# General > General Guns & Ammo >  Get it now.

## 2dumb2kwit

If any of you are thinking about any high capacity gun, or anything that may be "black and scary", you may want to get it real soon. I'm guessing that gunshows are about to get very crowded, again....and the price of ammo is about to go through the roof...again.




> But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.
> 
> Tuesday night after the speech, Obama adviser David Plouffe said to NBC News that the president would not let the moment after the Arizona shootings pass without pushing for some change in the law, to prevent another similar incident. Its a very important issue, and one I know theres going to be debate about on the Hill.


http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/w...n-control.html

----------


## BENESSE

So if you're mentally unstable, hurry up and get yours NOW.

----------


## BENESSE

In fact, set up a mental check point to all the gun shows because most people going in will probably
be off their rocker and just stocking up before the new gun-control effort kicks in.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> So if you're mentally unstable, hurry up and get yours NOW.


 Yeah. LOL

Actually, what I meant was....whenever there is talk of more gun control, the market for high capacity guns, scary looking guns, and ammo goes crazy.

 As far as new laws go, you don't think they will only try to keep guns out of the hands of nut-jobs, do ya? The problem with their "common sense" gun laws, is that they aren't.

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> In fact, set up a mental check point to all the gun shows because most people going in will probably
> be off their rocker and just stocking up before the new gun-control effort kicks in.


Without trying to be argumentative, It all depends on what type of "Mental instability" they look for. I haven't met ANYONE that couldn't be diagnosed with "Something" that would qualify as a "Mental condition". From the POTUS, SCOTUS, Congress, on down to me. We all have some little "Quirk" or other. With some it might be Anorexia, OCD,  Mild depression, or something that is non-threatening to the Public. I don't think there are any "Easy" answers to the problem either. However I don't think continued increase in legislation/regulation is the right thing to do either. At what point do we say "enough is enough"?

----------


## Justin Case

Los Angeles is talking about banning ammo,,

----------


## Justin Case

Oh Wait,,  I got that wrong,, They want to uphold a ban on teflon coated "Cop Killer" bullets,,
http://www.bhcourier.com/article/Loc...orcement/74226

   But did you know they tried to ban all online ammo sales ? http://redtape.msnbc.com/2011/01/onl...e-for-now.html

----------


## BENESSE

> *Without trying to be argumentative, It all depends on what type of "Mental instability" they look for.* I haven't met ANYONE that couldn't be diagnosed with "Something" that would qualify as a "Mental condition". From the POTUS, SCOTUS, Congress, on down to me. We all have some little "Quirk" or other. With some it might be Anorexia, OCD,  Mild depression, or something that is non-threatening to the Public. I don't think there are any "Easy" answers to the problem either. However I don't think continued increase in legislation/regulation is the right thing to do either. At what point do we say "enough is enough"?


This type: wacko, schizo, paranoid instability with years of heads up, apparent to anyone who isn't deaf, blind and in denial. It's what Arizona, Virgina Tech and Fort Hood shooters all had in common. If _anyone_ thinks that keeping guns away from those type of lunatics constitutes a "slippery slope" then I'm truly speechless.

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> This type: wacko, schizo, paranoid instability with years of heads up, apparent to anyone who isn't deaf, blind and in denial. It's what Arizona, Virgina Tech and Fort Hood shooters all had in common. If _anyone_ thinks that keeping guns away from those type of lunatics constitutes a "slippery slope" then I'm truly speechless.


 But there's the problem. All of those were already known but overlooked/ignored (By Psychiatrist, LE agencies, etc.) with the current laws already in place. New legislation isn't called for, just enforcing CURRENT legislation.
IF Those laws we already have were enforced they wouldn't have happened..... except maybe the Fort Hood Shooter who was just an extremist KNOWN to the FBI.

----------


## Justin Case

They should start by restricting everyone that takes mood altering prescription drugs,,,,  There is a reason they take it...  just MHO  :Smile:

----------


## BENESSE

> But there's the problem. All of those were already known but overlooked/ignored (By Psychiatrist, LE agencies, etc.) with the current laws already in place. New legislation isn't called for, just enforcing CURRENT legislation.
> IF Those laws we already have were enforced they wouldn't have happened..... except maybe the Fort Hood Shooter who was just an extremist KNOWN to the FBI.


I'd say a new efferot IS needed to strengthten current laws. What's wrong with that"

"...the White House will unveil a *new gun-control effort* in which it will  urge Congress to *strengthen current laws*, which now allow some mentally  unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to  obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background  check."

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> They should start by restricting everyone that takes mood altering prescription drugs,,,,  There is a reason they take it...  just MHO


So if I have a nervous condition that makes my hands shake, and I take a nerve medicine, I shouldn't own a gun? Some "Mood altering drugs" are used to treat other things as well. I forget which one specifically, but one anti-depressant was/has been used to treat a Physical illness too.

Still ALL of those that "B" listed were "slip through the cracks" cases, that should not have owned guns WITH current legislation. No new laws are needed, just better enforcement of those laws. It really is getting closer every day where the saying "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns" is true.

----------


## Justin Case

> *So if I have a nervous condition that makes my hands shake, and I take a nerve medicine, I shouldn't own a gun?* Some "Mood altering drugs" are used to treat other things as well. I forget which one specifically, but one anti-depressant was/has been used to treat a Physical illness too.
> 
> Still ALL of those that "B" listed were "slip through the cracks" cases, that should not have owned guns WITH current legislation. No new laws are needed, just better enforcement of those laws. It really is getting closer every day where the saying "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns" is true.


No,  But If a person is prescribed such meds, there could be a database or something that can be searched as to why a person is taking it,,,  I dunno,  was just a thought,,  :Smile:

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> This type: wacko, schizo, paranoid instability with years of heads up, apparent to anyone who isn't deaf, blind and in denial. It's what Arizona, Virgina Tech and Fort Hood shooters all had in common. If _anyone_ thinks that keeping guns away from those type of lunatics constitutes a "slippery slope" then I'm truly speechless.


 The problem with these people isn't the gun laws.....it the privacy laws. It's the whatchacallit law....you know...like a hospital can't release info about a patient. Their doctors, or whoever, can't report their craziness to the databases. Even if this was not the case, where do you draw the line? If someone is thought to be dangerous enough, that if they had a gun, they might kill...they should be locked up. If they are crazy enough to kill, not being able to buy a new gun isn't going to stop them. If they are not enough of a threat, to be put in jail, why is it OK to take away there rights?

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to  obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background  check."


 He owned "Assault Weapons"? I haven't heard this before. All I knew was that he had the pistol, nothing else. Still even with this being the case,we don't need more laws to do this. Application, not legislation is what is needed.

 We don't need another law to "Fix" existing laws, just better enforcement of laws we already have! Some laws are just not enforced sufficiently, making MORE laws isn't going to change that. 

PM inbound B.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> He owned "Assault Weapons"? I haven't heard this before. All I knew was that he had the pistol, nothing else. Still even with this being the case,we don't need more laws to do this. Application, not legislation is what is needed.
> 
>  We don't need another law to "Fix" existing laws, just better enforcement of laws we already have! Some laws are just not enforced sufficiently, making MORE laws isn't going to change that. 
> 
> PM inbound B.


 That's what gun-grabbers call anything that you can put a magizine in, with more than 10 rounds in it. Or if it's black....or if it's a rifle with a pistol grip....or a flash hider....or a folding stock.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

Believe it or not, I'm glad that crazy S.O.B. used a gun, instead of a bomb. Do you realize how many people could have been killed, if he had used a bomb?


 How about that nut at Fort Hood? How many could he have killed with explosives?

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> That's what gun-grabbers call anything that you can put a magizine in, with more than 10 rounds in it. Or if it's black....or if it's a rifle with a pistol grip....or a flash hider....or a folding stock.


That's stupid. I can put all of those modifications on my 10/22, but no soldier in his right mind would use it to "assault" anything. Except rabbits,squirrels, and paper targets. Matter of fact my 10/22 already has a black synthetic stock, but it has a bright shiny barrel and receiver(nickel plated I believe) AND I have a 25 round magazine for it. Only a fool would consider it an "assault weapon".

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> That's stupid. I can put all of those modifications on my 10/22, but no soldier in his right mind would use it to "assault" anything. Except rabbits,squirrels, and paper targets. Matter of fact my 10/22 already has a black synthetic stock, but it has a bright shiny barrel and receiver(nickel plated I believe) AND I have a 25 round magazine for it. Only a fool would consider it an "assault weapon".


 That is what happens when laws are made out of and/or to play to emotion, rather than logic, and reason.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> That's stupid. I can put all of those modifications on my 10/22, but no soldier in his right mind would use it to "assault" anything. Except rabbits,squirrels, and paper targets. Matter of fact my 10/22 already has a black synthetic stock, but it has a bright shiny barrel and receiver(nickel plated I believe) AND I have a 25 round magazine for it. Only a fool would consider it an "assault weapon".


 BTW...I don't think you can buy a 25 round magazine for it in Cali. And I would guess it would also be an issue in Mass.

----------


## Justin Case

> That's stupid. I can put all of those modifications on my 10/22, but no soldier in his right mind would use it to "assault" anything. Except rabbits,squirrels, and paper targets. Matter of fact my 10/22 already has a black synthetic stock, but it has a bright shiny barrel and receiver(nickel plated I believe) AND I have a 25 round magazine for it. Only a fool would consider it an "assault weapon".


