our president

[gixxerboy1]

LOL yeh thats why i deleted the hypothetical part.. i suppose i let emotion get in the way of my logic. i think most laws are passed based on hypotheticals.. (duh) LOL..

lol, what ever is passed, there is going to be people on the right that think its to much, people on the left who think its not enough. I just really hope it does reduce some of the killings. But again how do you prove it does? If in a year someone does a shooting with hand guns that hold 9 bullets and kills 18 people. do people say it did nothing? or poeple say it was only 18 because he had handguns instead of something that held 30 bullets. things like this are hard to prove either way

[Zodiac82]

the reason i have a problem with it isnt cuz i think i need a gun that holds 50 bullets, its because i think the logic behind passing the restrictions is flawed and it is giving the government a bigger foot in the door to limit our freedoms and its not gonna do any freaking good!

agree on the Gov limiting our freedom....but I would think sooome good would come out of it....but just one that we couldn't see....would give a hypothetical but.....lol

[--->>405<<---]

why cant everyone just think like i do? then everything would be just perfect! dammit!

[jasc]

Have you seen the saiga 12 with the 30 round drum? There's some YouTube vids on it.....amazing the damage that thing can do in less than 10 seconds.

watchin em now... insane! I want one

[gixxerboy1]

why cant everyone just think like i do? then everything would be just perfect! dammit!

nobody is ever going to think jean shorts are in style

[likelifting]

I wish liberals would let a law pass that says if burgler breaks into someone's house, the homeowner has a right to blow that piece of shtuff away with whatever fire arm you want.

Instead, someone can break into our house, but if HE'S ONLY THERE TO ROB YOU, you can't shoot him. Ridiculous.

[--->>405<<---]

nobody is ever going to think jean shorts are in style

LMAO!! touche my man!

[gixxerboy1]

I wish liberals would let a law pass that says if you break into someone's house, they have a right to blow that piece of shtuff away with whatever fire arm you want.

Instead, someone can break into our house, but if HE'S ONLY THERE TO ROB YOU, you can't shoot him. Ridiculous.

where is that? Because anyplace i ever lived its not like that. And how does he prove he is only there to rob you if he is dead?

[likelifting]

California and if he doesnt' have a gun.

[jeromehauser]

I'm in Montana now! Polishing my AR-15 and lots of other weapons...but don't worry....I would never think of harming another person. Thanks!

[Sgt. Hartman]

nobody is ever going to think jean shorts are in style

But 405 wears them so well.

[Zodiac82]

But 405 wears them so well.

thats one dirty bulk 405 lmao

[kelkel]

the media does it with everything. I dont know what happen to the past of reporting facts

24hr full time bombardment media organizations did that. Now it's just a constant repeat of the news to the point that the rumor of a problem becomes a problem.

[RaginCajun]

lol, what ever is passed, there is going to be people on the right that think its to much, people on the left who think its not enough. I just really hope it does reduce some of the killings. But again how do you prove it does? If in a year someone does a shooting with hand guns that hold 9 bullets and kills 18 people. do people say it did nothing? or poeple say it was only 18 because he had handguns instead of something that held 30 bullets. things like this are hard to prove either way

that's the problem, it will not reduce any killings IMO.

[kelkel]

im neither here nor there but definitely agree with Gixx on compacity of a gun....ppl who are law abiding citizens shouldnt have a problem with a gun that holds 9,8, or 5 rounds....ur not lookin to harm others then it shouldnt matter

Agree that nobody really needs a huge banana clip but the thing is there are idiots out there that are looking to harm others.

[dan991]

Enough said

[RaginCajun]

But 405 wears them so well.

hahahahaha

[dan991]

But 405 wears them so well.

405 doesn't look that ripped in his avi

[RaginCajun]

i wish thatt the media would report the statistics of how many guns save lives, instead of taking them away

[dan991]

i wish thatt the media would report the statistics of how many guns save lives, instead of taking them away

They do... http://www.11alive.com/news/article/...-wife-to-shoot

It just doesn't matter, and its not national.

[--->>405<<---]

[QUOTE=Sgt. Hartman;6335575]But 405 wears them so well.
LOL!! i figd id delete the pic to spare everyone.. i think 2 of em is more than enuff! LOL..

[canesfan804]

where is that? Because anyplace i ever lived its not like that. And how does he prove he is only there to rob you if he is dead?

