color of your rifle.

:cool2:

Rob L

03-13-2013, 02:27 PM

If you are asking a serious question... An "Assault Weapon" is a military weapon that is not easily avaiable to the American public... the term is applied by pro gun control groups to numerous semi-auto (hunting and sporting) rifles sold in the US to try and inflect fear and terror into those who are ignorant on the subject.

:cool2:

Yes, it was a serious question, and thank you for the reply. Which itself raises my next question:

By
...pro gun control groups....<snip> do you mean groups that are in favour of gun control, or do you mean gun groups that control themselves [in a sensible manner]. Sorry if I can't explain myself well.

I have no issue one way or the other myself...I don't own a gun, nor am I a member of a gun club, but I used to shoot targets at Bisley. Here in the UK we have our fair share of death shootings & gun crime just like you do in the USA.

Rob

Brian in SLC

03-13-2013, 03:08 PM

Yup... kinda.... they are both called Corvettes... and they are both yellow..

More like:

64087

And:

64088

Both NASCAR...

Just like ya got your military assault rifles and your civilian assault rifles.

More of an issue with the "anti gun control" folks making a deal out of folks calling them "assault rifles". I'm assuming they don't like the term 'cause once defined, its an easy thing to "deal" with.

Just like they way the US dealt with the import of rifles from out of country. Drove the darn prices up...check out HK 91's for example. At least home grown is affordable...sorta...

The definition of what is, and, what isn't an assault rifle seems to be a crux deal when it comes to the issue. The more confusing it is, the harder it is to legislate...

Anyhoo..."assault" is definately a word tossed around as a form of propaganda on both sides.

I think events like three gun comp's, etc, have helped legitimize sporting use of "assault" rifles, which, helps the "no ban" cause. Don't infringe on my legitimate sporting use of my military style assault rifle!

Iceaxe

03-13-2013, 03:10 PM

When I say pro gun control I mean those that want more restrictions on firearm ownership.

FWIW - supporters of the 2nd amendment often refer to these so called assault rifles as black rifles, for the simple reason they are normally painted black.

Yo Brian... you can put black lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Hahaha. ..

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Iceaxe

03-13-2013, 03:28 PM

The definition of what is, and, what isn't an assault rifle seems to be a crux deal when it comes to the issue. The more confusing it is, the harder it is to legislate...

I don't think it matters as it appears an "assault weapons" ban is not going to pass.... "Universal Background Checks" seems to be the big prize at the moment.

I think gun control advocates want Assault Weapons, Magazine capacity and Universal Background Checks all to come before a general vote. That will allow represenatives to vote against the first two items and vote for Universal Background Checks. Then they can still tell their constituents that they did nothing to impede the 2nd amendment, which is just anther word game of spin the story....

YMMV :cool2:

Iceaxe

03-13-2013, 03:35 PM

More like:

64087

And:

64088

Both NASCAR...

FWIW: The two Corvettes are more closely related, at least they share a name, a manufacturer and a heritage, along with some parts.

The two race cars you posted share nothing in common. One is a Ford, the other a Chevy. One is a Cup car, the other is a Natainwide Car. Outside of the NASCAR sticker there is not one item or part that is interchangable, not even the tires.

Don't be fooled by looks alone. :haha:

Byron

03-13-2013, 06:27 PM

It's all about the magazines, man...at least here in Colorado.

Once a month, Mike Rosen, a radio talk show host that I'm a big fan of, has an hour long segment with both the mayor of Denver and the Governor. Listeners can call in with questions. For the mayor, it's mostly stupid stuff like potholes and parking tickets, for the governor, the questions are mostly about energy policy and state spending.

Hickenlooper, the Gov., was on today. As you know, the gun debate is huge here with legislation that passed recently...as the Democrats run the state. All it needs now is his signature...and he's going to sign.

Mike asked him straight up, "Why do you support these things" and to Lickenpooper's credit, he gave a straight up answer....

It's all about the mags. He doesn't care about the "appearance" of the firearm. Handgun or rifle. They (he and his comrades) firmly believe that if the gun has a limited amount of ammo, people will be able to scurry to safety as the shooter is changing clips, or tackle the guy. That's it...period. Their most logical answer.

Fortunately, they aren't banning guns "by the way they look"...there are no specific models on a "can't own it" list. However, I've heard the is a certain Glock that can only be used with the stock mag that holds 15 rounds. I can't recall the model number. Anyway, you're allowed to own it, but you can't fire it.

I wonder what would happen to someone who uses one of these to defend themselves against a home invasion? Someone asked that question today, and he said they have to "work out the details" about what is grandfathered in, etc, etc...more committee meetings, more restrictions, more "this OK, that not", more brain damage...just like what they're doing with the marijuana.

The solution from the conservative/libertarian politicians and taking heads around here? Buy a gun. Get a CC. Take out any psycho that starts going off the deep end...justice served.

I'll take the conservative solution, thank you.

Sandstone Addiction

03-13-2013, 07:49 PM

I think the bolded section below pretty much sums it up.

Modern Sporting Rifle Facts

The modern sporting rifle, based on the AR-15 platform, is widely misunderstood. Why? Confusion exists because while these rifles may cosmetically look like military rifles, they do not function the same way. Also, groups wanting to ban these rifles have for years purposely or through ignorance spread misinformation about them to aid their cause.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation asks you to be an informed gun owner and to use the following facts to correct misconceptions about these rifles. Remember, that if AR-15-style modern sporting rifles are banned, your favorite traditional-looking hunting or target shooting semi-automatic firearm could be banned, too.

AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today's modern sporting rifle.
The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."
AR-15-style rifles are NOT "assault weapons" or "assault rifles." An assault rifle is fully automatic -- a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.
If someone calls an AR-15-style rifle an "assault weapon," he or she either supports banning these firearms or does not understand their function and sporting use, or both. Please correct them. "Assault weapon" is a political term created by California anti-gun legislators to ban some semi-automatic rifles there in the 1980s.
AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger.
Versions of modern sporting rifles are legal to own in all 50 states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchasers.
Since the 19th century, civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors. The modern sporting rifle simply follows that tradition.
These rifles' accuracy, reliability, ruggedness and versatility serve target shooters and hunters well. They are true all-weather firearms.
Chamberings include .22, .223 (5.56 x 45mm), 6.8 SPC, .308, .450 Bushmaster and about a dozen others. Upper receivers for pistol calibers such as 9 mm, .40, and .45 are available. There are even .410 shotgun versions.
These rifles are used for many different types of hunting, from varmint to big game. And they're used for target shooting in the national matches.
AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.
The AR-15 platform is modular. Owners like being able to affix different "uppers" (the barrel and chamber) to the "lower" (the grip, stock).
And, they are a lot of fun to shoot!

http://www.nssf.org/msr/facts.cfm

Iceaxe

03-13-2013, 08:06 PM

It's all about the magazines, man...at least here in Colorado

FYI: I understand Magpul Industries Corporperation is now selling "high capacity" magazines to Colorado residents on-line and all their production is going to CO. Magpul is calling it Fight for Freedom in Colorado.

Nothing like anther couple million high capacity mags in CO before the ban takes effect.

:cool2:

ratagonia

03-13-2013, 09:37 PM

If someone calls an AR-15-style rifle an "assault weapon," he or she either supports banning these firearms or does not understand their function and sporting use, or both. Please correct them. "Assault weapon" is a political term created by California anti-gun legislators to ban some semi-automatic rifles there in the 1980s.

So,... let me follow the "logic" here:

"Assault weapon" is a term created by California law, and defined in California law to include AR-15s. Or at least, some semi-automatic 'modern sporting rifles', perhaps ones with a pistol grip and flash suppressor - details not important to this argument.

Sounds like they are saying that California CREATED a clear, well-defined definition of what an Assault Weapon is.

Before that, they say, (and I paraphrase) "they may have created the definition, but they got it completely wrong." Anyone who uses the term as the creators of that term defined it, must either have a different political opinion about guns than we do (ie, communist, suspect, gay, something bad) or "does not understand their function and sporting use, or both."

Interesting logic one develops, when preaching to the choir! :facepalm1:

(not that the lib side is not prone to the same kinda shenanigans... 4 sure it is!)

Tom :moses:

Iceaxe

03-13-2013, 10:03 PM

[/LIST]

So,... let me follow the "logic" here:

"Assault weapon" is a term created by California law,

FWIW... the term assault rifle orginated with the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle. It was actually named "assault rifle".

The StG 44 (Sturmgewehr 44), literally "storm" (or assault) rifle (model 1944) was an assault rifle developed in Nazi Germany during World War II that was the first of its kind to see major deployment and is considered by most historians to be the first modern assault rifle.

The StG 44 is also known under the designations MP 43 and MP 44 (Maschinenpistole 43, Maschinenpistole 44 respectively), which denote earlier developmental versions of the same weapon.

In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

An individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder.

Capable of selective fire (full automatic and semi automatic).

Intermediate-power cartridge between pistol and traditional rifle.

Ammunition is supplied from a detachable box magazine.

Fires from a closed bolt with the breech locked.

:popcorn:

Brian in SLC

03-13-2013, 10:14 PM

The modern sporting rifle, based on the AR-15 platform, is widely misunderstood. Why? Confusion exists because while these rifles may cosmetically look like military rifles, they do not function the same way. Also, groups wanting to ban these rifles have for years purposely or through ignorance spread misinformation about them to aid their cause.

That misinformation thing runs both ways. The pro gun folks blame the anti gun folks for callin' them assault rifles. The ATF calls them assault rifles especially in regard to import. Under the repealed legislation passed in 1994 and now expired, there was "semi-automatic assault rifles". That term "assault rifle" is a tough genie to push back in the bottle.

"May" look cosmetically the same? Ha ha.

From a fairly spicy interchange awhile back on AR15.com:

In number of "exact parts," even if you ignore the fact that Colt parts are made on the same machinery and are more likely to be correct in terms of tolerance and small, harder to detect parts of the TDP, and ignore individual feature of the rollmarks and proof markings, and only take into account the reported material specs, the Colt SP6920 differs from the military issue M4 Carbine in these parts, minus the lack of an auto sear and the associated parts:

1. stripped barrel assembly
2. hammer
3. trigger
4. disconnector
5. selector
6. stripped lower receiver
7. stock assembly on newer models

So, anyhoo.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation asks you to be an informed gun owner and to use the following facts to correct misconceptions about these rifles.

AR-15-style rifles are NOT "assault weapons" or "assault rifles." An assault rifle is fully automatic -- a machine gun...

Fact? Most "assault rifles" are select fire. They aren't just fully automatic. And, the current M4 in use isn't fully automatic.

My bet is no one could tell the difference between a military M4 or M16 unless they got a good look at the lower for that extra position on the selector switch. Side by side. Up close. They function exactly the same. They take the same magazines, the same ammo, you can swap the bolts, the uppers...

From Colt, ""What differentiates the LESOCOM from the M4A1 platform currently used by the United States Armed Forces is the LESOCOM's longer barrel length and semi-automatic fire controls."

1.6" of barrel length and one less position on the selector switch. From legit assault rifle to sporter? Yeah, right.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/05/1184880/-Just-What-Is-An-Assault-Weapon

Interesting article on military taking advantage of civilian improvements to their, uhh, "carbine"...ha ha.

http://www.defensereview.com/tactical-ar-15m4m4a1-carbine-aftermarket-accessories-for-military-combat-applications-the-competition-to-combat-crossover/

64096

64097

Which one is the "assault rifle"?