You could quickly kill up to 25 people with it,,,  Actually,,  a 22 is hyper velocity,, can penetrate a vest,,  it quiet,,  decent range and accurate as hell,,  seems to me it would be a pretty affective one for the homegrown terrorist,,

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> BTW...I don't think you can buy a 25 round magazine for it in Cali. And I would guess it would also be an issue in Mass.


 I have one, but don't think it is as good as the 10 rounder that comes with it. It fits sloppy in the Magazine well ,and the first round chambered is always a problem due to this. other than that it is handy to use for a running coyote.... Lord knows they are hard to hit. I can get them here all day long. ANOTHER reason I don't want to live in California, but even if that weren't so the 'quakes would keep me away.

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> You could quickly kill up to 25 people with it,,,  Actually,,  a 22 is hyper velocity,, can penetrate a vest,,  it quiet,,  decent range and accurate as hell,,  seems to me it would be a pretty affective one for the homegrown terrorist,,


I want to see the person that could pull THAT one off. Yeah I could kill 25 people with it *IF* they were ALL in close range,stood still, AND I was a good shot making every shot count. Truth is, Even with that amount of ammo I would be lucky to get 3 or 4. Some would come over and beat my butt and take it away BEFORE I could do all that. Might as well use a BB gun.

----------


## canid

> Only a fool would consider it an "assault weapon".


there are a damned lot of fools in law enforcement in idaho.

----------


## Justin Case

> I want to see the person that could pull THAT one off. Yeah I could kill 25 people with it *IF* they were ALL in close range,stood still, AND I was a good shot making every shot count. Truth is, Even with that amount of ammo I would be lucky to get 3 or 4. Some would come over and beat my butt and take it away BEFORE I could do all that. Might as well use a BB gun.


well ,,  I would fear getting shot with a 22 just as much as i would a full auto,,  they can kill just as dead,,  

btw,,  22 has been used lots of time to assassinate people,,
http://www.google.com/search?q=22+as...ed8f20a6bb9442

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> You could quickly kill up to 25 people with it,,,  Actually,,  a 22 is hyper velocity,, can penetrate a vest,,  it quiet,,  decent range and accurate as hell,,  seems to me it would be a pretty affective one for the homegrown terrorist,,


 Yeah....and I hear that they are really good for hunting brown bear, too. LOL

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> I have one, but don't think it is as good as the 10 rounder that comes with it. It fits sloppy in the Magazine well ,and the first round chambered is always a problem due to this. other than that it is handy to use for a running coyote.... Lord knows they are hard to hit. I can get them here all day long. ANOTHER reason I don't want to live in California, but even if that weren't so the 'quakes would keep me away.


 I like the factory 10 rounders. I've had the same experience as you, with the 25 rounders.

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> well ,,  I would fear getting shot with a 22 just as much as i would a full auto,,  they can kill just as dead,,  
> 
> btw,,  22 has been used lots of time to assassinate people,,
> http://www.google.com/search?q=22+as...ed8f20a6bb9442


Truth be told, I would hate getting shot period.... even by a BB gun. It hurts. "Full auto" refers to "rate of fire" with one trigger pull, not a higher caliber weapon. Yeah .22's have been used in assassinations, always in close proximity/range, and mostly when only 1 person was the target. Have you ticked anyone off that bad? I doubt it. .22's are supposed to be the "Assassins #1 choice" according to all you hear, However I would never even think of it. I have heard of someone being shot at point blank range and the bullet didn't penetrate the skull. I still say it is only good for small animals and wouldn't use it on anything larger than a dog, UNLESS there was no other option. Just too many variables. Oh it makes good hype, that it COULD be all you say it could be. But the scenario you proposed would require a magician..... Hey, maybe Sarge could do it.... he is a magician after all.

 Even using it as a last resort, self defense weapon I would want all 25 bullets for just one person, no more than 2 honestly.... not the 25 you mentioned above. Too many misses even by TRAINED professionals(LEO's & soldiers) in a shoot out. Save that scenario for "Miracle Marksman" or whatever it's  called on TV. It might be easy to hit all 25 with "Lethal" shots if they are only paper targets. But honestly that is a ridiculous claim. No... Ludicrous. JMO

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> well ,,  I would fear getting shot with a 22 just as much as i would a full auto,,  they can kill just as dead,,  
> 
> btw,,  22 has been used lots of time to assassinate people,,
> http://www.google.com/search?q=22+as...ed8f20a6bb9442


 Heck...I'm afraid of getting a flu shot. LOL

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> Heck...I'm afraid of getting a flu shot. LOL


Yeah, and not just because they hurt either!! Last time I got one was the sickest I've ever been in a years time. Flu shot? No thank you.

----------


## beetlejuicex3

Well.  Now that I have an excuse I'm getting on of these.

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## randyt

the objective of gun control is to eliminate private ownership of firearms period end of story. to achieve this it starts with a type of weapon that can be demonized pay no attention to the demon that used it on other people. then that firearm is ''controlled" essentially making it illegal. then a little time goes by and guess what the demon or another just like them is using a ten round magazine in his endeavours. so now we start all over with another batch of knee jerk laws that will not stop the demon. We need to pass more laws, now we're down to a 5 shot magazine and limit the number of mags a individual can own. Pretty soon it will get to the point where it's practically illegal to own much of a firearm. In the meantime the demon just keeps moving on to other ways to hurt their fellow man. Nothing changes except honest people pay the price for the demons action.

when will people realize there is not a law in existence and never will be that will stop a determined person from harming another. If there are honest people that believe that the anti gunners only want to regulate firearms they are wrong, the objective is to eliminate private ownership. one new law is just one step close. Don't buy the bull.

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> the objective of gun control is to eliminate private ownership of firearms period end of story. to achieve this it starts with a type of weapon that can be demonized pay no attention to the demon that used it on other people. then that firearm is ''controlled" essentially making it illegal. then a little time goes by and guess what the demon or another just like them is using a ten round magazine in his endeavours. so now we start all over with another batch of knee jerk laws that will not stop the demon. We need to pass more laws, now we're down to a 5 shot magazine and limit the number of mags a individual can own. Pretty soon it will get to the point where it's practically illegal to own much of a firearm. In the meantime the demon just keeps moving on to other ways to hurt their fellow man. Nothing changes except honest people pay the price for the demons action.
> 
> when will people realize there is not a law in existence and never will be that will stop a determined person from harming another. If there are honest people that believe that the anti gunners only want to regulate firearms they are wrong, the objective is to eliminate private ownership. one new law is just one step close. Don't buy the bull.


 If you run for office you have my vote.

----------


## Camp10

I wrote to both senators and my rep about the upcoming Obama gun grab.  It's all I can do until November.  I asked that they please fund enforcement of existing laws and avoid the knee-jerk emotion driven ban on firearms.  So far, I got a generic "thanks for your concern" reply from Rep Michaud.

----------


## Rick

Camp - I did the same thing. I've contacted both Senators and my district's Representative. I encourage everyone to do the same. Send them a respectful, courtesy letter expressing your concern. Here is the one I sent to my elected representatives. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator XXXXX

An online Newsweek article dated January 27, 2011 states the following,

"But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check."

While no one wants to see individuals that have been adjudicated as being mentally challenged obtain a firearm, I would rather see us enforce those laws that are already on the books. Please vote NO on additional gun laws and yes to enforcing those laws already on the books. Please help preserve the 2nd Amendment.

Sincerely, 

Rick XXXXXXX

----------


## Justin Case

Hey you and the Senator have the same last name !  thats weird !

----------


## Rick

He's my uncle. Uncle Sam.

----------


## Camp10

> Camp - I did the same thing. I've contacted both Senators and my district's Representative. I encourage everyone to do the same. Send them a respectful, courtesy letter expressing your concern. Here is the one I sent to my elected representatives. 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Senator XXXXX
> 
> An online Newsweek article dated January 27, 2011 states the following,
> 
> "But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check."
> ...


You have no idea how close that is to what I wrote.  I dont know if I should feel smart for thinking like you or if you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking like me!

----------


## Rick

Let's just consider ourselves wise monkeys and let it go at that.

----------


## Justin Case

> Let's just consider ourselves wise monkeys and let it go at that.


Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## Sarge47

> Truth be told, I would hate getting shot period.... even by a BB gun. It hurts. "Full auto" refers to "rate of fire" with one trigger pull, not a higher caliber weapon. Yeah .22's have been used in assassinations, always in close proximity/range, and mostly when only 1 person was the target. Have you ticked anyone off that bad? I doubt it. .22's are supposed to be the "Assassins #1 choice" according to all you hear, However I would never even think of it. I have heard of someone being shot at point blank range and the bullet didn't penetrate the skull. I still say it is only good for small animals and wouldn't use it on anything larger than a dog, UNLESS there was no other option. Just too many variables. Oh it makes good hype, that it COULD be all you say it could be. But the scenario you proposed would require a magician..... _Hey, maybe Sarge could do it.... he is a magician after all._
> 
>  Even using it as a last resort, self defense weapon I would want all 25 bullets for just one person, no more than 2 honestly.... not the 25 you mentioned above. Too many misses even by TRAINED professionals(LEO's & soldiers) in a shoot out. Save that scenario for "Miracle Marksman" or whatever it's  called on TV. It might be easy to hit all 25 with "Lethal" shots if they are only paper targets. But honestly that is a ridiculous claim. No... Ludicrous. JMO


 1st, farmers have put down cows with a .22, also many a Mountain Lion has met their end at the end of a .22 round.

