If they come for your guns, do you have a responsibility to fight?

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Why do you need to carry that many bullets to go hunting. LMAO you must be a horrible shot. From my experience in the woods, and yes, I've had plenty, but usually when you take one shot at a deer or other wild animal, they do what......yes that's correct, they start running. So, if you are taking all 100 shots at a deer in order to kill it maybe you are being an irresponsible gun owner. Because if you are spraying the woods with that many rounds, you may, just may hit another hunter who is out there that you can't see.
Some of those deer need an awful lot of in-the-field tenderizing. ;) cn
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
noxiously, I agree with you for the most part. I too don't see any practical need for the average citizen to own an assault rifle and a 100 round magazine. BUT, it isn't a s clear cut as it may seem at first glance.

Lets say the assault weapon ban and ban on large capacity magazines goes in to effect. What about all of the assault rifles and large capacity magazines already out there?
I cannot answer to the magazines, but there are less than ten thousand assault rifles in civilian hands. They are tightly controlled as the BATFe's class III.
Do we send the brown suits around door to door to collect them, and if so how do you think that will go over? Is that even feasible? Let's take this a step further, and pretend the door to door campaign is a success. What's stopping these types of weapons from being smuggled in through our very porous borders?

Banning weapons seems impractical to me. As a society we have embraced the right to bear arms, and as such it would be next to impossible to implement any type of weapons ban. I'm hoping to see some type of system implemented where we can easily identify who is allowed to have a gun (any gun), and who isn't. We then would need to make the penalties very stiff for anyone caught with a gun that isn't supposed to have one.

I don't think we can EVER prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook from happening. If someone is nutty enough to do something like that, then no amount of legislation will be able to prevent it. What we may have better luck in preventing is the nickle and dime thugs who think they're bad ass carrying around a stolen pistol. If they knew they would face a mandatory minimum 10, 15, or 20 year sentence for JUST being caught with a gun, it may deter some from going that route, and perhaps make our inner cities a little safer.

It's a very complex issue, imo.
In the last, " a gun", do you mean "any gun" or "a gun not owned by the arrestee or his immediate family"?

ceterum censeo the one thing that would immediately make our inner cities safer is a shall-issue CCW program. The metro police chiefs are refusing to sign CCW permits. cn
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
100% true. Reason always goes out the door when talking about gun control. No, guns should never be banned, I'm not saying that. I love my guns too much to just hand them over, which they would never try that anyway. But also, we need to come to some kind of middle ground to try and prevent these things from happening again. If you can't meet in the middle then nothing gets done about it, and that's what the NRA and all of it's wacko followers are trying to do. It's a stand off, you cry long enough and hard enough to distract people from the real problem until we forget the real problem and nothing gets done about it.
I would be oh so much more willing to explore the middle ground were it not for the Ratchet. Gun control laws have historically only gone one way ... tighter, with the interesting exception in the '90s of the appearance of a groundswell of "shall-issue" CCW laws. These have not had the predicted (by antis) deleterious effect on public safety.

Break the Ratchet. Show America's gun owners and prospective gun customers that we are not under media siege. Discard the snarl term "assault weapon". This I would like to see. cn
 

noxiously

Well-Known Member
I would be oh so much more willing to explore the middle ground were it not for the Ratchet. Gun control laws have historically only gone one way ... tighter, with the interesting exception in the '90s of the appearance of a groundswell of "shall-issue" CCW laws. These have not had the predicted (by antis) deleterious effect on public safety.

Break the Ratchet. Show America's gun owners and prospective gun customers that we are not under media siege. Discard the snarl term "assault weapon". This I would like to see. cn
I gotta give you some cred for that post about deer needing tenderizing, I was cracking up when I read that. But as it is now our guns laws haven't gotten as strict as people believe they are. I didn't have a problem with getting my CCW's, and to tell the truth...I really don't believe that class was all that professional about it. When I was watching some of the other people do their shooting portion I can say that atleast half the class barely hit their target at the close range. Some of them didn't even hit the target all together, and the sad part....they all passed and now have their CCW's. So out of the 30 or so people that was in my class atleast 15 of them shouldn't have passed but, the Sheriff who offered the class passed these people anyway. So maybe those people are in need of these high capacity magazines lol.

My cousin made a good point and I had never really thought about it until he said it. He made the comment that it's not the "criminals" who are doing these mass shootings. That these mass shootings are done by law abiding citizens who snap one day. Criminals kill one or two people and they run.

So what does that mean? It's not the criminals you should be worried about, it's these so called "law abiding citizens" who snap one day and just go psycho. They are the ones who shouldn't have assault rifles with high capacity mags. Hell, atleast the criminals only kill one or two people with their weapons, and never do they go into an elementary school and kill a bunch of children.
 

Mindmelted

Well-Known Member
I gotta give you some cred for that post about deer needing tenderizing, I was cracking up when I read that. But as it is now our guns laws haven't gotten as strict as people believe they are. I didn't have a problem with getting my CCW's, and to tell the truth...I really don't believe that class was all that professional about it. When I was watching some of the other people do their shooting portion I can say that atleast half the class barely hit their target at the close range. Some of them didn't even hit the target all together, and the sad part....they all passed and now have their CCW's. So out of the 30 or so people that was in my class atleast 15 of them shouldn't have passed but, the Sheriff who offered the class passed these people anyway. So maybe those people are in need of these high capacity magazines lol.