Geez, they look "cosmetically" the same...

ratagonia

03-13-2013, 10:22 PM

Which one is the "assault rifle"?

Geez, they look "cosmetically" the same...

Both from your collection?

I like the less-obvious grain on the lower one, so the upper must be the super-scary Assault Rifle.

:moses:

Brian in SLC

03-13-2013, 10:31 PM

In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:
An individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder.
Capable of selective fire (full automatic and semi automatic).
Intermediate-power cartridge between pistol and traditional rifle.
Ammunition is supplied from a detachable box magazine.
Fires from a closed bolt with the breech locked.

So, based on that, is the current M4 in use by the US military NOT an assault rifle because it doesn't fire fully automatic?

What's your definition source? If you included "and/or" between fully and semi automatic, I'd agree with it...ha ha.

Oh, you got it from the venerable wiki...must be true! You forgot the range. 300 meters. The references are interesting...

C. Taylor The fighting rifle – A complete study of the rifle in combat, ISBN 0-87947-308-8 (http://www.bogley.com/wiki/Special:BookSources/0879473088)
F.A. Moyer Special Forces foreign weapons handbook, ISBN 0-87364-009-8 (http://www.bogley.com/wiki/Special:BookSources/0873640098)
R.J. Scroggie, F.A. Moyer Special Forces combat firing techniques, ISBN 0-87364-010-1 (http://www.bogley.com/wiki/Special:BookSources/0873640101)

Hey, speakin' of German assault rifles...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/world-war-ii-era-german-assault-rifle-_n_2270815.html

Brian in SLC

03-13-2013, 10:53 PM

The StG 44 (Sturmgewehr 44), literally "storm" (or assault) rifle (model 1944) was an assault rifle developed in Nazi Germany during World War II that was the first of its kind to see major deployment and is considered by most historians to be the first modern assault rifle.

But, back to the wiki page on assault rifles...I thought this was interesting:

The assault rifle became the standard military rifle in the post-World War II era. The Soviet Union was the first nation in the post-war era to adopt an assault rifle, the AK-47, and other nations followed later.

B-b-b-but whaddabout the good ol' M2 Carbine, in service in WWII (end of)? I think it meets the definition of "assault rifle". Pre-dates the AK by a few years.

Brian in SLC

03-13-2013, 10:55 PM

From a ruskie website, interesting historical spin on the assault rifle thing.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/assault-e.html

Assault rifles are primary offensive weapons of modern troops. Today's AR (Assault Rifles) usually have calibers ranging from 5.45mm to 7.62mm, magazine capacity of 20-30 or more rounds, selective full auto and single shot modes of fire, plus, in some models, 2 or 3 round burst mode. Effective range of fire is some 600 meters or so; effective rate of fire - up to 400-500 rounds per minute in full auto mode. Many assault rifles shown here are, in fact, parts of whole families of assault firearms (from short carbines to light machineguns - Steyr AUG is a good example). Almost all AR's may be equipped with bayonet, optical or Night Vision scope/sight and, some of them, with underbarrel grenade launcher or rifle grenade launcher (rifle grenades usually are put on the barrel and fired with a blank cartridge). Todays trends in AR design are wide usage of hardened plastics and lightweight alloys and built-in holographic (collimator) or optical scopes with magnitfication of 1X to 4-6X (usually 1X or 1.5-3X).http://www.bogley.com/userfiles/images/assault/as00/classic-vs-bullpup2.jpg
Most of the worlds' recent assault rifles are designed in bull-pup configuration. This means that buttplate is attached directly to the receiver and handle with the trigger placed ahead of the magazine veil. The only major countries that still stick to conventional AR design are Germany (their latest G36 looks a little bit more 'conservative', comparing to Austrian AUG or latest Israeli Tavor), and Russia, where latest ARs are developed in both 'classic' (AN-94, AK-10x) and 'bull-pup' (Groza OC-14) styles.http://www.bogley.com/userfiles/images/assault/as00/fedorov_sm.jpg
The history of the concept of the assault rifle started in the early 1910's, when the famous Russian armorer, col. Fedorov designed a small-bore selective-fire rifle with detachable box magazine. Initially, Fedorow designed a brand new small-caliber 6.5mm cartridge for his rifle, but, due to WW1, switched to the Japanese 6.5mm Arisaka load, which was less powerful than the Russian 7.62x54R and available in quantity. This rifle was aquired by the Russian army in small numbers in 1916 and served (in very limited quantities though) with the Russian and Soviet (Red) Army up to 1925. While the design of the selective-fire rifle was not unique for that time, the concept of the "lightened" cartridge, more suitable for full-auto fire, was new. Also, col.Fedorov invented the idea of infantry weapons families (assault rifle, light machinegun, medium machinegun, vehicle and/or aircraft mounted MGs) based on the same actions and receivers.http://www.bogley.com/userfiles/images/assault/as00/stg44.jpg
The next step in this history was made by Germany - in the 1930's, theybegan research to develop a medium-power cartridge, which would be much lighter than 7.92mm German and easier to fire accurately in full-auto mode. This development led to the 7.92x33mm cartridge (Pistolenpatrone 7.92mm). The Germans developed some weapons designs for this load, including the MP43 and Stg.44, but this was too late for Germany... Further development of such designs was made by German engineers in Spain, and later in West Germany, and led to the HK G3/G41 family of battle&assault rifles.http://www.bogley.com/userfiles/images/assault/as00/1288264165.jpg
The United States also put in some effort to this idea, and before WW2 developed a special less-than-medium powered cartridge .30Carbine and a rifle for this cartridge - a so-called "baby-Garand" in semi-auto M1 and selective-fire M2.But the largest stride forward was made by the USSR, when, in 1943, the Soviet Army adopted a new cartridge - the 7.62x39mm medium-power load. In 1945 , the Soviet Army adopted the semi-auto SKS rifle in this chambering, and, in 1947 - the AK (known for the West as AK-47). The AK was Worlds' first sucessful assault rifle, and one of the most widely used. The Last major step on this road was made by US again - in the late 1950's, the US Army adopted a new (for the US) concept of military selective-fire rifle using a small-caliber cartridge. The first of such weapons adopted was the Armalite AR15/Colt M16, designed by Eugene Stoner. This adoption lately set the new world trend for small-caliber (5.45-5.56mm / .22in.) high-velocity cartridges.All further research and development, such as caseless ammunition, multiple-bullet or sabot cartridges, etc., still haven't produced any practical results.