2nd, A high velocity, hollow-point, .22 round can do a lot more damage than people give them credit for.  I've seen ads showing one that penetrated 8 bars of solid soap, and that's a lot thicker than a man's skull.  

3rd, Then there's the .22 Magnum.  I wouldn't want to be shot with any .22, I know that.   :Saddam:

----------


## BENESSE

> That is what happens when laws are made out of and/or to *play to emotion, rather than logic, and reason*.


That's exactly what a lot of yous guys do which, when not preaching to the choir, always always degenerates into a circular argument. So when two opposing sides engage each other in the same way nothing productive ever happens. I'm in the middle for a reason.

----------


## Rick

You are not. She is, too. Who asked you. Why I outta....

----------


## kyratshooter

> So if you're mentally unstable, hurry up and get yours NOW.


Does this mean you approve of access to medical records for firearm purchases?

If you have been hospitalized for treatment of depression, been on antidepressants (also used as stop smoking aids) like 10% of the American population, used the counseling services of your community for grief counseling or have been or could be diagnosed with PTSD for domestic abuse or any other reason that was beyond your control? 

Where does the government access stop?  Where does the "good of all" intersect with our individual rights? 

And when did a law abiding citizen that goes to a therapist lose his rights?

How about the Vet that goes to group sessions after rerurning home from combat.  They have been wanting to lump them in with all other psychos for a long time now!

The latest psycho was already declared a vertan/militia member/Teaparty activist by the media before the smoke had cleared.  None true, and he so far has no "history of treatment for mental illiness".  He may be a nut but it woul not have shown on any background check.

But your stop smoking pills would!

----------


## Rick

That's an excellent post! Cudos. There is a huge difference between someone that has been adjudicated as being mentally challenged and someone that has had mental health issues. Not all mental health issues make you a dangerous person any more than have a cold does. Everyone gets depressed sometimes. Should we punish those that seek medical help?

----------


## LowKey

The medical information ruling your are thinking of is the HIPPA regulations. They are there for a very good reason.

You can make all the laws and legislation in the world, ban guns completely even, but if some nut job wants one bad enough, he can get one without jumping through any of the legal hoops that legal gun owners have to jump through. I certainly wish this AZ shooter hadn't gotten his in a legal manner. 

Legislation making it more difficult for legal gun owners isn't the answer. Enabling _and funding_ the control of all the ILLEGAL methods of obtaining a handgun IS the answer. I do not understand why even people on here cannot understand this.

----------


## randyt

> Does this mean you approve of access to medical records for firearm purchases?
> 
> If you have been hospitalized for treatment of depression, been on antidepressants (also used as stop smoking aids) like 10% of the American population, used the counseling services of your community for grief counseling or have been or could be diagnosed with PTSD for domestic abuse or any other reason that was beyond your control? 
> 
> Where does the government access stop?  Where does the "good of all" intersect with our individual rights? 
> 
> And when did a law abiding citizen that goes to a therapist lose his rights?
> 
> How about the Vet that goes to group sessions after rerurning home from combat.  They have been wanting to lump them in with all other psychos for a long time now!
> ...




this is why I'll never seek help, I won't even talk to clergy. I won't run the risk of losing my rights because somebody decided I'm crazy.

----------


## Rick

I won't deny myself medical care because someone might do something. That's counter productive to me. But this whole new gun law thing has me in a bit of a quandary. It would be easy enough to bring back the assault weapons ban. I'm not sure there is enough support to pass it but I may hit the shop tomorrow and pick up an AR while I can. I don't have one and this is as good a time as any.

----------


## randyt

I'm fortunate for not needing mental health services.

----------


## LowKey

The AW ban never left Massachusetts even after the Federal law expired.
Personally I don't feel the need to own one, but if someone else wants one, at least they have the choice, for now.

----------


## Rick

Randy - you just never know when you might. I had a really tough time adjusting to retirement. I went from being on the go 18 hours a day to nothing in the course of one day. I talked to a counselor a couple of times and he gave me some tips and ideas to use that helped with that transition. Just being able to talk to someone that had some suggestions was very helpful. 

A death, a serious illness whether you are the care giver or the one with the illness, a sudden change in job status, all could be a real reason to seek out professional help.

----------


## randyt

Rick, this is true, I'll keep my options open. I'm really not as hard headed as I come across. well maybe LOL.

Have you adjusted to retirement?

----------


## crashdive123

Oh yeah.  He naps regularly now.

----------


## Justin Case

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## Rick

Oh yeah. It took about a month to settle down but I'll admit it was a tough month. I look back now and can't figure out what all the hubbub was about but it was what it was I guess. All of us define ourselves around something. Job, Church, Father, Artist, something. If that's suddenly gone then you loose a bit of your identity. Or at least your perceived identity. You just find another one. I'm using John Schwatz's from down the street at the moment but don't tell him.

----------


## Brazito

I'm gonna stock up on archery equipment. When that's made illegal I'll already have a stash of knives, swords and clubs. After that it will be hand to hand combat. How will they regulate that????????

----------


## Ted

I didn't read anything in the article about banning anything! Just tougher laws for ownership.

The guns laws in IL are pretty good, IMO. You have to get a gun card before you can buy a weapon or ammo. You have to have a gun card to hunt, even if you don't own the weapon your carrying. If you have a gun in your hands at anytime, legally, you have to have a gun card. They do a back ground check including mental. 

If you are put in a mental hospital, even for a evaluation, your card is taken. If you aren't nuts you get it back! If you are accused of domestic violence, your card is taken. If your found not guilty, you get it back!

I have had both happen to me and each time I got my card and guns back!

When I was in AZ in '79, if you were 18 you could walk in a gun shop, buy a gun, ammunition, walk outside, load it and carry it openly. As long as it wasn't conceld you where legal! That just seemed crazy to me! If it's still that way, well, that's crazy! The law should be changed.

----------


## randyt

Ted, at one time I would have agree with you 100 percent. I was a middle of the roader. then I seen what happened in australia and great britain. It just started out as regulation, bull. How do you ban firearms? the same way you eat a elephant, one little bite at a time.

----------


## Camp10

> I didn't read anything in the article about banning anything! Just tougher laws for ownership.


When I read the words "certain assault weapons" I understood that to mean (and I'll bet I'm right) that a new ban is coming.  Even if I'm wrong, making legal ownership tougher isnt a great idea either IMO.  Sorry Ted but I've got to disagree with you.  

Breaking the law is illegal, I know that sounds stupid but if I try to buy a gun when I am not allowed, I've already done something wrong.  I would just like to see convictions of this criminal act.  If there is no reason I cant legally own a gun, I shouldnt have to go through any crap to get a government issued card to buy a legal to own product.  

At one time in America, laws were made to protect individual rights, not to take them away.  The right to own guns is #2 in our bill of rights and second only to free speech, we would have to be fools to look the other way and let this right disappear one baby step at a time.

----------


## BENESSE

> I didn't read anything in the article about banning anything! Just tougher laws for ownership.
> 
> The guns laws in IL are pretty good, IMO. You have to get a gun card before you can buy a weapon or ammo. You have to have a gun card to hunt, even if you don't own the weapon your carrying. If you have a gun in your hands at anytime, legally, you have to have a gun card. They do a back ground check including mental. 
> 
> If you are put in a mental hospital, even for a evaluation, your card is taken. If you aren't nuts you get it back! If you are accused of domestic violence, your card is taken. If your found not guilty, you get it back!
> 
> I have had both happen to me and each time I got my card and guns back!


Makes sense to me. Wouldn't make sense to anyone who is afraid that they wouldn't get their card back. Plain and simple. You can spin it any way you want starting with the slippery slope. You'll just end up preaching to the choir, as usual.

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

You know I bought my first gun when I was 15. Just walked into the Western Auto and paid for the 30-30 that I had been admiring and saving for, for months. I cut a lot of grass, and raked a lot of yards and picked up coke bottles for 5¢ each, just to get it. Seemed like forever getting the $100+ to get it too. I walked out carrying that rifle and box of shells, and walked all the way home with it, and no one thought anything about it(not even the cop that passed by and kept driving). It was set alongside my 20 ga., 12 ga.Double barrel, and .22.... after I cleaned and oiled it. A couple of days later, I walked out with it and walked through my neighborhood to the woods and again no one thought anything about it. Walked in the woods and shot it a few times, walked back home and cleaned it again. My family was even proud of me for getting it all on my own, and being responsible for and with it.

Now here I am 35 years later and couldn't do the same thing today if I had to. If I needed that to live today, by hunting and foraging, I would have to make 2 trips to town. 1 for the gun(Oh and I couldn't walk with it in town either). 1 for the bullets. Plus having to go through Background checks. Funny thing though. There are at least 2 murderers with the same first name, middle initial, and last name. 1 is sitting on Death Row. I could walk home and back before the background check clears(I live 5 miles outside the city limits) EVEN with the Social Security number being different than the 2 murderers. While the legislation is a good idea, it has faults that new legislation won't help. Written words to little to change actions.

An analogy.... we write all kinds of stuff here about preps and survival.... yet still there are people that laugh at the idea of ANYONE prepping for disaster, natural or otherwise. But there are ALL Kinds of scenarios on situations where it could save your life. Yet still they laugh. People hear about Katrina stories, yet still they laugh. The words that have been written, not only by us, but by EMS's and such agencies Still do not change PRACTICES.

