Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, I don't have the slightest unfounded concern about it. Thank you!
Your quite welcome. But if you had concern it wouldn't be unfounded.
The state he represents as a Senator has no CWP & he is on record as wanting to do away with CWP laws as well as banning handuns altogether.
Again, I dont think he can pull it off but its not something to be complacent about if you really want a CWP. There is no question about his stance on the matter.
In the spirit of the OP I think it would be a good thing for anyone who ever considered a pistol permit to go out & get it. Those who are in a locality where its forbidden should lobby for changing that. Mr Obama is also on record saying he believes we have a right to "bear" arms. That means carry them. He should be called to clarify this inconsistency so we can get an honest grasp of his stance. To me, its obvious he is against it given his voting record in congress, I feel he simply says he supports a right to bear arms as a sound bite, but I can be wrong. It is the time for us to be proactive. Not just thru lobby groups but as individuals as well. If we want to keep this most American of civil rights we need to act, but in a responsible way so we can ris ourselves of the "Joe sixpack" stereotype that many uninformed antigun people have of us. True some of us are blue colar workers but we are also lawyers & doctors, we are policemen, firemen, politicians, men & women rich & poor. We are Americans & our rights should be valued & respected by our elected officiials as much as any other group of Americans out there.
Now is the time to act. Personally I'v already sent out post election letters to all my representatives & senators both state & federal as well as my town council members, mayor & governor.
You cannot be heard if you dont make yourself heard & lacking your voice, people will speak for you, decisions will be made as if you endorse them, politicians will say they speak for America even tho they know it not to be true. They want us to be quiet, it has served them well in the past.
Stamps are cheap, the postal service is wonderful. Use them to our advantage so our great grandchildren will not need a text book to know about Liberty, so that they can enjoy it as we do, so their grandkids will too. We were given a great gift, lets preserve it! Join the NRA, join GOA, join state pro gun groups, but most important of all, use your own voice as well!
Last edited by Tin Knocker; 11-07-2008 at 06:56 AM..
Now, that behind us, Are you considering buying a gun?
If you even think you might like to now is the time. IMO anyway. Even if our new President doesn't push gun control guns will go up in price simply because he might.
I don't know about purchasing one. Currently, I live in the city, and while I have every right to own, and carry concealed, I don't see a need for it. I still have a lot of concerns about the illegal guns that are out there, having lived in Chicago for a few years and seeing firsthand the carelessness with which the gang bangers use them. My sister had a friend who was shot for no reason (probably gang initiation) walking 1 block home from a bar there.
If my wife and I continue with our plan to buy acreage out in the country, I probably will buy a gun, but I don't see one in my immediate future. Living in South Texas, I doubt our ability to own and carry will be compromised anytime soon. People here would have a revolt if anyone even suggested repealing the second amendment (not that anyone is).
I am going to the shooting range next weekend with my daughter's Godfather, who is a police officer, so we'll see how I feel after that
well having the guns is a sport and a hobbie to alot of folks as myself.my family and I do not go out killing people or living things. It is something to do ! we all enjoy it.Remember guns do not kill people! people kill people! If you take the time to watch sport tv. you would see the supporvised sport shotting that takes place and the fun that thousands of gun owners and their families have doing it! Why take it away! Also I was approtched buy a monster with a weapon on my own property late one evening.I had no protaction except for my own flesh. All I could think about was my children 6 years 2 years and 1 month old at the door watching. They witnessed the monster hit mommy throw her to the ground and prosseed to go for them. I grabbed the monster by the foot and flipped him to his face over my gate that lead to the deck where my children awaited for me to return insted the monster hurt me and was headed for them .My husband did not know who the person was so went to our room to get sweats on not knowing or expecting what was going on as the children were in shock and would not make a peep.Fortunately my husband was at the door as this monster attempted to enter,my husband still not knowing what was going on,I appeared he saw my face kicked his butt regardless of the weapons he had on him. Know if only people who do not agree with guns experienced what alot af americans go through like I did you would not support the ban on guns period .Why not put a ban on something worth while .Not guns. remember guns do not kill A HOLES with guns kill!!! That is the truth!
I am responding to the question about whethere or not semi automatic rifles could be converted to full auto.
The answer is yes, if you want to spent the next 20 years in Leavenworth.
I'd rather be caught with 10 stolen cars than am illeagally modified weapon.
Oh and on the subject of which weapons to ban, everyone is right, it's only based on looks, and not function.
Ignorance of a guns "look" is what breeds fear. Ok, I have a little test for those who aren't familiar with firearms:
Which one of these guns, just based on looks, would you consider an "assualt weapon" and therefor consider a ban on:
or this one?
The one on top, is a YugoM59 SKS, semi automatic rifle.
Now i'm willing to bet, you picked the AK-47 below it, just based on it's looks and high capacity 30 round magazine.
I bet what you don't know is that BOTH guns shoot exactly the same round, 7.62X39mm cartridge.
They are basically the same gun, the only difference being the look and how many rounds they hold.
Having a high capacity magazine doesnt make one gun more dangerous than the other. And truth be told, the SKS, with simple modifications, can be altered to accept the Ak-47 Magazines.
Last edited by ryanek9freak; 11-07-2008 at 09:28 AM..
Well now.... since we've drifted off point again...
mwruckman's following posts are off topic, as I originally asked for ideas to present us gun owners in the most positive light. His comments bend towards more gun restrictions and ownership requirements. Yet I will address them, and ask, yet again, if we can keep to the original post. There is a thread under Great Debates called Gun Control. If that's your interest, please drift on over there. Meantime though, as the thread originator here I'll claim the right to answer mwr's somewhat simplistic ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman
The constitution also says that you can "keep and bear arms" it also says in order to have "a well regulated militja". I think we need to do more to have a well regulated militia and should use this to require:
1.Gun owners should have liability insurance to cover them for negligent discharge of their firearms.These policies should be large enough to cover accidental wounding and wrongful death lawsuits. I'll leave it up to tje insurance industry to compute the premiums Also the insurance industry can deside whether they would refuse to sell insurance to those that have mental illness. After all we refuse health insurance to sick people.
(Ha ha! Funny. Also not likely, and your example of the health insurance industry, if you were being serious, is exactly what's currently WRONG with private insurance companies. They can arbitrarily decline a person based on their health background. Not exactly fair if you had a kidney stone once, and you move to a new job and then can't get health insurance because of some actuarial table stats. And we all need the most health care just when we're about to die, for the most part. Imagine being declined due to a health condition. By your health insurer. Seem like a circular illogical argument to you? Your idea would simply be an administrative nightmare and frought with lawsuits, which is what this country is truly good at!
2 There should be a regularly scheduled gun safety inspection to insure that the gun meets certain technical requirments for safe operation. Excessive wear or poor alignment of a gun sight would be grounds for removal from service. Just like a poorly maintained car.
Problem is cars wear quickly and are subject to pothole impacts, rust, impact damage, etc. Guns don't change that much over time, and your suggestion would just be a useless and very costly irritant. Would that be the true intent? Are you saying that a gun owner would lose the use of a gun if the sights were slightly out of alignment? Why would you do that? Do you feel that people are regularly injured because they are down range and just slightly off to the side of the intended target by, say, 3 inches? Is this logical to you? Really?
3 All gun owners wishing to discharge a gun must have a gun operation license license or a learners permit. The license would be granted after you pass a gun operators safety test, had your vision tested and demonstarted at least 20/70 vision with adequate field of view and no major blind spots , and demonstated basic marksmanship. We expect more of car owners than gun owners even though guns kill as nearly as many Americans as cars do.
The underlined statement not really anywhere near the truth. I hope you know that. And most gun deaths are the result of either deliberate homicide (drug gangs, etc.) or suicide. No licencing or permits would have, obviously, any effect on those numbers. Far and away many times more people are killed in cars due to drunk drivers, speeding, etc. talking on cell phones, putting onlipstick, etc etc, despite there being permits and tests. (About 25,000 per year in cars).
You can have as many cars as you want. The crime is driving them without a valid license. It should be same with guns. Finally, guess what happens to drivers licenses when you commit a crime.
Actually, most drunk driving convictions, even if they are the result of vehicular homicide or reckless endangerment, result in minor fines or suspended sentences, and a very high recidivism rate (i.e.: they return and do it again). The drivers are most often allowed to keep their licenses but with "I promise to be good" restrictions on them, which are then ignored. MADD works very hard to stop this known travesty.
By the way, there are well over 20,000 gun laws on the books, not to mention criminal laws. It is already against the law to drive down your local urban street firing out the window at innocent passers-by.
mwr, I'd have to conclude that you are either an anti-gunner, or have not thought this out too well, but have good intentions. Either way though, this is the wrong thread, as you'll get a bunch of angry responses (you probably already have; I haven't had the chance to look). Please approach this highly charged and political topic rationally, think about my points above, and those of other rational gun owners, and then go over to the Gun Control thread. Thanks!