Byron

03-14-2013, 07:10 AM

So, nothing more than 15 rounds here in Colorado...in the meantime, here's Frankenstein demanding to get rid of the scary looking ones.http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/0/0/DianneFeinsteinAP_20130314_071742.jpg

Brian in SLC

03-14-2013, 09:48 AM

Got a kick out of this...

64121

From "the World's Assault Rifles" by Johnston. Full "or" semi...

Thought the car reference was great...

Iceaxe

03-19-2013, 08:28 PM

According to the Washington Times, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid shot down Dianne Feinstein’s proposed ban on “assault weapons” and said it will not be part of the base gun bill Senate Democrats hope to pass.

This means DiFi’s bill would have to stand on its own merit, which means that the bill is likely going nowhere.

Harry Reid shoots down Feinstein AR gun-ban (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/19/reid-shoots-down-feinstein-gun-ban-bill/#ixzz2O0StknC3)

Iceaxe

03-19-2013, 08:33 PM

I was happy to see the NRA hire Colion Noir as a spokesman. He has a great ability to highlight the problems and outline a solution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0nm1qDT19g

oldno7

03-20-2013, 05:46 AM

This is similar to 94.

fineswine will be attaching her awb to another bill, almost guaranteed.

A test of wills is coming........

On another note--I see herbert as a last termer if he veto's the gun bills, which I see as likely.

If this state wants to remain conservative, theres no room for a Governor who wants to be a moderate.

Results will be Utah becoming the next Colorado.

Iceaxe

03-20-2013, 07:32 AM

Herbert is an idiot if he vetoes the Constitutional Carry Bill. The bill is veto proof as it already passed with more then 2/3 in both houses. I'm betting he just lets it pass into law without his signature. If he vetoes the bill all that happens is he signs his resignation and the bill will still pass.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Brian in SLC

03-20-2013, 07:56 AM

Depends on who he owes favors to...SLC PD for one...and CB is way against it.

If I was in law enforcement, I might be bummin' if that thing passes...

James_B_Wads2000

03-20-2013, 07:59 AM

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/349/990/304.gif (http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/349990-thats-racist)

Iceaxe

03-20-2013, 09:02 AM

Welcome to the discussion... please bring some facts and statistics to back up your UN dream.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Brian in SLC

03-20-2013, 09:02 AM

Herbert is an idiot if he vetoes the Constitutional Carry Bill. The bill is veto proof as it already passed with more then 2/3 in both houses.

Is that right? I thought the legislature would have to get together and vote again to pass it by 2/3's majority.

Will be interesting to watch this play out.

Brian in SLC

03-20-2013, 09:04 AM

Welcome to the discussion... please bring some facts and statistics to back up your UN dream.

Dreams don't need facts and statistics.

Maybe a few fake quotes from the founding fathers? Ha ha.

Iceaxe

03-20-2013, 09:14 AM

Is that right? I thought the legislature would have to get together and vote again to pass it by 2/3's majority.

Will be interesting to watch this play out.

Yes, the legislature would have to over-ride the veto.... but seldom does a governor veto a bill that passed by more then 2/3 as the bill is considered "veto proof". It's very rare for a veto proof bill that is vetoed not to be over-ridden.

The best out for the governor if he opposes this bill is to just let it pass into law without his signature. That shows he was not happy with the bill without confronting the house and senate head on and still losing. The governor isn't required to sign or veto a bill, if he does nothing it still passes into law.

Anyhoo.... that's my 2 cents. YMMV...

Brian in SLC

03-20-2013, 09:24 AM

The best out for the governor if he opposes this bill is to just let it pass into law without his signature. That shows he was not happy with the bill without confronting the house and senate head on and still losing. The governor isn't required to sign or veto a bill, if he does nothing it still passes into law.

My bet is that's what he'll do. Won't answer the mail for the folks lobbying him to veto it, but, he's not as beholden to those folks anyhow.

The bill doesn't pass my "reasonable man" muster. But, it'll probably pass.

Iceaxe

03-20-2013, 10:05 AM

The bill doesn't pass my "reasonable man" muster. But, it'll probably pass.

The states that have Consitional Carry haven't had any issues.... and the criminals already carry concealed.... so...

Just saying I have seen nothing as of yet that proves Consitional Carry is a bad law.

Getting your CCP still has lots of advantages, the biggest to me are it makes purchasing a firearm much easier and concealed carry reciprocity with other states. Utah's CCP is still one of the better ones to have.

Brian in SLC

03-20-2013, 10:38 AM

The states that have Consitional Carry haven't had any issues.... and the criminals already carry concealed.... so...

Just saying I have seen nothing as of yet that proves Consitional Carry is a bad law.

Getting your CCP still has lots of advantages, the biggest to me are it makes purchasing a firearm much easier and concealed carry reciprocity with other states. Utah's CCP is still one of the better ones to have.

It'll no doubt effect how law enforcement treats someone who has a firearm on their person. Given that some folks don't play well with authority figures...

