Guns, Love Em or Leave Em

Sail Man · Post by **Sail Man** » Mon May 16, 2011 12:25 pm

ygmir wrote:
jkisha wrote:
ygmir wrote: it sounds like they're saying the fed. is restricted in how it limits gun possession, related to the 2nd amendment, but, that states aren't bound under the same restrictions, individually.

Sort of saying, the states can put on more control, themselves, than the feds?

Like, here in CA, we have much harsher restrictions, than the feds call for.
Exactly, though that ruling which has stood as the law and interpretation of the 2nd amendment for over 100 years never seems to come up in gun control conversations, as it means that the state DOES have the right to pass laws restricting the right to own guns and in so doing does not infringe on any constitutional rights. Just saying...
yeah, seems a point of contention, huh?
Have any states outright, outlawed guns?
I know cities have.

To me, it's backwards, if that's how the law is, in that, with the 2nd amendment, a state should not be able to make any laws that are more restrictive, than federal law.

And, if they can, why haven't some of the anti-gun crowd been able to get at least a state or two, to, out law guns?

hhhhhmmmmmmm

In a sense that is how it is in Michigan with Open Carry. Individual cities cannot preempt state law and pass restrictions and bans on open carry of handguns. Cities that have tried have been the focus of OC picnics and friendly letters to the COP and Mayor/City Mgr and have been forced to follow the state laws.

Sail Man · Post by **Sail Man** » Mon May 16, 2011 1:25 pm

jkisha wrote:OK I'm still confused. Reading the article , the reason he got in trouble is because of a fire, where firefighters lives were put in jeopardy by exploding rounds of ammo. It also listed what sounds to a layman (me), a rather large quantity of gun powder, etc., much of which was very old and unstable, again according to the article.

Can you please explain your take on this, as it appears that you don't view this as a serious situation, and I just wonder why.

LOS ANGELES â€“ A federal jury has convicted a Los Angeles man of illegally storing in his home toxic chemicals and explosive hazardous waste, including unstable gunpowder.

The cache of dangerous materials was discovered in June 2009 when a fire broke out at 64-year-old Edward Wyman's house in the San Fernando Valley community of Reseda.

Exploding ammunition forced firefighters to wear bulletproof vests while battling the fire.

Prosecutors say the home contained thousands of rounds of corroded ammunition, It is very easy to amass "thousands of rounds of ammo. I easily have over 1000 rounds in .22 only. Add in my .223, 9mm, various shotshells not to mention hunting calibers and I too have a home containing thousands of rounds of ammo. Corroded is another story, thinking they were from a lifetime of buying and not rotating his stock, or storing them properly. However, modern rifle rounds will store for years and still be good. lead-contaminated waste from shooting ranges, So what, he's storing old bullets to recast, a very common practice. hundreds of pounds of decades-old gunpowderAs long as it is stored properly and is dry, no problemo, military cannon powder and industrial solvents classified as hazardous waste. Everybody has hazardous waste under their sink!!! Lysol, bleach, ammonia, Spic and Span. Since they did not bother to name the chemicals who is to say what they were, and what use or purpose they may serve outside of an industrial setting.

Wyman was convicted Tuesday and faces up to 15 years in prison.

In December, authorities in a San Diego suburb burned down a house because it was packed with so many explosives and weapons.

This is another example of the liberal media trying to make much ado over nothing. By omitting key points that would clearly clue you into the fact that they are obviously over-blowing the situation, they can create more hysteria amongst the general populace.

Sail Man · Post by **Sail Man** » Mon May 16, 2011 1:25 pm

Hey, nice double post. The server's must be drinking.

Sail Man · Post by **Sail Man** » Mon May 16, 2011 1:36 pm

gyre wrote:Come visit the land of rental machine guns.

I can't understand how anyone can not like guns.

Knob Creek Mmmmmm

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Mon May 16, 2011 5:27 pm

Nice set of toys, Foxfur.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Mon May 16, 2011 6:57 pm

on defense

The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him.

- Sun Tzu

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Mon May 16, 2011 7:17 pm

Good luck to the NRA in opposing this one. I believe the state assemblymen who wrote this bill are from Southern California.

Why didn't these dick heads write a useful bill, like taxing OIL EXPLORATION in California like just about every other friggin state.
Nimrods.

