Would also consider a Springfield TRP Operator
Printable View
Would also consider a Springfield TRP Operator
Tom hates physical violence and confrontation's and will avoid it at all cost. So the one thing you can be sure of, when the Feds try to take our guns he will be at the very back of the pack cheering those doing the actual fighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
Was it this guy????Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Obviously Tom has no clue about the law and firearms outside of the misinformation from those wanting to nullify the bill of rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
It would be illegal for olno7 to sell an AR to that guy without going through an FFL as the guy has a California driver license.
Ya see Tom, it's real simple... just enforce the laws already on the books.
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
No tom, as a rule, I don't sell guns to liberals.
They've proven they are incapable of making important decisions and often have bad judgement.
I prefer responsible citizens and Utah residents when dealing with firearms.
Attachment 63381
James
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?!!!
"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.)
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/wh...et-their-guns/
Couple of things, off topic a bit but:Quote:
Originally Posted by MY T PIMP
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!"
Oh---Look....another unicorn is pooping a rainbow, koombaya(liberal/progressive view)
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.
Since I'm on a gambling roll I just placed a bet on how many times Obama says "gun" in tonights speach.
Cars don't kill people... baby unicorn's with a penchant for alcohol do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
I think I blew this one.... I had 23.
Attachment 63431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
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
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/enterta...-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.
From Wayne himself, "no loopholes".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qd7jFd4qSs
The NRA has revised their position from 15 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
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.
Attachment 63445
Come on Brian, you are better then that. I know you do your homework.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
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:
are you intentionally ignoring background checks and criminals here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
:roll: Not at all...Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan
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.
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...ro/HB0545I.HTM
/\ /\ /\ That's friggin' crazy. Never vote for a Democrat, any Democrat, ever.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
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...
Always some interesting stuff in here:
http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/documents/2012Q4.pdf
Well, there's plenty of crazy on boths sides of the aisle, that's for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
:popcorn:
Not talking about mental health records. Talking about being adjudicated as mentally defective. I think that's in the database.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
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.
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/...68M53K20100923
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
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.
the liberal/progressives call them gun nuts---the rest of us call them Patriots!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vb2Ggo4QhBs
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Its never been about banning guns.
Its mostly about endless and mindless rhetoric from unintelligent people.