One component of the current CCP system is education (as minimal as it is, its at least something). The other is data. We'll miss out on any proactive effects of either, which, is a shame.

On the bigger front...as predicted...go Harry! Ha ha...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/new-york-daily-news-assault-ban-cover_n_2915081.html?ir=Politics&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

oldno7

03-20-2013, 03:35 PM

Maybe not real but funny none the less...

If it is real--congrats Wisconsin:haha:

oldno7

03-20-2013, 03:35 PM

On a related note--last I heard, Utah had over 500,000 CCW holders.

Iceaxe

03-20-2013, 03:57 PM

Utah CCW Holder Brings A Gun to A Knife Fight....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1hY2iSot_k

Brian in SLC

03-21-2013, 07:59 AM

Iceaxe

03-21-2013, 08:40 AM

I'm not sure what part you find amazing?

That the current system is working? That we have 400K+ concealed carry permit holders? That booze, drugs and wife beatings don't mix well with firearms?

I do find it note worthy that 15% of the Utah's total population (2,855,287) has a concealed carry permit. Once you exclude those under 21 and those who are not allowed to carry that means approximately 30% of Utah's population that is allowed to have a CCP already has one. That's a lot of firepower, I'm pretty sure my neighborhood is better armed than many small countries. It also makes it easy to see why Utah is so gun friendly. Just better hope that Draper 5th Ward doesn't decide to go to war with Draper 3rd Ward.... hahaha....

:popcorn:

Brian in SLC

03-21-2013, 09:37 AM

I'm not sure what part you find amazing?

Amazing that an "innocent bystander" had the moxy to not shoot the guy with the knife!

Not common to find someone with that cool a head. A - M - A - Z - I - N - G.

Yeah, given that a huge percentage of the gen pop already has a CCP, does make one wonder about the need for a "constitutional carry".

Yeah, current system seems ok. So...why change it?

Plenty of not-so-saavy folks out there...

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=24055581

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5827833

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5293638

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=10164697

Iceaxe

03-21-2013, 10:11 AM

Gotcha... I was trying to fit the amazing to the brady report.

I have no problem with Utah's current gun laws. I do understand the governor's if its not broke why fix it approach. I also didn't realize how much of Utah's population was already permitted to carry until I did the math.

Some of this is just backlash to Obama. The Democrats are going to pay dearly for this hardline gun control approach over the next few years. They will probably do as much harm as they do good.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Brian in SLC

03-21-2013, 02:25 PM

Some of this is just backlash to Obama. The Democrats are going to pay dearly for this hardline gun control approach over the next few years. They will probably do as much harm as they do good.

They have in the past, absolutely. Which is why the 1994 bill expired without a glimmer. They kinda learned.

Now I wonder if the tide has turned a bit. Folks see these whacko's with guns for what they are: whackos. The best propaganda for why folks shouldn't have firearms is a pro rally on most states capitol steps...just look at 'em. Angry, spoutin' off about tyranny, need these assault weapons and high cap mag's to protect from the gov't. Outside looking on for most these folks just seem delusional and silly.

I guess my point is ardent firearms supporters don't come across very well to mainstream folks either, in spades. Comment I heard last weekend in Idaho I got a kick out of: "what about my right to not be intimidated by gun owners?" This from a Desert Storm vet. Some of its just a culture of guns thing. Guns gone wild. Maybe its starting to run its course?

Nationally, there's been a steady decline of gun ownership in the U.S. 50% in the 70's and down to 35% or so now? My bet is that hunting has followed this trend too.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining

Kinda like the "Moral Majority"...(which was neither...ha ha). When you start losing numbers, you come across as angry crackpots, toss in a few huge tragedies, then voila, suddenly your Colorado.

Nationally, I don't see this going much anywhere in congress.

oldno7

03-21-2013, 08:22 PM

I would love to see this happen, this is a major player.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/21/colt-ceo-says-no-definite-plans-to-stay-or-flee-connecticut-amid-gun/

ratagonia

03-22-2013, 10:39 AM

Wow...amazing story.

CCP #'s for Utah (as required by the Brady Bill):

411,604 Total Valid Permits as of December 31, 2012

http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/documents/2012Q4.pdf

Utah has nearly a 2% denial rate for firearms transfer.

Revocation of CCP in 2011 spiked to 1046 and was only 391 in 2012. Interesting to ponder why.

Suspensions on the steady rise...779 in 2011 and 1034 in 2012.

Lots of interesting info in that document. Didn't know a dishonorable discharge makes one ineligible to purchase a firearm.

How many Utah CCW are issued to out-of-state persons? My understanding is that the Utah CCW is popular in other states, because it has the widest cross-acceptance in other states. So that 411k does not represent holders in Utah.

Tom :moses:

Brian in SLC

03-22-2013, 10:49 AM

How many Utah CCW are issued to out-of-state persons? My understanding is that the Utah CCW is popular in other states, because it has the widest cross-acceptance in other states. So that 411k does not represent holders in Utah.

I think they changed who can get a Utah issued CCP:

Non-resident proof of permit. If you reside in a state that recognizes the validity of the Utah CFP or has reciprocity with Utah, you must obtain a CFP or CCW from your home state and submit a copy of it with your application for a Utah permit. For a list of reciprocal states click here (http://www.publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/FAQother.html). Residency will be determined by your state-issued identification. If your state does not recognize the Utah permit this does not apply.

That slowed down the out-of-state flow. Was costing the state a ton to process folks...

Iceaxe

03-22-2013, 11:54 AM

The governor just vetoed the constitutional carry bill.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Iceaxe

03-22-2013, 11:56 AM

Lots of interesting info in that document. Didn't know a dishonorable discharge makes one ineligible to purchase a firearm.