Until people in the "right places" start putting into PRACTICE what current legislation entails, we will continue to have horrible scenarios like many that have been mentioned. Not only Ft. Hood, Arizona, and Virginia Tech - but also Waco, and Ruby Ridge(Both because it was about guns and COULD have been handled differently, with less bloodshed). They are all horrible situations. People are dieing because the laws that are ALREADY in place, are not being enforced to the extent that they were intended by people in position to do so. Will more laws make these laws better enforced? I doubt it.

I agree with Randy, if laws keep being passed like this, eventually ALL guns will be outlawed... ALL of them. Will this cause people to stop dieing from violence? Short answer is no, it won't. It will just involve different tools, some of which are even more deadly and can kill more people quicker. Remember Oklahoma or 9/11? Funny but no guns were involved there.... What about the Unabomber? He never used a Gun either. Then we have baseball bats, lead pipes, knives, sharpened sticks, ropes, rocks.... the list goes on Ad Nauseum. Until we realize that people kill people... not guns....nothing will change. In Australia and Britain do we see murders stop because Guns were outlawed? No, murders still occur there even in the absence of Guns.Yeah I see more written words changing this.

----------


## randyt

Poco, what gets me is the folks that refuse to acknowledge what has happened in other countries, it all started as "regulation". it has nothing to do with preaching to the choir it's about fact. I was a FFL dealer for many years the existing laws on the books are immense. the ATF send dealers a copy of these laws, it is a book, a large book. why not try a novel approach and punish the criminals.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Makes sense to me. Wouldn't make sense to anyone who is afraid that they wouldn't get their card back. Plain and simple. You can spin it any way you want starting with the slippery slope. You'll just end up preaching to the choir, as usual.


 OK...think of it like this.....what if the same arguments and logic was applied to the first amendment. How would you...and how would the media be with that? You know...some people are crazy, and shouldn't be allowed to freely speak. If we keep allowing free speech, with no regulation, or back ground checks we end up with Jim Jones, and Charles Manson causing many, many deaths. Shouldn't the Gov't decide who is allowed to speak freely, so we won't have to face people like that? Then we will need to start outlawing certain phrases that have the ability to incite violence. Then, when we still have trouble, with people using words and phrases to stir up trouble, we will just keep regulating what phrases and words will be legal to use. I mean, after all, people don't _need_ huge vocabularies to get their point across. Why would they possibly _need_ all those big words?

----------


## BENESSE

> OK...think of it like this.....what if the same arguments and logic was applied to the first amendment. How would you...and how would the media be with that? You know...some people are crazy, and shouldn't be allowed to freely speak. If we keep allowing free speech, with no regulation, or back ground checks we end up with Jim Jones, and Charles Manson causing many, many deaths. Shouldn't the Gov't decide who is allowed to speak freely, so we won't have to face people like that? Then we will need to start outlawing certain phrases that have the ability to incite violence. Then, when we still have trouble, with people using words and phrases to stir up trouble, we will just keep regulating what phrases and words will be legal to use. I mean, after all, people don't _need_ huge vocabularies to get their point across. Why would they possibly _need_ all those big words?


Yeah, it's just like that 2D.
Insulting people with words is pretty much the same as assaulting them with guns. Problem solved, case closed. Shall we move on to the next item on the docket.

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> Shouldn't the Gov't decide who is allowed to speak freely, so we won't have to face people like that? Then we will need to start outlawing certain phrases that have the ability to incite violence. Then, when we still have trouble, with people using words and phrases to stir up trouble, we will just keep regulating what phrases and words will be legal to use. I mean, after all, people don't _need_ huge vocabularies to get their point across. Why would they possibly _need_ all those big words?


It already is happening 2D2K, just yell fire or bomb in the theater and see where that lands you. Haven't you heard the stories about people on airlines talking about football saying" He went out for a long bomb" being asked to get off the plane? Or same situation talking about a good meal/activity saying "It was the BOMB". Yes, today you should choose your words carefully. Also on TV you can't say Sh**, Pi**, CS (not Cowboysurvival),MF.... But you CAN say GD? No common sense anymore..........

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

Oh...and don't forget the arguments about the bill of rights being out dated. The first amendment didn't give rights to say whatever you want on the radio, or TV....or the internet. The founders clearly couldn't mean for you to be able to send your message to _that_ many people.....so you can still say what you want in your own home, but not broadcast it on radio, tv, or the internet.

Well......at home you still don't need all these fancy words, so you can only use Gov't approved words. That's OK, isn't it. We don't need to worry about any "slippey slope". (Oops....I'm not sure I can use that phrase.)

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Yeah, it's just like that 2D.
> Insulting people with words is pretty much the same as assaulting them with guns. Problem solved, case closed. Shall we move on to the next item on the docket.


 You don't think words kill?

----------


## BENESSE

Sticks and stones, 2D...didn't your parents ever teach you that when you were a kid?

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> You don't think words kill?


 Sure they do. Haven't you heard of the kids being harassed with WORDS committing suicide? And to think I was the one that didn't keep up with the news....sheesh.

----------


## BENESSE

MOM!!!...she called me a moron, he called me a dumb@ss, she called me names...
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. It's still true, IMO.

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> MOM!!!...she called me a moron, he called me a dumb@ss, she called me names...
> Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. It's still true, IMO.


Hmmm. What about that church/family that protests funerals?

----------


## BENESSE

Terrible...but the law allows it. We have to learn to marginalize them as the fringe lunatics that they are.

----------


## randyt

> Oh...and don't forget the arguments about the bill of rights being out dated.


sure it's outdated, haven't you heard, big brother came out with new fundamentals LOL.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Sticks and stones, 2D...didn't your parents ever teach you that when you were a kid?


 You ever hear the one about the pen being mightier than the sword?

Oh...and don't forget about all the "smart" people now claiming that words from certain talk show host, and political figures are inciting hatred and violence. They want to limit free speech. They say its killing/will kill many people.  :Whistling:

----------


## BENESSE

> You ever hear the one about the pen being mightier than the sword?
> 
> Oh...and don't forget about all the "smart" people now claiming that words from certain talk show host, and political figures are inciting hatred and violence. They want to limit free speech. They say its killing/will kill many people.


Whoever _they_ is, it ain't me, "smart" or not.

----------


## Justin Case

> You ever hear the one about the pen being mightier than the sword?
> 
> Oh...and don't forget about all the "smart" people now claiming that words from certain talk show host, and political figures are inciting hatred and violence. They want to limit free speech. They say its killing/will kill many people.


Nobody* Really* has "free speech"  ,,  by that I mean that anything you say can and will affect others, especially when you are in a position of great influence,,  This kind of position MUST be held with responsibility and accountability,  IMO   :Wink:

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> MOM!!!...she called me a moron, he called me a dumb@ss, she called me names...
> Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. It's still true, IMO.


 Maybe you should tell that to the people writing laws about "hate speech".

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Terrible...but the law allows it. We have to learn to marginalize them as the fringe lunatics that they are.


Same thing with the gun laws.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Whoever _they_ is, it ain't me, "smart" or not.


*Shhhhh....I can't name political parties, or this will be taken as political a comment, and thats not allowed, here.*

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Nobody* Really* has "free speech"  ,,  by that I mean that anything you say can and will affect others, especially when you are in a position of great influence,,  This kind of position MUST be held with responsibility and accountability,  IMO


 So, should it be against the law to say anything that anyone can take as out of line?

----------


## BENESSE

The point _I_ was trying to get across is that calling someone the worst names in the book 
isn't the same as shooting them DEAD. This may not be obvious to some people.

----------


## Camp10

> The point _I_ was trying to get across is that calling someone the worst names in the book 
> isn't the same as shooting them DEAD. This may not be obvious to some people.


All it took was the word "witch" in Salem 1692.

----------


## BENESSE

> All it took was the word "witch" in Salem 1692.


2D, if I called you a witch, I didn't mean it!

----------


## Trabitha

> Terrible...but the law allows it. We have to learn to marginalize them as the fringe lunatics that they are.


YEP!  Our freedoms go both ways.  When we pick and choose who is allowed to have our freedoms we run the risk of the same thing happening to us.
 :Wink:   Ya know...y'all should listen to B. more often.  She's a pretty bright chickadee!  LOL!

I think the saddest part of this entire thing is not that we're not going to be able to purchase something we may or may not want...but that regulation may be put into place for a single unstable individuals actions.  I... personally...don't like to live my life in fear. I certainly don't like being regulated because it's easier than keeping an eye out for the crazies.  It's reminiscent to gym class when I was a kid. (or what some experienced in basic training)  If ONE person messes up, you're ALL doing push-ups until you puke.  Doesn't matter how good a person you are or that you've never done a single thing wrong.  Just seems all wrong to me.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> The point _I_ was trying to get across is that calling someone the worst names in the book 
> isn't the same as shooting them DEAD. This may not be obvious to some people.


As it doesn't seem to be obvious to some people, that guns don't kill on their own. They are just one of many tools, that can be chosen by someone who has decided to kill.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> All it took was the word "witch" in Salem 1692.


Are Kens people(massholes) still allowed to use the word "witch"?

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> 2D, if I called you a witch, I didn't mean it!


 LOL....are you sure???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yBGP...eature=related

----------


## LowKey

> As it doesn't seem to be obvious to some people, that guns don't kill on their own. They are just one of many tools, that can be chosen by someone who has decided to kill.


Exactly.
Because someone owns a gun, it isn't going to make them shoot you.

I wonder how many people get killed by guns in  the UK even though they are banned...hmm
Yup, seems the criminals still have the guns even if the regular population is banned from owning them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-a-decade.html

That's how well it works, folks.

----------


## randyt

that's a interesting article. I've read the same in Australia and other places. For some reason it's
 against a criminals nature to obey the law. there will always be criminals and madmen.

----------


## Camp10

> Are Kens people(massholes) still allowed to use the word "witch"?


I dont know but I think I've used it a time or two down there!

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Exactly.
> Because someone owns a gun, it isn't going to make them shoot you.
> 
> I wonder how many people get killed by guns in  the UK even though they are banned...hmm
> Yup, seems the criminals still have the guns even if the regular population is banned from owning them.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-a-decade.html
> 
> That's how well it works, folks.





> that's a interesting article. I've read the same in Australia and other places. For some reason it's
>  against a criminals nature to obey the law. there will always be criminals and madmen.


 You guys are being silly. If they just outlaw guns, then criminals won't have them. You know.....just like heroin...and crack....and meth.


Oh....wait.....

----------


## BENESSE

> As it doesn't seem to be obvious to some people, that guns don't kill on their own. They are just one of many tools, that can be chosen by someone who has decided to kill.


I thought we were discussing the relative merits of allowing the insane to legally purchase guns like anyone else. Didn't know we were actually revisiting that favorite overploughed field where guns don't kill people, but rather, people kill people. 
Don't know about you, but I never get tired of hearing that one, no matter what we talk about. :Big Grin:

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> MOM!!!...she called me a moron, he called me a dumb@ss, she called me names...
> *Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me*. It's still true, IMO.





> I thought we were discussing the relative merits of allowing the insane to legally purchase guns like anyone else. Didn't know we were actually revisiting that favorite overploughed field where guns don't kill people, but rather, people kill people. 
> Don't know about you, *but I never get tired of hearing that one, no matter what we talk about*.


Oh now I see how you mean it.....

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> I thought we were discussing the relative merits of allowing the insane to legally purchase guns like anyone else. Didn't know we were actually revisiting that favorite overploughed field where guns don't kill people, but rather, people kill people. 
> Don't know about you, but I never get tired of hearing that one, no matter what we talk about.


 I went that simplistic, to point out how simplistic your "sticks and stones" argument is. You know very well the great numbers of people who have died/will die because of things being _said_.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> I thought we were discussing the relative merits of allowing the insane to legally purchase guns like anyone else. Didn't know we were actually revisiting that favorite overploughed field where guns don't kill people, but rather, people kill people. 
> Don't know about you, but I never get tired of hearing that one, no matter what we talk about.


 I still say that if someone is insane enough, that it is thought that they will kill, then they should be locked up. If they are not that insane, then just who decides what "rights" we allow them to keep?

----------


## BENESSE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IBZocFkXGY

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IBZocFkXGY


 Hey, wait a minute....is that another "uncle dad" joke, 'cuz I'm a southerner? LOL

----------


## BENESSE

> I went that simplistic, to point out how simplistic your "sticks and stones" argument is. *You know very well the great numbers of people who have died/will die because of things being said.*


You mean just like people who have died/will die because they were SHOT?

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> You mean just like people who have died/will die because they were SHOT?


Or stabbed, or beaten, or run over by a drunk driver, or given AIDS/overdose through IV drugs....etc... People die through LOTS of ways when laws are broken.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> You mean just like people who have died/will die because they were SHOT?


 Yep....dead, just like that. LOL

----------


## kyratshooter

> You mean just like people who have died/will die because they were SHOT?


Or were stabbed, or were beaten to death or were drowned, or were beheaded with machettes, or were stoned to death, or were hung, garotted or tortured to death?

How about poisoned or stomped to death, run down with cars, gassed in the holicost or had their bodies drawn and quarterd then beheaded.  And there was that English king that had a red hot poker shoved up his rectum.

How about shot full of arrows, killed with spears and split asunder with battle axes?  

The first person I ever knew that went to prison for murder did his deed with a 2x4.

Need I go on or has liberalism taken its full toll?

It is the people, not the equipment that is at fault.

----------


## randyt

or how about the night club fire a few years back that had several deaths, what was that 25 dollars worth of gasoline.

I think one of my favs is when Archie Bunkers daughter was bending his ear about handgun deaths and he gave her one of his looks and said "would you feel any better if they had been pushed out of windows"

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

I found this interesting.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

I wonder how many murders in S Africa are by gun? It is ranked #2 in murders per capita. Venezuela is number 4, Russia #5. The US Ranks #24.

----------


## BENESSE

Kyrat and Poco, you missed my point...that words no matter how hurtful, can't kill you, whereas physical force can. That's guns, knives, fists, whatever.
Someone _telling_ you they're gonna kill you is not the same as them shooting at you, stabbing you or strangling you. That's why LE doesn't do much when someone is being verbally threatened until there's an actual attack. We've seen it over and over again in domestic abuse cases. 
There's a difference between verbal and physical force, something I thought was obvious to most.

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

A Critical Analysis of Firearm Control in
Post-Apartheid South Africa
http://www.gunownerssa.org/documents...ford%20ch0.htm

WOW!! It seems that they are ALSO Trying the great "Gun Control" approach! Didn't do much for their murders per Capita did it?

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Kyrat and Poco, you missed my point...that words no matter how hurtful, can't kill you, whereas physical force can. That's guns, knives, fists, whatever.
> Someone _telling_ you they're gonna kill you is not the same as them shooting at you, stabbing you or strangling you. That's why LE doesn't do much when someone is being verbally threatened until there's an actual attack. We've seen it over and over again in domestic abuse cases. 
> There's a difference between verbal and physical force, something I thought was obvious to most.


 The point that you seem to be missing, is the amount of violence that words can and do incite.

----------


## randyt

> The point that you seem to be missing, is the amount of violence that words can and do incite.


so we need to outlaw tongues?

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> I found this interesting.
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita
> 
> I wonder how many murders in S Africa are by gun? It is ranked #2 in murders per capita. Venezuela is number 4, Russia #5. The US Ranks #24.


 Interesting info.

We have a little over three times the guns, per capita, that Mexico haves, yet their murder rate, per capita, is over three times what ours is.

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> Interesting info.
> 
> We have a little over three times the guns, per capita, that Mexico haves, yet their murder rate, per capita, is over three times what ours is.


 Keep digging, it gets even better/worse, when you do some other comparisons. Try some more "Civilized" nations.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> so we need to outlaw tongues?


Using liberals logic, we should. LOL
I was making the point of how bad folks would be yelling, if we applied what they were saying about the 2nd amendment, to the first amendment. (Back up a few pages....you'll get my point. LOL)

----------


## randyt

I know, I was just being silly.

----------


## BENESSE

> The point that you seem to be missing, is the amount of violence that words can and do incite.


Be that as it may, the law is making a distinction between "words" and "actions" and so was I.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> I know, I was just being silly.


 LOL...as long as this thread is getting, I figured people would probably miss half of the arguments. 
(I know I'm guilty of coming in on the latter pages of a thread.)LOL

----------


## BENESSE

As if anyone needs to be reminded, barking is protected, biting isn't.

----------


## Camp10

> Keep digging, it gets even better/worse, when you do some other comparisons. Try some more "Civilized" nations.


Wasnt there a town in Georgia that passed an ordinance back in the 80's that all homes had to have a gun and ammo?  I remember hearing about it but never looked it up.  The way I heard it crime rate dropped but I think it was a small town so there probably wasnt much for crime to start with.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Be that as it may, the law is making a distinction between "words" and "actions" and so was I.


 Then you should also make the distinction between "guns" and "actions".
(Or should I say, "gun ownership" and "actions"?)

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> As if anyone needs to be reminded, barking is protected, biting isn't.


Two words.... Castle Doctrine....also known by another two words....Self Defense.

----------


## randyt

I read somewhere that the murder rate has dropped in the US. I believe it was a FBI statistic.
could there be a connection between that statistic and the concealed carry laws that have become popular?

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> Wasnt there a town in Georgia that passed an ordinance back in the 80's that all homes had to have a gun and ammo?  I remember hearing about it but never looked it up.  The way I heard it crime rate dropped but I think it was a small town so there probably wasnt much for crime to start with.


Kennesaw Georgia, One of the LOWEST crime rates in the Nation if not THE lowest.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> As if anyone needs to be reminded, barking is protected, biting isn't.


Having the ability to bite *is*.

----------


## Camp10

> As if anyone needs to be reminded, barking is protected, biting isn't.


Thats right!  How do you stop a dog from biting you?  With force, perhaps?  Oh, by law a dog cant bark after 10 PM here in Maine if it is in an organized town.

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

Here you go Randy....
http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/...19257620070418

I love the title of this one..."25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA"
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196

----------


## BENESSE

> Then you should also make the distinction between "guns" and "actions".
> (Or should I say, "gun ownership" and "actions"?)


I do. 
If you cared to read and _think_ about for 5 seconds what I was saying you'd realize that ALL I was doing is making a case against the mentally unstable being able to obtain guns legally like anyone else. I was not advocating against gun ownership.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> I do. 
> If you cared to read and _think_ about for 5 seconds what I was saying you'd realize that ALL I was doing is making a case against the mentally unstable being able to obtain guns legally like anyone else. I was not advocating against gun ownership.