Well, perhaps mwr's ideas above WERE in the spirit of positive suggestions to be put forward to our various legislators. If so, I misunderstood the tone. The validity of each idea is still very much in question and deserving of his or her more serious review for the reasons I gave, but again, perhaps he/she thought such ideas, implemented, might appeal to our legislators. And well they might, as these folks, at least 50% of them, wouldn't know a Weatherby from a Benelli Super Black Eagle II. (Mine's a "lefty" actually...). Or the fundamentals of gun technology or field ethics and safety. By the way, mwr, by far the huge majority of gun owners handle their guns far more safely than the car drivers I have observed. My education in order to make such a statement? I recently retired from a very large (read VERY LARGE) international automotive corp. as an engineer who, more than once, investigated crash scenes to re-create what may have happened.
Results: There's a lot of very bad drivers out there. Ever wonder if that elderly retired couple in that humungous brand-new diesel-pusher motor coach know how to handle it if it should start to oversteer into the oncoming lane as they careen over the speed limit down a hill on the Interstate in the Rockies? OwwwwMyyyyGawwwwd... Run, Martha; it's coming our way!
And on the other side of expertise, I'm also an FFL-holding gunsmith. And (I know, how unlikely is all of this?) an ex-large mammal wildlife biologist. 'nuff said. Not ego, just my credentials.
So, OK for now. Maybe the post was OK. Depends on what the original intent was, right?
From the Obama/Biden website (you need to scroll down a little):
..."Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would...support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."
I don't know about purchasing one. Currently, I live in the city, and while I have every right to own, and carry concealed, I don't see a need for it. I still have a lot of concerns about the illegal guns that are out there, having lived in Chicago for a few years and seeing firsthand the carelessness with which the gang bangers use them. My sister had a friend who was shot for no reason (probably gang initiation) walking 1 block home from a bar there.
If my wife and I continue with our plan to buy acreage out in the country, I probably will buy a gun, but I don't see one in my immediate future. Living in South Texas, I doubt our ability to own and carry will be compromised anytime soon. People here would have a revolt if anyone even suggested repealing the second amendment (not that anyone is).
I am going to the shooting range next weekend with my daughter's Godfather, who is a police officer, so we'll see how I feel after that
I'm glad you are going shooting. Thats a great first step & if you like it you might decide to get one now.
My primary interest in guns is not for defensive purposes. I like to shoot & tinker with them. I'm something of a collector of older Marlin lever actions. Not sure how it started but here I am.
Anyway I'v become a bit defensive as a result of alot of needless ridicule, Hence my jumping on you like I did.
I live in a city myself although not near as large as Chicago. We have crime & gangs too but unlike Chicago or Illinois in general pistols arent banned & long guns require nothing but the federal backround check.
Funny that without the very strict gun control Chicago has we have less crime. I wont say its because citizens can be armed here as I dont think thats the case. I'll say I think its evidence that gun control is largely irrelevant in preventing crime. It can be seen over & over, you find a large city & with or without gun control there is alot of violent crime.
I'm sorry to hear about your sisters friend. Its always tragic when an innocent gets shot, or hurt period in senseless violence. Its easy to blame guns, but IMO it goes much deeper than that.
There has been a significant change to www.change.gov
during the last day or so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeK
From the Obama/Biden website (you need to scroll down a little):
..."Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would...support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."
The Urban Policy page was no longer available as of 30 seconds ago.
It disappears some some ago. It was there 2 days ago.
Searches for the usual gun-grabber buzz words and phases produced
nothing about gun control. Nothing.
Try it --see what you can find. I think that Mr. Obama may have filed "gun control" under "too hot to handle" and "loser issues".
.
This is a significant change and very good news. This is still a winning issue for us.
The Urban Policy page was no longer available as of 30 seconds ago.
It disappears some some ago. It was there 2 days ago.
Searches for the usual gun-grabber buzz words and phases produced
nothing about gun control. Nothing.
Try it --see what you can find. I think that Mr. Obama may have filed "gun control" under "too hot to handle" and "loser issues".
.
This is a significant change and very good news. This is still a winning issue for us.
I noticed that it was unavailable this morning and it's still 'unavailable' now. It was there last night. I know a few people sent comments to them and I certainly hope you're correct and that they are dropping it for now. Unfortunately, it will resurface once they think they can pass it without too much political damage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But if you had concern it wouldn't be unfounded.
Well now.... since we've drifted off point again...
On further reflection of mwr's suggestions...