A dishonorable discharge is a big deal as you also lose your right to vote.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Brian in SLC

03-22-2013, 12:47 PM

The governor just vetoed the constitutional carry bill.

Quid pro quo, Clarise...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fyYlZ7ZDa8

Sandstone Addiction

03-22-2013, 01:18 PM

I think they changed who can get a Utah issued CCP:

Non-resident proof of permit. If you reside in a state that recognizes the validity of the Utah CFP or has reciprocity with Utah, you must obtain a CFP or CCW from your home state and submit a copy of it with your application for a Utah permit. For a list of reciprocal states click here (http://www.publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/FAQother.html). Residency will be determined by your state-issued identification. If your state does not recognize the Utah permit this does not apply.

That slowed down the out-of-state flow. Was costing the state a ton to process folks...

This has only been a law for a year or two, tens of thousands of permits were issued before that which I'm sure are still valid and account for a huge percentage of total permit holders.

Are you sure it cost the state a ton to process? I'm pretty sure the state was enjoying a windfall profit...which was the reason NV and NM severed their reciprocity agreement; which caused the Utah permit to be less viable and forced the legislature to do something about it.

oldno7

03-22-2013, 06:03 PM

And remember--registration is NEVER about confiscation!

http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_22846837/bill-seize-registered-assault-weapons-dead-author-says

Iceaxe

03-22-2013, 09:00 PM

Looks like a special session to override the governor's veto of Constitutional Carry will happen in May, might happen as early as April.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Sandstone Addiction

03-23-2013, 05:57 AM

The governor just vetoed the constitutional carry bill.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

What irratates me about this whole deal is the fact that consessions were made to allow this to be palatable to the gov. For the special session, can they bring back the original bill without the consessions? I never did like the idea of carrying a concealed firearm unloaded.

Iceaxe

03-23-2013, 03:39 PM

In rare bipartisan support of the 2nd amendment the US Senate just passed a bill opting the US out of the UN Arms Treaty.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Brian in SLC

03-23-2013, 07:33 PM

Are you sure it cost the state a ton to process? I'm pretty sure the state was enjoying a windfall profit...which was the reason NV and NM severed their reciprocity agreement; which caused the Utah permit to be less viable and forced the legislature to do something about it.

Ahh...you might be right. I think the initial permit wasn't costing as much as they thought it would, but, the re-up was costing more. Something like that. They lowered the price for the intial permit.

Brian in SLC

03-23-2013, 07:59 PM

In rare bipartisan support of the 2nd amendment the US Senate just passed a bill opting the US out of the UN Arms Treaty.

Technically, I'm guessing it was an amendment to "S.CON.RES.8".

53 -46. 7 Democrats voted for it. Not huge bipartisan support, but, enough. 4:30am? Geez, makin' sausage at that hour? Nutty.

Interesting to note that US Senator Mike Lee introduced an amendment that would "...create a point of order against legislation that would further restrict the right of law-abiding Americans to own a firearm." Didn't pass 3/5 majority.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:SC00008:@@@S

03-25-2013, 11:00 AM

I never did like the idea of carrying a concealed firearm unloaded.
:eek2: That was actually part of a law? I was involved in a conversation where quite a few didn't carried one chambered. What the hell is the sense and you should have heard some of the answers :facepalm1:

Iceaxe

03-25-2013, 04:54 PM

:eek2: That was actually part of a law? I was involved in a conversation where quite a few didn't carried one chambered. What the hell is the sense and you should have heard some of the answers :facepalm1:

Unloaded under Utah law means you can't have one in the chamber. And honestly, with Joe Six-pack I don't see where this is a bad thing, racking the slide isn't going to make any difference. If someone wants to carry loaded the Utah CCP is still easily avaiable. The only part of this that ticks me off is the "unloaded" was added to make the bill exceptable to the governor, yet he still vetoed it.

Iceaxe

03-25-2013, 04:55 PM

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/578094_559432420744466_308060088_n.jpg

Sombeech

03-25-2013, 10:48 PM

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/578094_559432420744466_308060088_n.jpg

http://i.minus.com/iHhNVZA2YPpfc.gif

03-26-2013, 06:29 AM

Without one chambered is like tits on a bull, useless.

Iceaxe

03-28-2013, 02:37 PM

Just for fun... and for those that have never seen one. Here is a copy of Form 4473 that everyone must fill out and sign when purchasing a firearm from an FFL holder (gun store, pawn shop, any legitimate business, ect.).

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

When you hear gun owners say start with enforcing the laws already on the books this is one of the items they are talking about. Out of more than 76,000 firearms purchases denied by the federal instant check system (Part of Form 4473), only 62 were referred for prosecution, and only 44 were actually prosecuted. If you want to start cracking down on firearms in the hands of those that shouldn't have them this is where you need to start.

And lets start with that douche bag astronaut Mark Kelly who has admitted he was purchasing an AR-15 as a straw man and the firearm was intended for someone else, which is illegal. A nice high profile conviction might get folks to step up and take notice.

:soapbox:

oldno7

03-28-2013, 04:47 PM

Iceaxe

03-28-2013, 06:50 PM

The news tonight, is reporting that texting and driving kill 9 people per day in the USA.

This cannot be tolerated, all phones capable of texting should be banned.

If we can save just one life...........

It would be easy to make it so phones can't text when moving faster then 20 mph. But it will never happen because those making the laws are also offenders.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

oldno7

03-29-2013, 05:50 AM

But according to Mrs. Feinstein herself, there are an average 35 people in the U.S. killed each year by rifles with these characteristics.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/27/miller-gun-polling-shifts-still-skewed/#ixzz2OvvCj4JO

Now relate this to my texting while driving stat.

oldno7

03-30-2013, 07:32 AM

bloombergs fine, mayors against illegal guns(not sure what an "illegal gun" is though)

http://www.stopillegalmayors.com/

oldno7

04-01-2013, 06:01 AM

Armed(CC) Senior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=epZod2qyyN4

Sombeech

04-01-2013, 11:00 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Y2sWiZ8BizI

Iceaxe

04-03-2013, 05:57 PM

Hard to believe that people this ignorant makes decisions effecting millions...

Asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) said: “I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/04/03/as-lead-sponsor-in-house-on-gun-legislation-rep-diana-degette-appears-to-not-understand-how-they-work/93506/

accadacca

04-10-2013, 12:50 PM

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/63569_464169660331937_2119708037_n.jpg

Beretta Leaves Maryland Because Of Stricter Gun Laws

New legislation is forcing gun manufacturing company Beretta to uproot and take their business elsewhere.

Established in 1526, Beretta holds the distinction of being the oldest active firearms manufacturer in the world. The U.S. factory is located in Accokeek, Maryland, and has been a staple of the local economy for years.

Beretta warned that stricter gun control laws would push the company outside of state lines, but that didn’t stop Maryland legislators. Jeffrey Reh, a spokesman for Beretta who also serves as the President of Stoeger Industries under Beretta, announced that the company would begrudgingly uproot and take its business elsewhere. He said, “We don’t want to do this, we’re not willing to do this, but obviously this legislation has caused us a serious level of concern within our company.”

He added that Beretta paid approximately $31 million in taxes, employs 400 people, and had invested $73 million in the business over the past several decades. Despite being such a prominent player in the local economy, Beretta was unable to prevent legislators from passing tighter gun control laws. Ironically, Beretta manufactures some firearms that are now banned in Maryland.

Republican state Delegate Anthony J. O’Donnell lamented: “Losing [Beretta] would be a big disappointment. Maryland has a reputation for having a horrible business climate, and this would be one more nail in the coffin.”

Legislators had ample warning. Back in the ‘90s, when Maryland beefed up gun control laws, Beretta moved one of its warehouses a short drive away to Virginia.

Beretta’s bold move is regrettable but understandable. Reh told reporters, “Why expand in a place where the people who built the gun couldn’t buy it?”

All of Beretta’s pleas fell on deaf ears. Even as Reh lamented Beretta’s looming departure and emphasized the company’s centrality in the local economy during the hearing, Maryland legislators grilled Reh on self-defense.

One legislator stated: “Other than target shooting, the only other reason [for a semi-automic firearm] would be for self-defense… [Why would you need a] rifle that accommodates 20 rounds semi-automatic for deer hunting? … It’s only very infrequently that someone commits a crime with an assault weapon – why do you need one for self-defense?”

accadacca

04-10-2013, 12:50 PM

oldno7

04-10-2013, 01:52 PM

Tomorrow(Thurs.) is the beginning of the gun debate. Lots of posturing.

There will be many amendments attached to whatever bill comes forward.

A filibuster is possible and threatened but it is believed there are 60 votes for cloture, guess we'll see...........

Iceaxe

04-13-2013, 05:03 PM

http://www.lowbird.com/data/images/2013/04/hugelol-101058.jpg (http://www.lowbird.com/)

Iceaxe

04-17-2013, 02:08 PM

Expanded Background checks was the ONE item gun-control advocates thought they could get passed, they figured this was the easiest of all the proposed gun-control laws to push through. If this didn't pass it doesn't currently look good for any of the other gun-control laws to pass. Two days ago this rejection would have been headline news, now it will be lucky to make page two.

Senate rejects gun amendment compromise

The Senate on Wednesday rejected a bipartisan amendment that would have expanded background checks on gun purchases, a blow to advocates calling for more strict firearm laws after the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., late last year.

The measure, the product of intense negotiations between Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey and West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, would have extended background check requirements on gun owners. It needed 60 votes to pass, but failed 54-46.

Democratic Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana voted against it. (Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada switched his vote to no at the end, a procedural tactic that allows him to bring it up for a vote later.) In addition to Toomey, Republicans who supported the amendment were Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine and John McCain of Arizona.

Scores of onlookers filled the Senate gallery to watch the vote. When Vice President Joseph Biden read the final tally and announced the amendment had not passed, Patricia Maisch, who helped disarm the man who shot former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, yelled, "Shame on you!" before walking out

As late as Wednesday afternoon, the fate of the measure appeared dire for its supporters. Shortly before the vote, Biden tamped down expectations for it to pass.

oldno7

04-17-2013, 03:20 PM

Manchin-Toomey amendment #715. Failed 54-46

Grassley substitute amendment consistent with the summary which is at the desk; Failed 52-48

Leahy-Collins amendment #713 (trafficking) Failed 58-42

Cornyn amendment #719 (conceal carry) Failed 57-43

Feinstein amendment #711 (assault weapons/clip bans) FAILED FAILED FAILED(40-60)

Burr amendment #720 (veterans/guns) Failed 56-44

Lautenberg-Blumenthal amendment #714 (high capacity mag ban) FAILED 46-54

Iceaxe

04-17-2013, 03:22 PM

http://rlv.zcache.com/my_gun_rights_protect_your_1st_amendment_rights_st icker-p217126292159936256en8cr_325.jpg

04-17-2013, 03:54 PM

Iceaxe

04-17-2013, 04:23 PM

Obama's reaction, quite childish. Nothing new, it's what he does when he loses. And can we quit parading around these Newtown parents, enough is enough already. I'm also wondering if some of these parents are starting to like the limelight.

^^^THIS^^^

Freedom has never been free, it has always been paid for in blood.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Bluff-Canyoneer

04-18-2013, 05:48 AM

... also wondering if some of these parents are starting to like the limelight.

I'm sure they would rather have their kids alive and not have the limelight.