 You still haven't addressed my comments/questions about how unstable, and who desides how unstable you have to be to lose your rights, and who desides if someone is that unstable......and at that point, it will have to be OK to disclose this persons condition.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> I do. 
> If you cared to read *and think about for 5 seconds* what I was saying you'd realize that ALL I was doing is making a case against the mentally unstable being able to obtain guns legally like anyone else. I was not advocating against gun ownership.


 You're asking a lot! LOL

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> I do. 
> If you cared to read and _think_ about for 5 seconds what I was saying you'd realize that ALL I was doing is making a case against the mentally unstable being able to obtain guns legally like anyone else. I was not advocating against gun ownership.


I'll admit that. However It all comes back to the feeling more legislation is needed. I Don't think if 1,000,000 more laws are written about this single aspect would result in better enforcement. That anything MORE than what is being done already IF the laws are enforced. Yet if the current laws were already being enforced(Not just by LEO's) as they are SUPPOSED to be, no more laws would be needed. My point is, that there doesn't need to be any more laws concerning this, Added to the already thousands that are in existence NOW.

----------


## kyratshooter

> I do. 
> If you cared to read and _think_ about for 5 seconds what I was saying you'd realize that ALL I was doing is making a case against the mentally unstable being able to obtain guns legally like anyone else. I was not advocating against gun ownership.


It is already illigal for the mentally incompetent to own guns Ms. B.  

There is a direct question on the form asking if you are under treatment or medication for mental health issues. 

Due to federal law, (and its a good federal law) ones medical records, which include mental health treatment, are off limits to any but the medical profession.

Are you advoicating a mental health exam before one can purchase?  

Our doctor or theirs? 

If so how does the system access those medical records without violating their own HIPPA laws? 

My wife was in the medical profession and was not even able to access MY health records.  

How about your banker?  Should he not have access to yoru health records before making a home loan?  That is a lot of money he is approving for loan to someone that might have a medical condition that would make them unemployable latter on.  

How about your employer?  Should he not know if he is hiring an "unstable" person?  Credit check and criminal background check might not be enough to protect the workplace!

Where does it end.

----------


## Rick

I detest rants but here goes......

1. My internet has been down for two days and I'm having forum withdrawals. Aaaaaaagh!!!!

2. Ted - I'm from Illinois. Their gun laws suck salt water! There is no concealed carry. What's up with that?! At the risk of getting all political and stuff, has anyone looked to see how many Chicagoans are now in the Administration? He just added Martin Castro and Susan Swider. Just added William Daley as Chief of Staff!!!!!! Do you think it's just coincidence that Rahm Emmanuel is running for Mayor of Illinois? AND the Supreme Court said it's okay even though he lived in D.C.? Eyes and Ears folks. There's a plan a foot! 

3. Words - What's all this hubub about words? They only have power if you give them power. If you call me a bad name I can only be insulted if I allow myself to be insulted. My giving power to your words puts you in control and I won't have any of it. Sorry. Stick and stones is right. Remember, I can't MAKE you mad. You can only allow yourself to get mad. They are your emotions. Take responsibility for them. 

4. I caved. Yeah, I admit it. I'm not paranoid but I'm just paranoid enough to be concerned about all the new legislation that is going to come down the pike. All this talk of "Sputnik" moments and then end up with solar shingles and high speed trains. What a farce. Sooooooo.......I ordered a Rock River Arms yesterday. Sourdough put me onto it. It's on sale for 1/3 off!!!!!! I mean, that's a deal and half. The guy at the gun shop was beside himself and took my print out and ordered some himself for the shop!!!! Here's the deal: 

http://www.rockriverarms.com/index.c...ategory_id=461

I ordered the Elite Operator II. I've been wanting a Sightron Scope so I ordered a Sightron S1 3x-9x 40mm. Ammo!!! I need ammo!!!!!

Thank you to everyone that responded to my emails and PMs or posted on here. I appreciate all the input!!!!

----------


## crashdive123

I have a table at a gun show this weekend to try and sell a couple of my knives.  Yesterday - black rifles, 30 round mags for rifles (.223 and 7.62X39), high capacity mags for pistols were all very popular items.  One vendor I had talked to on Friday brought 1000 black rifles - many more than he normally brings.  I'm heading back to the show in a little while - I'll see if I can find out how many he sold this weekend.

----------


## Justin Case

So how much was the total cost Rick,,? (if you dont mind me asking)  Thats a damn fine looking weapon !

----------


## Rick

It was $1000.00 as the add shows. The dealer checked and they gave him a break so he could sell it for that. I'll have to pay a 7% sales tax once it comes in so it will be $1070.00 for the weapon. The scope was $134.00. I ordered a sling and some extra mags so that added another $136.00 but I ordered that from Rock River. 

Classic Arms has a pretty good price on 5.56 non-corrosive at the moment, about 3 cents a piece and they are reloadable brass. 

http://www.classicarms.us/

I'll call them tomorrow and order some.

There are some additions this weapon has that I really liked. The winter trigger guard is pretty nice. I've always had a problem with gloves and standard guards.

----------


## Justin Case

> It was $1000.00 as the add shows. The dealer checked and they gave him a break so he could sell it for that. I'll have to pay a 7% sales tax once it comes in so it will be $1070.00 for the weapon. The scope was $134.00. I ordered a sling and some extra mags so that added another $136.00 but I ordered that from Rock River. 
> 
> Classic Arms has a pretty good price on 5.56 non-corrosive at the moment, about 3.3 cents a piece and they are reloadable brass. 
> 
> http://www.classicarms.us/
> 
> I'll call them tomorrow and order some.


Ok,  I didn't see it on the add,,,      :Wink:

----------


## Camp10

> 4. I caved. Yeah, I admit it. I'm not paranoid but I'm just paranoid enough to be concerned about all the new legislation that is going to come down the pike. All this talk of "Sputnik" moments and then end up with solar shingles and high speed trains. What a farce. Sooooooo.......I ordered a Rock River Arms yesterday. Sourdough put me onto it. It's on sale for 1/3 off!!!!!! I mean, that's a deal and half. The guy at the gun shop was beside himself and took my print out and ordered some himself for the shop!!!! Here's the deal: 
> 
> http://www.rockriverarms.com/index.c...ategory_id=461
> 
> I ordered the Elite Operator II!


Now you need to get yourself one of these for it!

----------


## kyratshooter

It seems there is a trend.  

States with large urban getto areas (NY, Chicago, all California, DC & the eastern megalopolis) have attempted to control access to firearms through opperessive laws placed on all citizens and it has failed miserably.  Still, the people of those areas think they can legislate moral behavior while telling one that legislation of morals will not work. 

 Then, while their crime rates soar, the urban/liberal mind will attempt to place their restrictions on one and all in situations where those restrictions are identified as absurd and the crime rate is NOT out of control.

More people are killed by drunk drivers than all the firearms in the nation.  I do not drink so I am all for shutting down all alcahol production.  We tried that one, correct?  Worked real well did it not? That was a constitutional ammendment too. 

Illigal drugs waste more lives, seem uncontrolable, and have an extrremely stringent set of laws covering them.  So now we have a border verging on open war and a drug problem to match.  80% of our legal system is set up to handle drug cases.  Those laws have worked real well, correct?

Yes, I am against alcahol and dope.  You get those two substances under control, immidiately eliminating 85-90% of the crime in our nation, and you will not need gun control laws of any kind!


We live in two nations now.  I choose to live in the rural, conservative nation where my ability to protect myself and my family is honored and protected by the Constitution.  Where you live is your business but keep your hands off my rights under the Constitution.

Go ahead and write yourself a new Constitution if you wish, See how that works out for you, but do not attempt to impose your moral judgements and New Constitution on me.

----------


## Rick

I've seen a number of devices that let you do that. I've never seen that particular one, however. That's just one more thing to get me in trouble. As old and decrepit as I am that thing would slowly spin me around and everything in a perfect circle would be wiped out.

----------


## hunter63

News paper and advertizer EBR prices have just jumped in NW La. from $1000 to $1500 in the last two weeks.............again.

----------


## LowKey

Have they ever made it a law where it is illegal to own one, even if you already do?
As in, has any 'black rifle' ever been made confiscateable?

We have such crazy laws here in MA the list of allowable guns that FFLs can sell changes once or twice a year...actually it has nothing to do with the law but the MA Consumer Protection Agency. We have firearms on the approved State Roster list of permissible firelarms -ie Glocks- but if they aren't on the CPA 'approved' safe product list, they can't be sold. They couldn't ban guns so they had a non-elected body dream up a firearm testing scheme that a lot of gun companies won't submit to. The state gun organization GOAL, used the FOI Act to get the documentation on how it was set up. It wasn't about consumer protection, and it can happen anywhere.
An interesting read: 
http://goal.org/regulationpages/fraudreport.html

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

Congratulations on your purchase Rick!!