Va is the same way. Crazy, no gun means he couldnt kill you is there logic. I guess his hands or my kitchen knife or my gun he would never think to kill me with.

[thegodfather]

where has anyone said that?


not to mention the government admits they cant round up the illegal immigrants. You really think they are going to come and round up your guns? Please use some common sense. Instead of the fear mongering BS

It's fear mongering BS when someone says they're going to come take your guns...But, conversely, its NOT fear mongering BS when Piers Morgan and the others on the left say that you dont care about children being killed when you disagree with their policy positions? It's not fear mongering BS when the news (CNN specifically) reports "Bodies of children at Sandy Hook shot multiple times," as if that somehow has any relevance to the story, and is in any way news worthy. Of course its not news worthy, it serves no purpose other then to cause shock value, and now they are even discussing releasing photos of the dead children, with no value to the news, other than to serve a left wing agenda towards denying law abiding citizens the right to certain firearms.

I'm sick of these people getting on the TV and saying they "respect the 2nd amendment," and even better is when Piers Morgan says "I respect the right of Americans to own a gun and protect themselves in their homes." He makes a point of delineating the 'in their homes' part, because he clearly does not believe that people have the right to defend themselves outside of their homes, where the majority of violent crime happens. He was accused earlier this week of standing on the graves of the dead children at Sandy Hook, and I think thats an accurate assessment, he is exploiting that tradegedy for ratings, and to advance his own political agenda. This guy is little more then a disgraced tabloid man who got caught up in the phone hacking scandal in the UK and had to come over to this side of the pond, the fact he was given a show on CNN is disgraceful. With regards to WHY "anyone" would need to own an AR-15, for starters, because it's a right guaranteed to us in the constitution, and because additionally its covered under property rights, it is a piece of property.

Yes the second amendments true purpose designed by the founders is as a last and final check&balance against the power of government, in the rare, unlikely case that it would become tyrannical. However, aside from that, it has another useful purpose, that of self-defense, an inalienable right bestowed upon people by God. Theres absolutely no concievable reason that a law abiding person who has passed all of the necessary tests, background checks, and paperwork should not be able to carry their firearm on or about their person wherever they go outside of their home, for the purposes of lawful self defense. The idea advanced by the left, that EVERYONE will be armed, and that shootouts will occur over cutting in line at the movies, or over parking spots, or other such trivial disagreements of daily life will then lead to shootouts is unfounded. It is unfounded for several reasons, not the least of which is the statistics of "Shall Issue" conceal&carry states showing that such instances did NOT come to fruition, and the number of licensed conceal&carry holders to use their firearms in a manner not consistent with the law is far below 1% of all CCW permit holders. Adding to the evidence of why this idea is unfounded, is the fact that in any of the 42 states where "SHALL ISSUE" conceal&carry permits have been on the books for well over a decade, only about 1%-1.5% of the entire population of the state decides to exercise that right and go through the processes of obtaining a conceal&carry permit. This means in a state with 10,000,000 (10 million) people, only 100,000-150,000 people have the ability to conceal&carry legally, and of those permit holders, no data exists that shows what percentage of them are carrying their firearms on a daily basis, but clearly every single permit holder is not carrying their firearm every waking moment, further debunking the idea that society will be fiilled with people carrying guns all around you. All that we ask, is that those 1%-1.5% of people who are ALREADY permitted by law to conceal&carry their firearms in any number of places throughout their state, be allowed to carry their firears into movie theaters, restaurants, shopping malls, and any other places designated as 'gun free zones,' so that they at least have some fighting chance at stopping the tragedies we've had to endure over the past 6-8 months.

No one is contending that the tradgedies would be averted in EVERY instance, just that there is a CHANCE that they could be mitigated, and in some instances stopped. And isn't a CHANCE better then NONE at all? Where the victims are consigned to the fate that their attacker assigns them, when they can do little more then dial a phone, curl up, and pray that the attacker spares their life, or has poor aim? I for one, would like to have my own fate in my hands, and not let a crazed lunatic DECIDE FOR ME. "I would much rather have a GUN in my hand, then a phone with the Police on the other end."

[dan991]

Holy shit.. not reading all that. Anyone have cliff notes available?

[zaggahamma]

Holy shit.. not reading all that. Anyone have cliff notes available?

yeh it states what all non liberals think but written elloquently

[dan991]

yeh it states what all non liberals think but written elloquently

I'll drink to that...