SACRAMENTO (CBS /AP) â€” The California Assembly approved a bill Monday to prohibit openly carrying unloaded handguns in public after a debate that pitted gun rights proponents against chiefs of police.

The bill, AB144, would make it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in a public place, street or vehicle except in some unincorporated areas. It was approved 45-29 largely along party lines and moves to the Senate.

Several states ban openly carrying handguns and at least one applies the ban to unloaded weapons.

The National Rifle Association was one of several groups that opposed the California bill and reportedly plans to sue if it becomes law.

The billâ€™s author, Democratic Assemblyman Anthony Portantino of La Canada Flintridge, said it will improve public safety. It is supported by the California Police Chiefs Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Families shouldnâ€™t have to fear for their safety if theyâ€™re out for a walk and see someone packing a pistol, Portantino said, and police shouldnâ€™t have to answer calls to respond to those fears.

He said a loophole in current law allows people to carry unloaded weapons in public even if theyâ€™re carrying ammunition on the same belt.

â€œYou donâ€™t need a handgun to order a cheeseburger,â€

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Mon May 16, 2011 7:27 pm

Funny.
I haven't gotten into any armed confrontations with the police.

People actually vote for these guys!?

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Mon May 16, 2011 8:10 pm

gyre wrote:Funny.
I haven't gotten into any armed confrontations with the police.

People actually vote for these guys!?

there is some debate over that.........sort of like "people" voting for Chicago politicians............

They don't see, that, the people carrying "open" are not criminals, by any stretch.
feel good ism is what it is.
"We're doing things to make you safe".

yet, they send career violent criminals back out onto the street, and protect their civil rights to not be searched.

Foxfur · Post by **Foxfur** » Tue May 17, 2011 4:11 am

Chicago and guns. Ask me @ the MnG about the Mayor Daley Caper... A li'l 'family' story.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Tue May 17, 2011 6:53 am

I was warned again that painting over gang markings is ill advised.

Anyone else doing this, should take appropriate precautions.
We go after the territorial marks.

During a neighborhood group meeting the other day, there was a drive by shooting just down the street.
Timing was appropriate for the discussion going on.

The guy I train with shut down a war game at Ft Benning all by himself without firing a shot.
He was such a distraction taunting the other side that they lost focus and compromised their perimeter.
They never did get a hit on him.

They had him play a suspected terrorist in some exercises.
He finds that gaelic sounds enough like farsi for most people.
He managed to hide a weapon well enough that they became careless trying to search him.
He tagged everyone near him with a screwdriver before he was shot from a distance.

Foxfur · Post by **Foxfur** » Tue May 17, 2011 7:44 am

He finds that gaelic sounds enough like farsi for most people.

Priceless!

@ Fort Drum we had a nighttime raid by the opfor (opposition force) come in real sneaky like. My wife & I were sleeping in my weapon / supply truck and bailed into our foxhole right quick. I had brought half a footlocker of fireworks :). Me & wifey had unwrapped packs of firecrackers and carefully rolled them into fat cylinders and wound a strip of tape around 'em (wifes idea). We fired them at the opfor with a wrist rocket along with bottle rockets and hand thrown festival balls. The attack totally came apart. The next day the opfor soldiers (turned out to be rangers!) conducted an enemy POW handling class that focused on the more physical aspects. Somehow I was picked as the POW dummy. The ranger has me face-down and finds a poop-load of firecrackers in my cargo pocket. He said, "we wondered where in the hell were all the tripwires were that we must have been hitting. You were on the perimeter last night, yeah?"
He tosses them to our Colonel who looks at 'em, smiles, and tosses 'em back to me along with a "good job!"
I miss that stuff.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Tue May 17, 2011 7:56 am

Great idea using the wrist rocket.

Great stuff!

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue May 17, 2011 10:00 am

Here's a list of the gun legislation that is currently working its way through congress. The links will enable you to let your representatives feel about each bill.