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> LOL....are you sure???
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yBGP...eature=related


Actually I prefer this version of that song.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R6nmKjcSeU

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Have they ever made it a law where it is illegal to own one, even if you already do?
> As in, has any 'black rifle' ever been made confiscateable?
> 
> We have such crazy laws here in MA the list of allowable guns that FFLs can sell changes once or twice a year...actually it has nothing to do with the law but the MA Consumer Protection Agency. We have firearms on the approved State Roster list of permissible firelarms -ie Glocks- but if they aren't on the CPA 'approved' safe product list, they can't be sold. They couldn't ban guns so they had a non-elected body dream up a firearm testing scheme that a lot of gun companies won't submit to. The state gun organization GOAL, used the FOI Act to get the documentation on how it was set up. It wasn't about consumer protection, and it can happen anywhere.
> An interesting read: 
> http://goal.org/regulationpages/fraudreport.html


 I guess it would depend on your definition of illegal. I'm thinking of fully automatic weapons. Technically, they're not illegal, but you see what I mean.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> News paper and advertizer EBR prices have just jumped in NW La. from $1000 to $1500 in the last two weeks.............again.


LOL...see. Even a dummy like me, saw this one coming.

I can't wait for crash's report. I bet this weeks gun shows were packed.

----------


## Justin Case

> LOL...see. Even a dummy like me, saw this one coming.
> 
> I can't wait for crash's report. I bet this weeks gun shows were packed.


Me too, I hope he takes a few pics !

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Me too, I hope he takes a few pics !


 Most of the gun show around here, don't allow picture taking.

----------


## Justin Case

> Most of the gun show around here, don't allow picture taking.


Yeah, I kinda wondered about that after i posted,,,,  I wonder why ?  they got something to hide ?  lol  (Paranoid guy)  "snort sniker"  lol

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Yeah, I kinda wondered about that after i posted,,,,  I wonder why ?  they got something to hide ?  lol  (Paranoid guy)  "snort sniker"  lol


 I don't want anybody taking a picture of me buying stuff at a gun show. It's nobodies business what I buy. Heck....I don't want anybody taking pictures of what I buy at the grocerie store, either! LOL

----------


## Justin Case

> I don't want anybody taking a picture of me buying stuff at a gun show. It's nobodies business what I buy. Heck....I don't want anybody taking pictures of what I buy at the grocerie store, either! LOL


http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=spy....c0.m270.l1313

LOL

----------


## crashdive123

I left the show a little early today, so don't know where this particular dealer will end up.  He sold about 300 yesterday.  Based on traffic, I'd be suprised if he reaced his 500 prediction.  Of course, he was only one dealer.  There were about 300 tables set up.

----------


## Camp10

> I left the show a little early today, so don't know where this particular dealer will end up.  He sold about 300 yesterday.  Based on traffic, I'd be suprised if he reaced his 500 prediction.  Of course, he was only one dealer.  There were about 300 tables set up.


Did you sell out(of knives, that is)?

----------


## crashdive123

I sold a few.  Seems like the guy selling the Pakistan specials with fake antler handles for $12 was a hit though.

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

But maybe by the ones that sold, you can now tell which ones might have more "Appeal" to potential buyers.

----------


## crashdive123

Based on what I've sold so far (before the show) I've got some ideas.  Looking forward to getting back to the shop to find out if I'm right.

----------


## Camp10

> Based on what I've sold so far (before the show) I've got some ideas.  Looking forward to getting back to the shop to find out if I'm right.


Pakistan and plastic? :Innocent:

----------


## Rick

(taking notes and looking up Pakistan dealers.......)(snort, giggle)

----------


## Rick

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## Justin Case

wheres the winch ?

----------


## Rick

She'll be along any minute. (snort, snicker)

----------


## dezertdude

You don't need a gun to kill someone...If they took away guns there would still be murders. People would just find other means. It's pointless. For what its worth IMO the governmental agencies don't even begin to have enough resources to attempt a gun grab. All it would do is start a war and they know it.

----------


## SARKY

Don't you find it incredible how our legislators are so willing to punish ALL of us for the transgressions of a few?

----------


## BENESSE

> Don't you find it incredible how our legislators are so willing to punish ALL of us for the transgressions of a few?


What, this is news to you, Sarky?
You just happen to care about this one more than others.
Don't make me count ALL the ways of how _I_ am being punished for things _I_ bear no responsibility for causing.

----------


## Rick

I don't think it's that at all. It's just a political ideal and you happen to be on the wrong side at the right time.

----------


## kyratshooter

> Don't you find it incredible how our legislators are so willing to punish ALL of us for the transgressions of a few?


It is called "collective salvation" and makes up a distinct part of the liberal agenda.  We are all responsible for the actions of each other both alive and dead, therefore we owe retribution for the sins of the past committed by all men.

http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/t...ew.asp?tid=187

----------


## randyt

> Don't you find it incredible how our legislators are so willing to punish ALL of us for the transgressions of a few?


I think it's more to do with power and control. Take our legislators out of their kingdoms and would feel differently about their legislation.

----------


## Trabitha

> She'll be along any minute. (snort, snicker)


Groan!   :Smile:

----------


## Rick

KY - Good post! I don't agree with it but that's secondary. You did a good post and supported your position. WooHoo!

----------


## Rick

I picked up 500 rounds of 5.56 55 grain NATO ball and 1280 rounds of 7.62X54 mixed between FMJ and soft point (about 50/50) today. I also ordered five 30 round mags for the AR. It comes with 2. As luck would have it, the entire shipment was lost in a terrible canoe accident.

----------


## randyt

Rick, I'm LOL, you're not really a good poker player are ya? by the way 20 rounders are handier for shooting prone. so if you reorder, you may want to consider that.
sorry about your canoe accident. <g>

----------


## Rick

Sadly, no. All my cards were in the canoe. (sigh).

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> I picked up 500 rounds of 5.56 55 grain NATO ball and 1280 rounds of 7.62X54 mixed between FMJ and soft point (about 50/50) today. I also ordered five 30 round mags for the AR. It comes with 2. As luck would have it, the entire shipment was lost in a terrible canoe accident.


tsk tsk tsk WHEN are you people gonna' change from those topsy-turvy canoes to good ole John boats? Sheesh!

----------


## BENESSE

*Why Not Regulate Guns as Seriously as Toys?*

"To protect the public, we regulate cars and toys, medicines and mutual  funds. So, simply as a public health matter, shouldnt we take steps to  reduce the toll from our domestic arms industry?"

It's a good, even-handed (IMO) read about a never ending debate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/op...R_AP_LO_MST_FB

----------


## crashdive123

B - I think I understand your intent, but I'm not sure the author of that article shares it.  He sites Jared Laughner as an example of why more gun control is needed.  I disagree, and here's why.  Jared Laughner didn't just "fall through the cracks" and purchase a gun.  Existing laws were ignored that allowed him to purchase a gun.  I believe that when all of the dust settles that the Pima County Sheriff's Department has the burden of blame here.  Not for the act itself - that belongs to Laughner - but for his access to firearms.  

The author also states that John Lott's findings in his book More Guns Less Crime have been debunked.  Again, I disagree.  The supposed debunking has come from anti-gun groups and their sources and methods of analyzing his data are suspect at best, outright lies at worst.

The author also states:  


> To protect the public, we regulate cars and toys, medicines and mutual funds. So, simply as a public health matter, shouldnt we take steps to reduce the toll from our domestic arms industry?


  I think that statement is very telling.  "to reduce the toll from our domestic arms industry?"  Really?  That's like holding the domestic automobile industry  responsible for the thousands upon thousands of deaths that occur each year on the highway.  Or so many other "industries" that produce products that if used improperly can cause harm.

Also, I do not consider the toys, medicines, mutual funds, etc. to be a Constitutional right.  Like I said - I think I understand your point, and agree that we should keep weapons away from those that are not mentally competent.

----------


## Rick

Folks should read the first comment in that article from "Peter" from Englewood, NJ. It is a great and logical rebuttal as anyone could put together.

----------


## randyt

here's a link from the FBI. Murder rates are dropping. How can that be in a country that has firearms.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/may/crime_052410/

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

No.... How can that be in a country that has firearms..... That needs tighter legislation to reduce the murder rate?

Here's the thing.... Gun control folks will NEVER be happy, even if guns are totally outlawed and just 1 Criminal still kills someone with a gun. There will still be fingers pointed at the "Evil" gun.... never mind about the person that uses it to commit murder, would still have used a Branch from a tree if he had to. After guns it will be crossbows, bows, and knives.

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

Randy the link didn't work for me.....

----------


## Rick

Try it now.

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> Try it now.


Thanks Rick.

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> The only increases in murders were found in cities of 25,000 to 49,999 (up 5.3 percent) and nonmetropolitan counties (up 1.8 percent).


Due to Illegal drugs no doubt, as Meth moves further out in the sticks. In one rural county near me, I would speculate that the major source of incoming dollars to that county is from Meth. There are no jobs other than local sawmills and a Walmart, other than the usual small town stores, utilities, etc. It has no factories(Other than the sawmill extensions where they make wooden pallets) any longer as all have closed down.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> *Why Not Regulate Guns as Seriously as Toys?*
> 
> "To protect the public, we regulate cars and toys, medicines and mutual  funds. So, simply as a public health matter, shouldnt we take steps to  reduce the toll from our domestic arms industry?"
> 
> It's a good, even-handed (IMO) read about a never ending debate.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/op...R_AP_LO_MST_FB


 Those things are regulated to insure that they are safe to use. There is not a problem with guns being safe to use. The problems arise from guns being _mis-used_. (And we already have laws dealing with that.)