[likelifting]

Obama needs to work at getting the criminals off the streets and getting the criminals to stop carrying first.

[dan991]

Obama needs to work at getting the criminals off the streets and getting the criminals to stop carrying first.

Yea- and I need to get working on having a 3 way with the Olson twins.... Mine is more likely to happen.

[likelifting]

^ you are correct. I bet you Mr President isn't even looking at the criminals, just more gun control on law abiding citizens.

[Zodiac82]

Va is the same way. Crazy, no gun means he couldnt kill you is there logic. I guess his hands or my kitchen knife or my gun he would never think to kill me with.

ur in va

[bcaasdirty]

This is what they are proposing. Nothing like you are claiming

New York's top prosecutors are proposing new state laws they say will help curb gun crimes across the state.
In letters to the governor and legislative leaders, the District Attorneys Association advocates amending mental health laws, imposing stiffer penalties for gun crimes, banning all high-capacity magazines and restricting large quantity sales of firearms and ammunition.
The association, which includes all of the 62 counties' chief prosecutors, says criminal activity becomes exponentially more volatile when guns are present.

The group backs imposing a mandatory consecutive five-year sentence when a person commits a violent felony or drug crime while possessing a gun, require periodic renewals of handgun permits in every county and expressly authorize courts to remove guns and revoke licenses of people found mentally incapacitated.

I spoke w/ a friend whom has read Cuomo's new Assault Weapon Ban bill and its much more than whats posted above (yea yea I know what you're thinking, why should I believe this guy and his 'friend'? I don't have a good reason and you don't have to, I'm just passing along information that was given to me. I, like others, hopes it turns out different :

-Utilizing the same assault weapon 'guidelines' as were drawn up in '94 (bayonet mount, grenade launder, telescoping stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor) any gun that has one of the aforementioned characteristics and can accept a detachable magazine will be classified as an assault weapon and deemed illegal (and ultimately meets demise I mentioned earlier)

-Requirement of microstamping all ammo (approx 4x increase in price of ammo)

-No grandfathering in of previous 'legal' firearms and clips--confiscation is an 'option'

[gixxerboy1]

It's fear mongering BS when someone says they're going to come take your guns...But, conversely, its NOT fear mongering BS when Piers Morgan and the others on the left say that you dont care about children being killed when you disagree with their policy positions? It's not fear mongering BS when the news (CNN specifically) reports "Bodies of children at Sandy Hook shot multiple times," as if that somehow has any relevance to the story, and is in any way news worthy. Of course its not news worthy, it serves no purpose other then to cause shock value, and now they are even discussing releasing photos of the dead children, with no value to the news, other than to serve a left wing agenda towards denying law abiding citizens the right to certain firearms.

I'm sick of these people getting on the TV and saying they "respect the 2nd amendment," and even better is when Piers Morgan says "I respect the right of Americans to own a gun and protect themselves in their homes." He makes a point of delineating the 'in their homes' part, because he clearly does not believe that people have the right to defend themselves outside of their homes, where the majority of violent crime happens. He was accused earlier this week of standing on the graves of the dead children at Sandy Hook, and I think thats an accurate assessment, he is exploiting that tradegedy for ratings, and to advance his own political agenda. This guy is little more then a disgraced tabloid man who got caught up in the phone hacking scandal in the UK and had to come over to this side of the pond, the fact he was given a show on CNN is disgraceful. With regards to WHY "anyone" would need to own an AR-15, for starters, because it's a right guaranteed to us in the constitution, and because additionally its covered under property rights, it is a piece of property.