My cousin made a good point and I had never really thought about it until he said it. He made the comment that it's not the "criminals" who are doing these mass shootings. That these mass shootings are done by law abiding citizens who snap one day. Criminals kill one or two people and they run.

So what does that mean? It's not the criminals you should be worried about, it's these so called "law abiding citizens" who snap one day and just go psycho. They are the ones who shouldn't have assault rifles with high capacity mags. Hell, atleast the criminals only kill one or two people with their weapons, and never do they go into an elementary school and kill a bunch of children.



Question for ya.Do you smoke pot?
If yes! then you are a criminal and law abiding citizen:? Who happens to have a CCW!
How ironic is that.:o
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Question for ya.Do you smoke pot?
If yes! then you are a criminal and law abiding citizen:? Who happens to have a CCW!
How ironic is that.:o
I am sure that if we have a national gun registry and combine all the databases, nobody in the government will suggest taking away all those CCW's and guns from the criminals using medical marijuana...

Couldnt happen right?

Obamanation...
 

noxiously

Well-Known Member
Question for ya.Do you smoke pot?
If yes! then you are a criminal and law abiding citizen:? Who happens to have a CCW!
How ironic is that.:o
LMAO, you are absolutely right. I am a law abiding citizen who has a CCW, who smokes weed. So if smoking weed makes me a criminal then I'll accept that title with absolute pride. lol

Where is my 2nd Amendment right to smoke what I want? Why isn't there an Amendment stating that people can do to their own body what they please?


O.K., I have the answer to our problem with gun violence and mass shootings.....just make Marijuana legal across the board. The more people smoking the happier they are, and they won't feel like getting up off the couch to go shoot anyone. Hell the only time they will ever get mad is when they run out of weed or snacks but a quick trip to the corner store can solve that problem pronto.
 

noxiously

Well-Known Member
I am sure that if we have a national gun registry and combine all the databases, nobody in the government will suggest taking away all those CCW's and guns from the criminals using medical marijuana...

Couldnt happen right?

Obamanation...
You actually brought up a good point. In the states where MMJ is allowed, and the two states that is completely legal for recreational use, what will the government do when it comes to those who smoke weed and have CCW's? I've never really looked into this much, but I think CCW's are issued on a state level instead of a federal level, so if the state has MMJ or recreational use that is allowed then those who use marijuana are no longer viewed as criminals in the states eyes. They may be viewed as criminals in the federal governments eyes, but can they take away one's CCW's? I'm sure they can take them away, but would they.

In my opinion I don't think they would, it wouldn't be worth their time or money to take away someones CCW's just because they smoke weed. I don't see them doing that unless they are being charged for something bigger.
 

tekdc911

Well-Known Member
concealed handgun class is a joke just another way to get your money. have a constitutional right to to defend yourself if you pay $100 bucks and waste a day at our class
 

tekdc911

Well-Known Member
its as simple as this the gov. is supressing our ability to revolt when you have used lies to cover lies for this long eventually people start to see through the bull shit you have no need for more then 5 rounds when hunting larger game thats why theres a 5 round restriction when hunting deer 10-20-30 round mags are for hunting people and if your in the right then there are few restrictions
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
You actually brought up a good point. In the states where MMJ is allowed, and the two states that is completely legal for recreational use, what will the government do when it comes to those who smoke weed and have CCW's? I've never really looked into this much, but I think CCW's are issued on a state level instead of a federal level, so if the state has MMJ or recreational use that is allowed then those who use marijuana are no longer viewed as criminals in the states eyes. They may be viewed as criminals in the federal governments eyes, but can they take away one's CCW's? I'm sure they can take them away, but would they.

In my opinion I don't think they would, it wouldn't be worth their time or money to take away someones CCW's just because they smoke weed. I don't see them doing that unless they are being charged for something bigger.
I otoh think that the Feds will use every lever at their disposal to express displeasure with the flouting of the Fed-level prohibition. "Weapons enhancements" are de rigueur in drug gases these days. And that is a key factor that has kept me from applying for a CCW ... it "leaves a datum".

I don't agree with your dichotomy of criminals and "ordinary citizens who snap". I won't profile criminals into habitual v. occasional. The moment someone gets serious about doing something mean or dumb with a crime , he (almost always he) has crossed the line into criminality. More insidious imo is the prtrayal of Average Citizen as "the bigger danger".

My biggest beef with CCWs is their uneven availability. In the places where they are most desperately needed, such as Eastern metro areas, they're not being made available. cn
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
I otoh think that the Feds will use every lever at their disposal to express displeasure with the flouting of the Fed-level prohibition. "Weapons enhancements" are de rigueur in drug gases these days. And that is a key factor that has kept me from applying for a CCW ... it "leaves a datum".

I don't agree with your dichotomy of criminals and "ordinary citizens who snap". I won't profile criminals into habitual v. occasional. The moment someone gets serious about doing something mean or dumb with a crime , he (almost always he) has crossed the line into criminality. More insidious imo is the prtrayal of Average Citizen as "the bigger danger".

My biggest beef with CCWs is their uneven availability. In the places where they are most desperately needed, such as Eastern metro areas, they're not being made available. cn
I love AZ... Open carry state. You dont need a CCW unless you want to carry concealed. You can buy a handgun and put it on the passenger seat of your car and you are A-OK!!

It smells like freedom...
 

tekdc911

Well-Known Member
I love AZ... Open carry state. You dont need a CCW unless you want to carry concealed. You can buy a handgun and put it on the passenger seat of your car and you are A-OK!!

It smells like freedom...
gotta love texas for the same reason carry on your hip no worries
 
Top