-- Prohibiting the Justice Dept. from tracking the purchases of multiple rifles and shotguns (S 570)
http://pvox.co/Kht5jt

-- Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act (HR 58) removes certain Federal restrictions on interstate firearms transactions
http://pvox.co/thDKWr

-- Second Amendment Enforcement Act (HR 645) restores Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia
http://pvox.co/Y46ytb

-- Keep Kids Safe Act (HR 505) places limitations on the possession and sale of a firearm by persons convicted of sex offenses against children
http://pvox.co/5nXtCy

-- Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act (HR 227) prevents childrenâ€™s access to firearms
http://pvox.co/Yfk0f8

-- Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act (S 176) establishes minimum standards for States that allow the carrying of concealed firearms
http://pvox.co/gM402O

-- Gun Show Background Check Act (S 35) establishes background check procedures for gun shows
http://pvox.co/Maso6B

-- Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act (HR 1506) permits the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists
http://pvox.co/tJFvzw

Foxfur · Post by **Foxfur** » Tue May 17, 2011 1:33 pm

Common sense? By what standard? Nonsense!
To me, common sense gun control means using a padded benchrest.

Wish they'd sponsor more gun buybacks. I have a gaggle of not-economically-repairable guns left over from my gunsmithing days and I need gas money

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Tue May 17, 2011 1:41 pm

Got a VZ58 receiver or even parts?

My friend sometimes needs the odd part for one thing or another.

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue May 17, 2011 3:48 pm

Foxfur wrote:Common sense? By what standard? Nonsense!
To me, common sense gun control means using a padded benchrest.

Wish they'd sponsor more gun buybacks. I have a gaggle of not-economically-repairable guns left over from my gunsmithing days and I need gas money

Well, did you go to the site and voice this opinion where it might stand some chance of counting?

Bitching without doing is pointless.

Foxfur · Post by **Foxfur** » Wed May 18, 2011 1:32 am

Yes and no? I went but didn't know I could get a soapbox at popvox. Cool!

In S. 176, Botox Boxer proposes:

A BILL

To establish minimum standards for States that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the â€˜Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011â€™.

SEC. 2. CONCEALED FIREARMS PERMITS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C, the following:

â€˜Sec. 926D. Concealed firearms permits

â€˜(a) In General- Each State that allows residents of the State to carry concealed firearms shall--

â€˜(1) establish a process to issue permits to residents of the State to carry concealed firearms; and

â€˜(2) require that each resident of the State seeking to carry a concealed firearm in the State obtain a permit through the process established under paragraph (1).

â€˜(b) Requirements- In establishing a process to issue permits to carry concealed firearms under subsection (a), a State shall--

â€˜(1) ensure that a local law enforcement agency participates in the process; and

â€˜(2) at a minimum, require that an applicant for a permit to carry a concealed firearm--â€˜

(A) be a legal resident of the United States;

â€˜(B) be not less than 21 years of age;

â€˜(C) demonstrate good cause for requesting a concealed firearm permit; and

â€˜(D) demonstrate that the applicant is worthy of the public trust to carry a concealed firearm in public.

â€˜(c) Law Enforcement Agency Report- If a State establishes a process under subsection (a) that allows for an agency other than a law enforcement agency to issue permits to carry concealed firearms, the process shall require that--

â€˜(1) a local law enforcement agency submit to the agency responsible for issuing permits a written report that describes whether the applicant meets the standards of the State to carry a concealed firearm; and

â€˜(2) the agency responsible for issuing permits maintain a report submitted under paragraph (1) in the file of the applicant.

â€˜(d) Definition- In this section, the term â€˜local law enforcement agencyâ€™ means a law enforcement agency of the unit of local government with jurisdiction of the area in which the applicant for a permit to carry a concealed firearm resides.

â€˜(e) Compliance- Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this section, each State described in subsection (a) shall be in compliance with this section.â€™.

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

â€˜926D. Concealed firearms permits.â€™.

I bolded & underlined the most alarming provisions of the drivel above.

Typical common sense.

"demonstrate good cause"
"worthy of the public trust"

She could slip this through by attaching it to some must-pass package. Her offal would, by the stroke of a pen, supercede all state concealed carry laws. In recent years many of the states have passed legislation to reform subjective permitting processes. This is her common sense answer to the provincials who were nuts enough to allow their citizens the permitted and regulated privlege to pack heat. Those wacky hillbillies.

"If a State establishes a process under subsection (a) that allows for an agency other than a law enforcement agency to issue permits to carry concealed firearms"

You silly girl, what're you up to now? I'm heading back to the Mystery Machine...

I thought you were pro choice.

Keep out of my gun safe and I'll keep out of your womb

. (Chirps of crickets and slaps of spontaneous flaccidity...)