Yes the second amendments true purpose designed by the founders is as a last and final check&balance against the power of government, in the rare, unlikely case that it would become tyrannical. However, aside from that, it has another useful purpose, that of self-defense, an inalienable right bestowed upon people by God. Theres absolutely no concievable reason that a law abiding person who has passed all of the necessary tests, background checks, and paperwork should not be able to carry their firearm on or about their person wherever they go outside of their home, for the purposes of lawful self defense. The idea advanced by the left, that EVERYONE will be armed, and that shootouts will occur over cutting in line at the movies, or over parking spots, or other such trivial disagreements of daily life will then lead to shootouts is unfounded. It is unfounded for several reasons, not the least of which is the statistics of "Shall Issue" conceal&carry states showing that such instances did NOT come to fruition, and the number of licensed conceal&carry holders to use their firearms in a manner not consistent with the law is far below 1% of all CCW permit holders. Adding to the evidence of why this idea is unfounded, is the fact that in any of the 42 states where "SHALL ISSUE" conceal&carry permits have been on the books for well over a decade, only about 1%-1.5% of the entire population of the state decides to exercise that right and go through the processes of obtaining a conceal&carry permit. This means in a state with 10,000,000 (10 million) people, only 100,000-150,000 people have the ability to conceal&carry legally, and of those permit holders, no data exists that shows what percentage of them are carrying their firearms on a daily basis, but clearly every single permit holder is not carrying their firearm every waking moment, further debunking the idea that society will be fiilled with people carrying guns all around you. All that we ask, is that those 1%-1.5% of people who are ALREADY permitted by law to conceal&carry their firearms in any number of places throughout their state, be allowed to carry their firears into movie theaters, restaurants, shopping malls, and any other places designated as 'gun free zones,' so that they at least have some fighting chance at stopping the tragedies we've had to endure over the past 6-8 months.

No one is contending that the tradgedies would be averted in EVERY instance, just that there is a CHANCE that they could be mitigated, and in some instances stopped. And isn't a CHANCE better then NONE at all? Where the victims are consigned to the fate that their attacker assigns them, when they can do little more then dial a phone, curl up, and pray that the attacker spares their life, or has poor aim? I for one, would like to have my own fate in my hands, and not let a crazed lunatic DECIDE FOR ME. "I would much rather have a GUN in my hand, then a phone with the Police on the other end."

I wouldn't call that fear mongering but manipulation/ using. either way there are people on both sides that are wrong. I dont disagree.

Since you studied the Constitution i want your opinion on this. Especially since you bring it up allot. That the 2nd amendment is there to protect us from a the government. I saw an interview with a "Constitutional Scholar" and they were saying that is not the reason for the 2nd amendment. Its for a well regulated militia to assist the government in case of an invasion

[Shol'va]

If you had a garden hose that was leaking and you used some duct tape around the leaking part, but it only lasted about a week before it started leaking again. Would you just wrap more duct tape around the hose? Or would you finally fix the main problem by either replacing the hose with a new one and or permanently repairing the old one? My point is we can ban every gun in America and elsewhere but we are just putting on band aids to fix the problem. The problem is at home in how these kids are being raised or better yet the lack of how they are being raised. And somewhere down the road parents decided it was the schools job to teach their kids about everything in life including morals values and respect for each other. So until we put the parents back in charge of teaching their children right from wrong and all the other values of life, no laws we can pass will do a damned bit of good. and when we finally quit electing idiots to Washington who think all they need to do is pass laws to fix all of Americas i'lls, that too will help. Parents need to take charge and do their job of raising children who are law abiding, respectful, decent kids, instead of thugs, drug dealers, and rapists and murderers. Maybe if we started arresting the parents for what the children do, they will finally get the hint that they didn't do their job of properly raising their kids. Just look at how todays teens talk back to their parents like they were dogs or worse, even going as far as beating up on their own parents and threatening to kill them. It's an epidemic out there. Just imagine how bad the next generation is going to be if it's this bad already! That's a scary thought. Not only that but just think when you get old enough to have to decide whether to go to a nursing or stay at home and have your kids take care of you. What do you suppose they are going to do with you??? Yep you're dead meat!

[RaginCajun]

great insight sholva

i believe that you are def right about it starting in the home or lack thereof

[zaggahamma]

well said sholva

i am starting to feel similarly with pointing a heavy finger on parents also...where as before not so much...that you couldnt blame the parents but people that cant take care of themselves are having babies and expect the gov't to pay ....alot will also have no clue on how to raise a child and/or responsible human being/adult

[gearbox]

2 nd amendment is for
Protecting the government with a secret militia, but this militia doesn't have to be formed by the government at all. It could be citizens with the right to bear arms protecting themselves or their own land from anyone who chooses to do harm.
Just like the revolutionary war.
2 nd amendment was created so the people could protect themselves against a evil government. Everything the forefathers did was to form a government to make us a nation and they attempted to give as much power to the people as possible.
We lack the power to the people. And I understand the constitution was written many many years ago. But I truly believe these men were guided by god to create this nation and its only natural that it will slowly dwindle away in wickedness.

[Hoggage_54]

[RaginCajun]

^^^^^^^the pics you find