Iceaxe

04-18-2013, 01:00 PM

It should be noted some of the Sandy Hooks parents that lost children do not support tighter gun control and have not become part of the dog and pony show. I don't see them being used as a pawn to further an agenda.

This "it's for the kids" is bullshit. Not one of the proposed laws would have done anything to stop Sandy Hooks. The firearms were legally owned by the mother and were obtained by killing the mother and stealing the guns.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Sandstone Addiction

04-18-2013, 01:27 PM

Will the price of ammo come back to reality now?

Although I must admit, I went through my stockpile and sold 1340 rounds of Malaysian 5.56 mil spec (circa 1981) for $700 and 4000 rounds of American Eagle 22LR for $400. I couldn't believe it. I had people from New York to Cal calling me wanting me to ship it to them. No need to, plenty of people with cash right here.

2065toyota

04-18-2013, 01:34 PM

Bomb goes off in Boston: BOMBER IS BLAMED

School shooting: GUNS ARE BLAMED

2065toyota

04-18-2013, 01:36 PM

Prices have dropped some but not a lot. I have helped my grandpa sell a ton of ammo. Probably 15,000 rounds of 9mm, 5000 or .223 & 7.62. We just sold another case of .223 for $525. He still has a fair amount left of 9mm, 223, 7.62 & 22LR

accadacca

04-19-2013, 04:17 PM

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/540634_10200307334658741_479487180_n.jpg

Iceaxe

05-01-2013, 12:15 PM

Finally... some reasonable gun control measures I can support. :2thumbs:

65671

Iceaxe

05-02-2013, 11:58 AM

Great video....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2fbF_vDKI4

rockgremlin

05-03-2013, 12:01 PM

Yesterday I went to go purchase ammo for my 0.45 auto.....ONE MONTH WAITING LIST!!! :roll:

oldno7

05-03-2013, 05:45 PM

Yesterday I went to go purchase ammo for my 0.45 auto.....ONE MONTH WAITING LIST!!! :roll:

How much you want?

oldno7

05-04-2013, 08:59 AM

liberal/progressives should read this but they won't.

http://m.iowastatedaily.com/mobile/opinion/article_1c144792-b36d-11e2-8ac6-001a4bcf887a.html

Iceaxe

05-04-2013, 09:14 AM

Great article.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

oldno7

05-04-2013, 09:23 AM

Chris Kyles Wife (Taya)

http://home.nra.org/home/video/2013-nra-annual-meetings-taya-kyle/list/2013-nra-annual-meetings

rockgremlin

05-04-2013, 12:55 PM

How much you want?

How much you got? Let's talk $$$. PM me.

ratagonia

05-05-2013, 11:04 AM

liberal/progressives should read this but they won't.

http://m.iowastatedaily.com/mobile/opinion/article_1c144792-b36d-11e2-8ac6-001a4bcf887a.html

hoplaphilics should read this, but they won't.

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/enough-nobody-wants-to-take-away-your-damn-guns/

:moses:

Iceaxe

05-05-2013, 01:09 PM

gun fetishists/hoplafilics should read this, but they won't.

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/enough-nobody-wants-to-take-away-your-damn-guns/

:moses:

I read it... anther rant by someone that is clueless about firearms telling us what is the best way to weaken the Second Aamendment and say they are not actually attacking the Second Amendment. He also proposed nothing new or old that would have stopped the recent madmen.

And what about the title of his entire argument? "Enough! Nobody Wants to Take Away Your Damn Guns!".... Does he mean "at least not yet?" Because many in the Democratic Party do want our guns. Senator Feinstein stated very clearly that she would like to require full confiscation of all “assault weapons” in the US.

So the old statement that no one is coming for your guns — used to be true. With the 1994 “assault weapons” ban, the Democrats successfully split American gun owners down the middle by isolating hunters. Only the evil “black rifles” were banned, and traditional hunting rifles were exempt at the time.

“No one is coming for your guns” was used to great effect to pacify hunters and keep them from opposing the assault weapons ban. It was brilliant propaganda, that Democrats seem to have adopted almost as well as “think of the children!” when proposing ill-conceived or stupid laws.

But the problem is, it’s no longer true. “Hunting rifles” have evolved to be indistinguishable from “assault weapons.” They have the same features, and use the same designs. And the removal of a grandfather clause from the proposed legislation can only mean that full-scale confiscation is in the offing. They are, indeed, coming to take away our guns. Even the “hunting rifles.” And those who are still trying to pass off that old lie are ignorant of the proposed legislation.

:popcorn:

ratagonia

05-05-2013, 02:23 PM

liberal/progressives should read this but they won't.

http://m.iowastatedaily.com/mobile/opinion/article_1c144792-b36d-11e2-8ac6-001a4bcf887a.html

Well, I only read about half. Guess that makes me a centrist.

A very well-written article, at least at the start he has a lot of legitimate points to make about the demonization of guns and gun guys by liberals. And he writes coherently for several more paragraphs. It is refreshing to see a pro-gun person talk intelligently about the REAL issue, the divide between the pro- and anti- entrenched positions.

And then he slowly works himself into a froth, repeating the same old arguments ad nauseum and demonizing those who disagree with him. Same old, same old...

"The rift is already beginning. We must mend fences...Now.
Sleeping dragons and terrible resolve
I do not want to live through a war in my own backyard. I do not want our children to grow up in such an America, either. So anti-gunners: Please stop, I beg you. See the writing on the wall before it’s too late."

Yes, we must mend fences. Of course any shooting war that starts on the issue is the lib-tard's fault, right? Not such a good way to mend fences, threatening armed rebellion over laws that will not get passed and, if passed, will not survive review by the Supremes.

But such is the paranoiac rantings of the hoplaphilic.

Tom :moses: