PDA

View Full Version : Gun confiscation... Posible or Not???



ArtHummer
03-04-2013, 01:33 PM
Went to my brothers over this weekend for some family get-together. He showed me his new shotgun that he got, so naturally the conversation went further about gun control. Although my brothers eyes are opening up, but he is very stubborn and at moments naive.(He wanted to vote for the Obama in 2008... :shame:).
So, I start talking about where it all goes and that it could end up with total gun ban and full confiscation of firearms. He started to lough and sad that "this will never happen here in US" if that will happen people will fight back and that's why government is afraid and will NEVER attempt to do it. Government will not go against 2nd amendment. And we got in to the argument because of it.

To make my point I told him to look at this video and to finish the conversation after.

http://youtu.be/FyfkQkchlu4


So my question is. What do you think? Should that be on our minds or not? Are there anyone who still believe in our government give a damn about bill of rights?


P.S. This poster was in the gun store.
http://www.xdtalk.com/gallery/data/600/Salesman_of_the_year.jpg

Gunner_45
03-04-2013, 02:06 PM
Ask an Australian about gun confiscation.

Kyle
03-04-2013, 02:11 PM
its not possible, if the government started taking guns "under the ruse of preventing war" that in it self would cause a war. i dont think we have much to worry about as far as guns going bye bye completely, i think we need to worry about people who dont properly store there guns and about mentally unstable people getting firearms.

abearden
03-04-2013, 02:47 PM
Possibly? Yes. Likely right now? No. They will try it if they think they can. It will be messy and somber.

Kyle, why is it the government's business how guns are stored? If they're stolen, it's really no different than having baseball bats, kitchen knives, and automobiles stolen: a property crime. Guns aren't special.

And when you start letting them decide who's mentally unstable, you'll find they add more to the list than you'd expect.

Expendable
03-04-2013, 02:50 PM
its not possible, if the government started taking guns "under the ruse of preventing war" that in it self would cause a war. i dont think we have much to worry about as far as guns going bye bye completely, i think we need to worry about people who dont properly store there guns and about mentally unstable people getting firearms.

history says it is possible.

but what is mentally unstable? and if we start blaming it on being mentally unstable someone can rely on that if they want to commit a crime, oh wait people already abuse that to get lesser sentences in crimes they have committed.

3Hummers
03-04-2013, 02:57 PM
Not likely anytime soon but assault weapons bans and magazine size restrictions were unthinkable 30 years ago. This is a game of inches and time. The anti-gunners, like the liberals on many issues have taken a very long term approach to these things. They take a little here and a little there. When people get accustomed to the "new norm" they move the bar a little more. You seldom get rights back once they have been lost. Having the former assualt weapons ban not get renewed was a gift. If you think any new ban will have a sunset clause in it you are high on something. That is why I support any organization that fights any encroachment on our rights, Cumulatively all these "little" measures have gotten us to where we are today.

Kyle
03-04-2013, 03:03 PM
history says it is possible.

but what is mentally unstable? and if we start blaming it on being mentally unstable someone can rely on that if they want to commit a crime, oh wait people already abuse that to get lesser sentences in crimes they have committed.

Thats my point, if we start really looking into people before they buy a gun we would know if there really mentally unstable or not! There are many cases of people claiming there mental insanity and getting a shorter sentence, when in reality there perfectly normal and should be given a heavier sentence, and if someone isn't mentally stable in the first place, they should be aloud to own a gun. Also abearden, im looking at it from the stand point of recent shooting, sandy hook for example, if that guys mom locked up her guns and didnt have them laying around the house loaded, i bet that shooting wouldn't have occurred.

f5moab
03-04-2013, 03:25 PM
Not likely anytime soon but assault weapons bans and magazine size restrictions were unthinkable 30 years ago. This is a game of inches and time. The anti-gunners, like the liberals on many issues have taken a very long term approach to these things. They take a little here and a little there. When people get accustomed to the "new norm" they move the bar a little more. You seldom get rights back once they have been lost. Having the former assualt weapons ban not get renewed was a gift. If you think any new ban will have a sunset clause in it you are high on something. That is why I support any organization that fights any encroachment on our rights, Cumulatively all these "little" measures have gotten us to where we are today.

I'll agree with Dave and with conviction, state that gun confiscation WILL NEVER occur while I'm alive and kicking.

But if President Coward gets to elect one new judge to the supreme court that replaced one conservative or Kennedy, the US is screwed sometime in the future.

abearden
03-04-2013, 03:44 PM
Also abearden, im looking at it from the stand point of recent shooting, sandy hook for example, if that guys mom locked up her guns and didnt have them laying around the house loaded, i bet that shooting wouldn't have occurred.
Doesn't matter how you lock them up, 30 minutes with a saw and a crowbar will free them. I don't think that would have stopped him.

Kyle
03-04-2013, 03:50 PM
30mins and a crowbar to break into a good gun safe? No i dont think thats possible at all


Sent from the top of a mountain in my h3

3Hummers
03-04-2013, 03:54 PM
If the gun safe isn't bolted to the floor in a secure manner many of the less expensive, and by that I mean up 0-$2500.00+ safes are not as hard to get into as many people think. Tip one over on it's back, get a 6 foot pry bar and in 30 minutes many of the "lesser" safes can be compromised. Mine are held down by significant concrete anchor bolts. Given enough time almost any secure storage system can be compromised.

Paladine71
03-04-2013, 04:11 PM
Yes, possible. There is a reason that they've been training our children in public schools that any mention of a gun is an offense worth of expulsion. They will chip away at it now, but our children are the real target. I read the other day that a boy got into trouble for eating a pop tart into the vague shape of a gun. If they convince our kids that guns are evil and the world will be better without them, in sufficient numbers, they can then turn those numbers against extremists like us. This happened not too long ago in Britain and Australia. It can happen here.

3Hummers
03-04-2013, 05:19 PM
As James said, the liberals have been working on our kids through the school and university systems for 30-40 years. That's why so many of the young people lean left, they have been indoctrinated since they hit kindergarten. Whatever message the left wants to indoctrinate into your kids heads will be reinforced by the media. Pretty ingenius and insidious plan they have in place. As conservative parents it is your responsibility to undo the harm the schools/teachers and media do to your kids. Unfortunately too many people were oblivious to the danger and a couple of generations of young people have essentially been lost. Hopefully they don't turn out to be the swing block that the liberals needed to finish the job they started long ago.

deserth3
03-04-2013, 05:48 PM
And Hollywood is helping too...
Just take the series "The Walking Dead". Have you ever noticed for the first few season everyone was armed mosly with hunting riffles and shotguns. Only the cops had pistols. I think I saw the first AR this season.
Last night was a perfect example of what I mean. So far only the Mayor had alot of guns. Of course he's crazy. So they go out to look for more guns. No less in the his old police department. Guns are all gone... And then they find his old friend Morgan with all of the guns stashed in his appartment. Of course he's now (you guessed it) crazy. Rick also mentions there may be a few other guns in a bar and some stores still. How does he know? Well he signed the permits for them.
So Rick ends up leaving town with no guns. Of course that little car he was driving couldn't cary much anyway. But that's another issue.

There are sheep out there who watch this and shows like CSI and think this crap is real folks. Just from watching this crap they come up with the conclusion thatonly cops should own all of the guns. ANd that anyone else with that many guns must be crazy.

So I don't think a weapons confiscation is all that much of a fanticy. There are a couple of states working the ground work now.

3Hummers
03-04-2013, 05:53 PM
Unless we reaquire control of the education system it will happen one day, just as it has in Australia, England and other places around the globe. Don't think it will happen in my lifetime but possibly/probably in my kids lifetime if the direction we are headed in isn't changed.

f5moab
03-04-2013, 06:01 PM
And Hollywood is helping too...
Just take the series "The Walking Dead". Have you ever noticed for the first few season everyone was armed mosly with hunting riffles and shotguns. Only the cops had pistols. I think I saw the first AR this season.
Last night was a perfect example of what I mean. So far only the Mayor had alot of guns. Of course he's crazy. So they go out to look for more guns. No less in the his old police department. Guns are all gone... And then they find his old friend Morgan with all of the guns stashed in his appartment. Of course he's now (you guessed it) crazy. Rick also mentions there may be a few other guns in a bar and some stores still. How does he know? Well he signed the permits for them.
So Rick ends up leaving town with no guns. Of course that little car he was driving couldn't cary much anyway. But that's another issue.

There are sheep out there who watch this and shows like CSI and think this crap is real folks. Just from watching this crap they come up with the conclusion thatonly cops should own all of the guns. ANd that anyone else with that many guns must be crazy.

So I don't think a weapons confiscation is all that much of a fanticy. There are a couple of states working the ground work now.

Isn't Rick hundreds of miles from where he was the deputy Sheriff, and if so how did he sign for the guns?

Janet (the blond) was armed with a nice looking 45 (and a set of 38s:shame:)

Rick's kid is shooting people with a handgun; living and dead.

Doesn't Glen have a handgun?

I see nothing in Walking Dead that reflects an anti-gun philosophy.

Scarsman
03-04-2013, 06:45 PM
its not possible, if the government started taking guns "under the ruse of preventing war" that in it self would cause a war. i dont think we have much to worry about as far as guns going bye bye completely, ...



I would have to disagree. Yes, if they came out tomorrow and said "turn in all your guns" there would be trouble. But that is not how they are doing it. If you look back over the last 40 years or so, just look at the slow and steady progression of the errosion of the second amendment. It is small chunks here and there, starting with certain cities, certain states, and there is no denying the progression. It blows my mind how many gun owners and hunters have now fallen for the whole, "no one needs hi-cap mags, this or that gun has no "sporting" purpose," etc. etc. That is part of the slow errosion.



... i think we need to worry about people who dont properly store there guns and about mentally unstable people getting firearms.


I have to disagree here as well. I would agree there would be negligence if one were to leave a gun sitting on the sidewalk, or a park bench, or something like that. But if it is in their home, and someone breaks in and steals it, that is an act commited by the person doing the crime. If someone were to steal your car and then go out and run someone over and kill them, should you be liable because you did not have a club on your car and an alarm that would disable the ignition? That would be ludicrous! If someone steals your laptop and then uses it to steal someone's identity and make off with their life savings, should you be responsible for that? I work in a profession that includes using firearms, and had this discussion with a co worker recently. She felt that ALL gun buyers should have to have a full background check, and that gun owners who have guns stolen should have some sort of penalty put on them if the guns were not locked up. I have seen where burglars ripped an entire guin safe out that was bolted down, took a door off the hinges and used it to drag the safe out to their truck with.

I am a believer in personal responsibilty, and I believe the responsibilty for an individual's actions should rest on that person alone. If someone breaks into a house and steals a gun, and then commits a crime with that gun, THEY commited the crime. Not the victim of the burglary. We need to actually hold the criminal accountable, rather than trying to criminalize the victim.




Thats my point, if we start really looking into people before they buy a gun we would know if there really mentally unstable or not! There are many cases of people claiming there mental insanity and getting a shorter sentence, when in reality there perfectly normal and should be given a heavier sentence, and if someone isn't mentally stable in the first place, they should be aloud to own a gun. Also abearden, im looking at it from the stand point of recent shooting, sandy hook for example, if that guys mom locked up her guns and didnt have them laying around the house loaded, i bet that shooting wouldn't have occurred.


I disagree here too. As abearden said, guns are property, nothing more. That guy decided what he was going to do, and no amount of locking guns up would have prevented it. That was a planned event, not a heat of the moment instinctive reaction. You don't decide to commit something that horrible and not do it just because you can't get into the gun locker. He would have found a way to do what he set out to do. Whether he stole a semi truck and drove it into the school, or made a fire bomb and burned them all alive, or started lopping heads with a sword, machette, etc. That event happened because THAT PERSON decided to do it. NOT because someone else did not have a gun locked up.

deserth3
03-04-2013, 08:25 PM
Isn't Rick hundreds of miles from where he was the deputy Sheriff, and if so how did he sign for the guns?

Janet (the blond) was armed with a nice looking 45 (and a set of 38s:shame:)

Rick's kid is shooting people with a handgun; living and dead.

Doesn't Glen have a handgun?

I see nothing in Walking Dead that reflects an anti-gun philosophy.

You're right about the handguns. As for the blond, I guess that's not my favorite color.:giggle:

I also thought they were hundreds of miles away from where they started but the son grabbed a picture of himself, mom, and dad from the diner.

I just feel it's strainge that no one else in the town seemed to have a stash of guns. Even if they were all kept in a vault. With zombies running around I'd have the damn thing open and readily accessable. knock down a few doors and you're bound to find a house with some guns.
It's also strainge or convenient to me that the two people with all of the guns are crazy.

Hunner
03-04-2013, 08:36 PM
Mentally unstable would rule out most of congress qualifying?? No weapons for those guys.
I stopped by a National Forest range today and tested my mentality.

Kyle
03-05-2013, 12:35 AM
I would have to disagree. Yes, if they came out tomorrow and said "turn in all your guns" there would be trouble. But that is not how they are doing it. If you look back over the last 40 years or so, just look at the slow and steady progression of the errosion of the second amendment. It is small chunks here and there, starting with certain cities, certain states, and there is no denying the progression. It blows my mind how many gun owners and hunters have now fallen for the whole, "no one needs hi-cap mags, this or that gun has no "sporting" purpose," etc. etc. That is part of the slow errosion.

Thats what i took from the video, that the government is any day now going to come take all the guns away. Im still young so im not as wise as all you guys, i do see everyones point tho and actually now think i see what you all are saying as far as mental insanity and locking up guns etc. makes sense now!

LagunaH1
03-05-2013, 01:34 AM
State department publication 7277 seems to talk about reduction in armament levels for the militaries of the world, not about citizens. I haven't read the document in its entirety yet so I could be wrong. Who here has read it?

JGBB04
03-05-2013, 05:23 AM
They can come get mine any day. I'll meet them at door w/ a smile, I have 1 "Hi-Point 9mm handgun" along w/ 1 10rnd mag full of junk .gov 9mm FMJ ammo I will give them :)

ArtHummer
03-05-2013, 10:56 AM
I would have to disagree. Yes, if they came out tomorrow and said "turn in all your guns" there would be trouble. But that is not how they are doing it. If you look back over the last 40 years or so, just look at the slow and steady progression of the errosion of the second amendment. It is small chunks here and there, starting with certain cities, certain states, and there is no denying the progression. It blows my mind how many gun owners and hunters have now fallen for the whole, "no one needs hi-cap mags, this or that gun has no "sporting" purpose," etc. etc. That is part of the slow errosion.

Absolutely agree with you on that statement. Looking at 40 years back the 2nd amendment steadily started to degrade. But now look at the last 10 years and on the last 5 years and on what is happening right now. You can see that the pace increasing dramatically. America has a very rich heritage of the FREE gun ownership. There is a reason why it is a 2nd amendment and not the 27th. And looking at what happening right now, we are loosing our gun rights much faster then any others (Britain, Australia). Why is it happening that we are loosing our gun right with such a pace? And i think if the pace will increase we will lose the 2nd amendment well in our life time.

Paladine71
03-05-2013, 11:01 AM
Then there will have to be a war.

3Hummers
03-05-2013, 12:12 PM
This generation will not comply with a confiscation scenario. 2,3-4 generations in the future they might. Everyone of us should be introducing our children to firearms, hunting, target shooting, etc., whatever floats your boat. It isn't just the 2nd Amendment that is under attack. Political correctness is an assault on free speech, the government and ACLU crackdown on Christianity is an assault on religion and you can keep looking and find that most of our other rights, as granted by the Bill of Rights and Constitution are under assault.
ArtHummer, you ask why the pace of these assaults is so quick, well the answer is simple. Look at who runs the government. The liberals control the Senate and the White House. When Pelosi and Reid were in control of Congress they wielded the power of their offices to the fullest extent. When Republicans control they refuse to govern like the Democrats do. The liberals make lots of progress toward their goals when in power and the Republicans let the Democrats frustrate their attempts at getting what they want when they are in control. The old line establishment Republican politicians are incapable of stopping the liberal onslaught because they don't know how to use power when they have it. We need new blood in Washington. I don't really care where it comes from but we need fresh people, fresh ideas and people with a dogged determination to maintaining the freedoms that we are granted in the founding documents. That means that " We the People" need to find and encourage the right people to enter politics and go clean up this mess. There are a few that have been elected and it seems that the Republicans and Democrats hate them equally. Ted Cruz, freshman Senator from Texas is a loose cannon but he doesn't mind calling out Dems or Repubs for being f*&ked up. The Republican leadership just demoted 4 conservative Congressmen for their independence from the establishment Republican platform. In my eyes those guys are mini-heros. They are willing to swim upstream and even lose their political carrers to stand up for what is right. We need to elect more people like that.
Finally the two parties control too much of the money. They almost dictate who will win a primary. I refuse to donate to the Republican Party because they frequently pick the wrong guys. They pick guys that will toe the line. I donate to candidates themselves and I donate to candidates all over the country that have that independent right minded outlook ( ie Allen West from Florida )
We have to force the changes, it won't happen if we don't.

58Bisc
03-05-2013, 01:48 PM
Those that do not know their history are destin to repeate it... No person likes rapit change. We all fight it. Slow change, in manageable chunks we bitch about, but go along with. Once we get use to it, it becomes the new norm. Then the next small change and the process starts all over. Through out history this has happened over and over. I don't want to compare anyone to the Nasi party of Germany in the 1930's, but if you look back at their early policies they stared out this way. It was not until the people were disarmed and a generation had been indoctrinated, that they went radical. Disarm the public, remove ex military (anyone with training that can oppose the ruling party) from the picture and then control the public. All for the "greater good". Our 1968 gun control act is a rewrite of Nasi policy.

Normally I'm not this vocal. Live and let live is the way I was taught. The bill of rights was written by a bunch of rebels. They believed that the mob should be protected from it's self. This is why they set up a republic rather then a democracy. In a democracy, mobs rule. In a republic, all rights are protected. The order of the amendments are just as important as the rights themselves. The first three are key. Free speech, the right and requirement to defend free speech and the greater good, the right of Cassel docteran (no quartering of troops). I know this is a loose interpretation, but it was the concept.

Talk to people about this. Stay under control and know your history. People need to understand that this is not mob rule. Someday something they care about will be next on the list of people who want to control. Rember there is no such thing as gun control, only people control!

LagunaH1
03-05-2013, 05:15 PM
Finally the two parties control too much of the money. They almost dictate who will win a primary. I refuse to donate to the Republican Party because they frequently pick the wrong guys. They pick guys that will toe the line. I donate to candidates themselves and I donate to candidates all over the country that have that independent right minded outlook ( ie Allen West from Florida )
We have to force the changes, it won't happen if we don't.

There are a number of things that I think are "broken" in the way the system is right now, one of the biggest things being how "predictable" it is who stays in power, who wins etc. The two parties are so established that it seems almost laughable to even consider a 3rd party or an independent candidate for any type of higher office. In my opinion, that's wrong because it seems to promote staleness and to keep those who have the power, in power.

Since I am on my soap box, let me add this: I believe that *all* elected officials must be subject to term limits. Depending on the office they hold, these limits should be more or less. Some offices I think 3 or 4 terms could be fine but there *needs* to be term limits. I very strongly believe that *any* elected official is accountable to the people, not just those who voted for them or donated to their campaign, but to *everyone*. Term limits in the senate and in congress would seem to make it easier to get new people with new ideas elected, and might also light a fire under those who seem to do nothing.

58Bisc
03-05-2013, 05:33 PM
Originally it was a civic duty to take a turn in office. Just as jury duty is thought of today. George Washington stepped down after two terms as an example of this to the people. Today people make a full time job out of it. The concept was that one of your local people that lived and worked in your town took their turn sharing what was important to you with the rest of the country. They tell you this is what they do today, but it is not. How can it be when they move to DC (Virginia) and live there for 20 or 30 years? Term limits are needed.

3Hummers
03-05-2013, 06:05 PM
Term limits for every elected position should be mandatory.

Kyle
03-05-2013, 08:43 PM
Term limits for every elected position should be mandatory.

i second that!!

Green 1
03-05-2013, 09:18 PM
I had my youngest daughter shooting this week for the first time. She loved it. I hate we must have this discussion but if we do not our children will never have the chance to make a choice. We will defend our rights to keep this country safe free.

MaxPF
03-06-2013, 02:58 AM
i think we need to worry about people who dont properly store there guns and about mentally unstable people getting firearms.

Sadly, attitudes like yours are prevalent, and people who hold those attitudes see them as reasonable. Here's the problem: First off, it is none of the government's business how or where a person stores their property.

Second, more importantly, this whole "we need to keep the mentally unstable people from getting guns" is incredibly dangerous. it seem perfectly reasonable and innocuous on the surface. Heck, even the NRA is on board. The problem is, all they need to do is to increase the scope of what defines a person as "mentally incompetent". This has already been done to numerous veterans who have sought treatment from the VA for PTSD. According to the law, you need to be either involuntarily committed to a mental institution or adjudicated mentally incompetent. Both of these require a hearing in a court of law, with full due process, the ability to appeal, etc. The VA has neatly bypassed this, and has allowed VA doctors and bureaucrats to label someone as mentally incompetent just for suffering from PTSD, and their name goes on the NICS prohibited buyer list. No due process, no judge, no court.

Now, imagine that happening to EVERYONE. Imagine seeking help to cope with stress at work, and they deem you mentally incompetent because, being stressed, you could be a threat to others. Imagine that you are deemed mentally incompetent or unstable because you vocally object to the way government is being run. You can label virtually any behavior or belief as "mentally unfit", and you lose your right to own a firearm. So much for it being a "right" at that point....

Paladine71
03-06-2013, 08:49 AM
Sadly, attitudes like yours are prevalent, and people who hold those attitudes see them as reasonable. Here's the problem: First off, it is none of the government's business how or where a person stores their property.

Second, more importantly, this whole "we need to keep the mentally unstable people from getting guns" is incredibly dangerous. it seem perfectly reasonable and innocuous on the surface. Heck, even the NRA is on board. The problem is, all they need to do is to increase the scope of what defines a person as "mentally incompetent". This has already been done to numerous veterans who have sought treatment from the VA for PTSD. According to the law, you need to be either involuntarily committed to a mental institution or adjudicated mentally incompetent. Both of these require a hearing in a court of law, with full due process, the ability to appeal, etc. The VA has neatly bypassed this, and has allowed VA doctors and bureaucrats to label someone as mentally incompetent just for suffering from PTSD, and their name goes on the NICS prohibited buyer list. No due process, no judge, no court.

Now, imagine that happening to EVERYONE. Imagine seeking help to cope with stress at work, and they deem you mentally incompetent because, being stressed, you could be a threat to others. Imagine that you are deemed mentally incompetent or unstable because you vocally object to the way government is being run. You can label virtually any behavior or belief as "mentally unfit", and you lose your right to own a firearm. So much for it being a "right" at that point....

It's already getting worse, some states are trying to classify ADHD as a mental illness. Since teachers have been labeling nearly every kid with it, and trying to get them all on medication for years now, that could make almost an entire generation unable to own a gun. Disarming the public is becoming a reality and changing the classifications and standards is the norm. Once you get a foot in the door....

3Hummers
03-06-2013, 07:22 PM
Yep. Everyone has a "condition" which is an excuse for everything they do/don't do...and of course there is a medication for it.

SkinGripz
03-21-2013, 12:28 PM
By the mentality of the grabbers, anyone who thinks they might need a gun to defend themselves against random assault is mentally unstable. Anyone who thinks the US Government cant be trusted is mentally unstable.

Myself, I believe anyone who buys into their crap is mentally unstable...

DJinCO
03-21-2013, 10:00 PM
I would have never, ever thought that the State of Colorado would be in the news for passing laws that restrict our gun rights.
Our governor has sold us out to the bloomberg political machine.

That is how it will take us. One small step at a time. Limit the magazines (NOT friggin' CLIPS) to 15 rounds; then 10 rounds; then 7 and then the guns. So many ignorant folks think that "there is nothing wrong with the mag limits." After all, what's the big deal, you don't NEED 30 rounds. 15 is plenty. This is what a co-worker says to me. He also claims that no-one hunts with an AR platform.

one chip at a ime.

Green 1
03-21-2013, 10:29 PM
The AR platform is the most popular platform used in Texas for hog hunting and also varment hunting. It amazes me that people who know nothing about the hobby have all the answers.

3Hummers
03-21-2013, 10:45 PM
More like people that know nothing have all the answers. They know best on everything from the weather to gun control, healthcare to immigration, abortion to how much of your money you should get to keep. Just ask them, they have the answer. Actually you don't have to ask them, they will tell you whether you want to hear it or not.

DJinCO
03-22-2013, 12:57 AM
An AR is much more accurate than a Mini-14. Of course no one is concerned about a Mini-14 or a Mini-30. I guess because they are "mini's" they are OK.

I guess eventually, anything that looks like a gun will be evil.

Staple Gun
Glue Gun
Label Gun
Pop-Tarts

MaxPF
03-22-2013, 01:03 AM
I would have never, ever thought that the State of Colorado would be in the news for passing laws that restrict our gun rights.
Our governor has sold us out to the bloomberg political machine.

That is how it will take us. One small step at a time. Limit the magazines (NOT friggin' CLIPS) to 15 rounds; then 10 rounds; then 7 and then the guns. So many ignorant folks think that "there is nothing wrong with the mag limits." After all, what's the big deal, you don't NEED 30 rounds. 15 is plenty. This is what a co-worker says to me. He also claims that no-one hunts with an AR platform.

one chip at a ime.

Quite a few sherrifs in CO (I know Weld Co. is one, there were 4 or 5 others) have flat out said they will not enforce the new laws. Magpul is leaving the state. You have the misfortune of being inundated with California liberals who have completely hosed your state.

Maybe "he" should watch Yukon Men on A&E sometime. Several of the featured individuals use AR's for hunting and defense when out in the bush. I don't think it is wise to use it for caribou hunting (which they have done), but the last episode had one guy defending his trap line from a wolverine. Heck, .223 is THE most common varmint hunting round.

MaxPF
03-22-2013, 03:04 AM
An AR is much more accurate than a Mini-14. Of course no one is concerned about a Mini-14 or a Mini-30. I guess because they are "mini's" they are OK.

I guess eventually, anything that looks like a gun will be evil.

Staple Gun
Glue Gun
Label Gun
Pop-Tarts

Depends on the Mini-14 :)

ArtHummer
03-22-2013, 10:47 AM
Ted Nugent hunts for hogs from a helicopter with AR. I don't think anything other "regular hunting" rifle will do the job.
All of the killed hogs go to needy.


http://youtu.be/ETgmlcIED6E

3Hummers
03-22-2013, 11:28 AM
I have never had a Mini-14 as accurate as an AR-15 and I have had quite a few of both. In fact I wouldn't even bother shooting a Mini-14 at a target much past 100 yards. Great truck gun/plinker but not the first rifle I would grab if I wanted to hit something. That is comparing out of the box stock guns. Both can be "accuarized but I would still go with an AR.

machineguneddie
03-22-2013, 11:36 PM
Then there will have to be a war.

I'm with you

DJinCO
03-23-2013, 12:29 AM
Thanks. It has been an bad week on many levels.

amrg
03-26-2013, 04:38 PM
What do you guys think of this?

http://gizmodo.com/5992364/watch-the-full-documentary-about-3d-printed-weapons-click-print-gun

abearden
03-26-2013, 06:07 PM
I think it's the antis' worst nightmare. :thumbs:

ArtHummer
03-27-2013, 02:40 PM
I thin this is a new "government regulation on 3d printing" is in the works...

abearden
03-27-2013, 03:27 PM
I thin this is a new "government regulation on 3d printing" is in the works...
Which is funny because there are a few kits out there where you can build your own cnc and/or extruder. They might as well attempt to regulate the tool section at Home Depot for all the good it will do.