I have Senator Wyden on speed dial. It's #4. Nerdy but true.

goathead · Post by **goathead** » Wed May 18, 2011 2:02 am

jkisha wrote:
Foxfur wrote:Common sense? By what standard? Nonsense!
To me, common sense gun control means using a padded benchrest.

Wish they'd sponsor more gun buybacks. I have a gaggle of not-economically-repairable guns left over from my gunsmithing days and I need gas money
Well, did you go to the site and voice this opinion where it might stand some chance of counting?

Bitching without doing is pointless.

LMAO

bitching to BB about gun control. funny

I would voice my views of her
but then AntiM would have to write me an e-mail
fishy would plonk me
hell, you might plonk me...

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed May 18, 2011 7:34 am

goathead wrote:
jkisha wrote:
Foxfur wrote:Common sense? By what standard? Nonsense!
To me, common sense gun control means using a padded benchrest.

Wish they'd sponsor more gun buybacks. I have a gaggle of not-economically-repairable guns left over from my gunsmithing days and I need gas money
Well, did you go to the site and voice this opinion where it might stand some chance of counting?

Bitching without doing is pointless.
LMAO

bitching to BB about gun control. funny

I would voice my views of her
but then AntiM would have to write me an e-mail
fishy would plonk me
hell, you might plonk me...

good points GH.

yeah, like any politician listens to some internet "voicebox".
only, will they quote it, if it backs their position.
I'd submit, anyone thinking their voice counts much (short of knowing the politician personally), is deluded.
They speak the language of "money and power", the language of the capital.
They don't live in nor understand, or mostly care, about "us".

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed May 18, 2011 8:29 am

ygmir wrote:
goathead wrote:
jkisha wrote: Well, did you go to the site and voice this opinion where it might stand some chance of counting?

Bitching without doing is pointless.
LMAO

bitching to BB about gun control. funny

I would voice my views of her
but then AntiM would have to write me an e-mail
fishy would plonk me
hell, you might plonk me...

good points GH.

yeah, like any politician listens to some internet "voicebox".
only, will they quote it, if it backs their position.
I'd submit, anyone thinking their voice counts much (short of knowing the politician personally), is deluded.
They speak the language of "money and power", the language of the capital.
They don't live in nor understand, or mostly care, about "us".

How do you know this? Have you ever really made an effort to let your representatives know how you feel personally on the issues? Did you visit the site I referenced? Or just dismiss it out of hand? How do you know it is dilusional unless you have been personally diluded?

I have a stack of personal letter replies from my representatives. I have requested and gotten their help with personal issues requiring intervention. So I really don't buy what you're trying to sell Ygmir. It's not always the wealthy donors that grab the ear of congress, sometimes it's that old greasy wheel that just demands attention.

We get the government we deserve. If people don't put in the effort, even in seemingly insurmountable odds, well...they have no business bitching and complaining about what they don't like.

That website I mentioned has the chance of being a new strong force for our democracy. It gives people an easy way to make their voices heard. To dismiss it out of hand is irresponsible at the least.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed May 18, 2011 8:54 am

jkisha wrote:
ygmir wrote:
goathead wrote: LMAO

bitching to BB about gun control. funny

I would voice my views of her
but then AntiM would have to write me an e-mail
fishy would plonk me
hell, you might plonk me...

good points GH.

yeah, like any politician listens to some internet "voicebox".
only, will they quote it, if it backs their position.
I'd submit, anyone thinking their voice counts much (short of knowing the politician personally), is deluded.
They speak the language of "money and power", the language of the capital.
They don't live in nor understand, or mostly care, about "us".
How do you know this? Have you ever really made an effort to let your representatives know how you feel personally on the issues? Did you visit the site I referenced? Or just dismiss it out of hand? How do you know it is dilusional unless you have been personally diluded?

I have a stack of personal letter replies from my representatives. I have requested and gotten their help with personal issues requiring intervention. So I really don't buy what you're trying to sell Ygmir. It's not always the wealthy donors that grab the ear of congress, sometimes it's that old greasy wheel that just demands attention.

We get the government we deserve. If people don't put in the effort, even in seemingly insurmountable odds, well...they have no business bitching and complaining about what they don't like.

That website I mentioned has the chance of being a new strong force for our democracy. It gives people an easy way to make their voices heard. To dismiss it out of hand is irresponsible at the least.

well, yes, I have had direct contact, phone calls, and, letters to and from my reps.

and, I do know, at times, they will do something for "the little guy", especially if they think they can use it in campaign literature later.
My cynicism comes from their actual actions, overall.
I'm sure there are small exceptions, when it benefits their agenda or cause.

yes, I did visit the site you link. I visited it back when you first put it up, seems some months ago?

But, I stand by my cynicism, and still feel, any website/petition/letter writing campaign takes second or third place to the language of of the capital and big money donors.

Once in a while, we get pandered to, (placated) if an election looks close and the incumbent is vulnerable.

Foxfur · Post by **Foxfur** » Wed May 18, 2011 2:39 pm

Sometimes its like banging your head when you know your reps loathe guns.

Would you believe I poted this from my KindleÂ¿ My nerd cred just went up...

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed May 18, 2011 4:20 pm

ygmir wrote:
jkisha wrote:
ygmir wrote: good points GH.

yeah, like any politician listens to some internet "voicebox".
only, will they quote it, if it backs their position.
I'd submit, anyone thinking their voice counts much (short of knowing the politician personally), is deluded.
They speak the language of "money and power", the language of the capital.
They don't live in nor understand, or mostly care, about "us".
How do you know this? Have you ever really made an effort to let your representatives know how you feel personally on the issues? Did you visit the site I referenced? Or just dismiss it out of hand? How do you know it is dilusional unless you have been personally diluded?

I have a stack of personal letter replies from my representatives. I have requested and gotten their help with personal issues requiring intervention. So I really don't buy what you're trying to sell Ygmir. It's not always the wealthy donors that grab the ear of congress, sometimes it's that old greasy wheel that just demands attention.

We get the government we deserve. If people don't put in the effort, even in seemingly insurmountable odds, well...they have no business bitching and complaining about what they don't like.

That website I mentioned has the chance of being a new strong force for our democracy. It gives people an easy way to make their voices heard. To dismiss it out of hand is irresponsible at the least.
well, yes, I have had direct contact, phone calls, and, letters to and from my reps.

and, I do know, at times, they will do something for "the little guy", especially if they think they can use it in campaign literature later.
My cynicism comes from their actual actions, overall.
I'm sure there are small exceptions, when it benefits their agenda or cause.

yes, I did visit the site you link. I visited it back when you first put it up, seems some months ago?

But, I stand by my cynicism, and still feel, any website/petition/letter writing campaign takes second or third place to the language of of the capital and big money donors.

Once in a while, we get pandered to, (placated) if an election looks close and the incumbent is vulnerable.

I always get angry (and sad and frustrated) as I watch the apathy of the citizenry grow. As most don't have millions of dollars, the only thing we do have is our voices. The more you allow your cynicism to grow and determine your actions (or more appropriately your inaction) the more our voices are allowed to be diminished...and that is truly how democracy dies.

Foxfur · Post by **Foxfur** » Thu May 19, 2011 10:13 am

goathead · Post by **goathead** » Sat May 21, 2011 2:30 pm

jkisha wrote: I always get angry (and sad and frustrated) as I watch the apathy of the citizenry grow. As most don't have millions of dollars, the only thing we do have is our voices. The more you allow your cynicism to grow and determine your actions (or more appropriately your inaction) the more our voices are allowed to be diminished...and that is truly how democracy dies.

this is almost to funny

as long as they agree with what ever side your on

otherwise they are idiots, stupid, racists, extremists, fucktards, and the list goes on and on.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Thu May 26, 2011 11:31 pm

Say what you will about the source, I'm more concerned about the truth:

http://www.nillabyte.com/content.php?13 ... f838c4c5f6

goathead · Post by **goathead** » Thu May 26, 2011 11:44 pm

Sort of eliminating the import of old M1's from South Korea by Exucutive Order.

Really to bad, there is a real collector's market for them.

Banning them really did nothing for anyone.

Post by **Elderberry** » Fri May 27, 2011 12:25 am

Trishntek wrote:Say what you will about the source, I'm more concerned about the truth:

http://www.nillabyte.com/content.php?13 ... f838c4c5f6

Then your post is an oxymoron.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Fri May 27, 2011 6:03 am

jkisha wrote:
Trishntek wrote:Say what you will about the source, I'm more concerned about the truth:

http://www.nillabyte.com/content.php?13 ... f838c4c5f6
Then your post is an oxymoron.

PROVE IT!