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> *Why Not Regulate Guns as Seriously as Toys?*
> 
> "To protect the public, we regulate cars and toys, medicines and mutual  funds. So, simply as a public health matter, shouldn’t we take steps to  reduce the toll from our domestic arms industry?"
> 
> It's a good, even-handed (IMO) read about a never ending debate.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/op...R_AP_LO_MST_FB


 You gotta love the spin. From the article...



> We can also learn from Australia, which in 1996 banned assault weapons and began buying back 650,000 of them. The impact is controversial and has sometimes been distorted. But *the Journal of Public Health Policy notes that after the ban, the firearm suicide rate dropped by half in Australia over the next seven years, and the firearm homicide rate was almost halved*.


 Notice that they didn't comment on the total rates??? Soooo....did people just use other means???

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> You gotta love the spin. From the article...
> 
> 
>  Notice that they didn't comment on the total rates??? Soooo....did people just use other means???


Oh...and it also doesn't tell you that those rates went up the first couple of years, after the ban, and then came back down, making the rates for 5 years lower, but obviously not from the ban.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Oh...and it also doesn't tell you that those rates went up the first couple of years, after the ban, and then came back down, making the rates for 5 years lower, but obviously not from the ban.


 Oops...forgot to give my source.
Here ya go.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

----------


## Rick

He didn't read this article did he?

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...736501,00.html

----------


## Batch

I bought a couple of shooters. Wish they had'nt been stolen the day after this picture. 

No gov involved just a hand shake...

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...s/P1010201.jpg

Navy emblem 

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...s/P1010202.jpg

----------


## Rick

That's horrible news about the weapons. They sure were nice lookers while you had them.

----------


## oldtrap59

I have enjoyed reading this thread. All 184 posts. I have a question though. I bought a single shot 22 made by Daisy back in the 70's from K-mart as I remember. It has a black synthetic stock. I guess that would make it one of those very dangerous weapons. huh? I've used it for years on the trapline as it shoots shorts but I guess since it has a black stock it could be used for other things too. Some would be hard to convince that it's not an AR though. I've found over the years that those that fear guns the most tend to know the least about them.

Oldtrap

----------


## crashdive123

Those that call an AR15 an "Assault Weapon" have obviously never been pistol whipped by a .38 Special.

----------


## Camp10

> I've found over the years that those that fear guns the most tend to know the least about them.
> 
> Oldtrap


That seems to be a very true statement about nearly everything, not just firearms.  I have noticed though that nearly all gun grab articles start off with their author claiming to have shot a .22 back when he was a kid (or something similar to that).  I guess they are trying to establish some kind of credibility, you know, because everyone who ever shot a can when they were 9 is now enough of an expert to tell the dumbmasses why firearms are wrong for America.  Lol.  

Hey Rick!!  When is your new groundhog control device getting there?  Too bad it is probably just going to get lost in another canoe accident the very next day.

----------


## Rick

The dealer said 30-60 days and their web site says over 30 days so I'm shooting for tax day. Get it? shooting for tax day? (I slay myself)

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

Well since some of the atrocities committed with guns was mentioned here, I thought this MIGHT be the appropriate place for this article.....




> A 'string of failures' by FBI, Defense in failing to discharge Hasan


 More can be seen on this here....
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ischarge-hasan

 It would appear that nothing is wrong with current gun legislation, (at least in this case) merely those who SHOULD have caught on to the perpetrators motives. It seems his OER's (Officer Evaluation Reports) gave the FBI a false interpretation of his real motivation.

----------


## crashdive123

> Well since some of the atrocities committed with guns was mentioned here, I thought this MIGHT be the appropriate place for this article.....
> 
>  More can be seen on this here....
> http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ischarge-hasan
> 
>  It would appear that nothing is wrong with current gun legislation, (at least in this case) merely those who SHOULD have caught on to the perpetrators motives. It seems his OER's (Officer Evaluation Reports) gave the FBI a false interpretation of his real motivation.


This case in particular is, IMO a clear example of how political correctness gets people killed.

----------


## BENESSE

> I picked up 500 rounds of 5.56 55 grain NATO ball and 1280 rounds of 7.62X54 mixed between FMJ and soft point (about 50/50) today. I also ordered five 30 round mags for the AR. It comes with 2. *As luck would have it, the entire shipment was lost in a terrible canoe accident*.





> I bought a couple of shooters. Wish they had'nt been stolen the day after this picture.


See, that's why you guys can't be trusted with guns. You are just not responsible enough to keep them safe.  :Sneaky2:

----------


## Rick

I'll have you know that it was the shipping company that dunked them. CanoEx has had a problem lately with the winter weather.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> See, that's why you guys can't be trusted with guns. You are just not responsible enough to keep them safe.


 One day, I'll have to tell you about all the guns that I've lost to canoe accidents. LOL

----------


## OhioGrizzLapp

I am SOL, my congressman is Dennis Kucinich, My Gov is Kasich and my Senator is Mike Dewine & Voinivich.... all 4 want me to have no more than one each of a single shot .22 rifle, No more than a .30 cal 2 shot rifle, single shot shotgun and one black powder rifle (no inlines allowed) all or most EBR's will be consider assualt weapons regardless of mag cap. Ohio laws are going to change real soon for mag capacity and max caliber of pistol for CCW, CCW guns will need to be on an offcial OK'd list and registered. My 9 shot H&R 922 1951 revolver will become immediately illegal as a pistol of more than 8 shots regardless of caliber. There will be no grandfathering and if you have an outlawed gun, you can face State Felony charges at their will. 

5 weeks ago I went out and horded a small countries worth of .22's, .410, 30-30, 32 longs and .38's ammo, brass, reloading components and are in a Free State, just east of me. 

I honestly have zero power to stop it or change it as I am in an anti city, county and state, it is already rolling to a majority sign off, even NRA has basically given up here. 

It will not even matter if I write them, so I do not, I would rather not officially alert them of who and what I am..... If it had even a slight chance to be defeated here, I would be first in line to defend it.

----------


## OhioGrizzLapp

That is a Daisy VL-22 due to the type of ammo they use, caseless ammo  (can also use cased .22 as well).....it will be exempt from the "*Firearm*" laws, also they are considered C&R due to the unique ignition system. The VL-22 ammo is avail on gunbroker often, about the price of .22mag ammo. ATF says, if you use the intended VL22 ammo that it is NOT a firearm, if you use cased ammo, it is a firearm on the very first shot of cased ammo and cannot fall back to the VL-22 status.

----------


## Rick

There's a free state west of you, too.

----------


## kyratshooter

If Ohio passes the proposed laws you would actually be better off moving across the Lake to Canada and at least be insulted by polite people!

Never fear, you can come to KY at no charge and without a passport, YET.  Your jobs are leaving, your bussinesses are leaving and your population is lower each decade.  It is as if the king and nobles were trying to run people away using poverty and oppressive laws as their main tools.  

I may have to add them to my "states I will not go to" list along with CA, NY and IL.  Just getting close to the Ohio River gives me the ebby-jeebies as it is.

We may have to start charging for entry before long.  An "Impact fee" like FL had a few years back.

----------


## Rick

I once had an Ohio State Patrolman ask me if I was employed. In turn, I asked him if Ohio was still looking for a few good men. (snort, giggle).

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> I once had an Ohio State Patrolman ask me if I was employed. In turn, I asked him if Ohio was still looking for a few good men. (snort, giggle).


 How bad was your ticket?

----------


## Rick

The ticket was a given and I knew that but the guy was really being a jerk. He must have been having a bad day or something. He saw I had a radar detector in the vehicle and flipped out (yeah, he hit me with instant on so I knew I was toast). Then he started asking a whole bunch of stupid questions. By the time he got to are you employed (I was in a company vehicle) I had enough of his foolishness so I started giving him some back.

On another note, my ammo arrived today and as luck would have it every bit of it was lost in yet another terrible canoe accident. Aren't there some safety laws about canoes and such?

----------


## randyt

> On another note, my ammo arrived today and as luck would have it every bit of it was lost in yet another terrible canoe accident. Aren't there some safety laws about canoes and such?


ya know you're a shleprock. where did ya say you're canoeing?

----------


## Rick

There is a lake that you have to cross. It's like a giant mote thingy. Getting the FEDEX truck centered on the canoe is really a chore. And if there's any wave action at all you generally wind up loosing the load.

----------


## kyratshooter

Really wierd thing is that I order most of my canoe sinking materials from, of all places, OHIO!

SOG andf AIM are both over there.

----------


## BENESSE

I tell you guys, if you had no bad luck, you'd have no luck at all. What a shame...
i

----------


## Rick

I can attest that AIM now has less "go pop" stuff. It's at the bottom of the lake. (sigh)

----------


## Rick

Well, the gun shop called today and my RRA Elite Operator II is in. Time to load up the canoe and go fetch it tomorrow. WooHoo!

----------


## BENESSE

WooHoo nothing.
Friday should be interesting... :Oops:

----------


## Camp10

That's some good news!  Welcome to the world of black guns...at least until the canoe tips!

----------


## Sourdough

> Well, the gun shop called today and my RRA Elite Operator II is in. Time to load up the canoe and go fetch it tomorrow. WooHoo!


Soooo You and Native'Dude are going to canoe 200 miles to the Gun Shop....................hehehehehe

----------


## Rick

He said he would call but I haven't heard from him yet. And it's 250 miles. But what's a couple of more hours of paddling?

----------


## Justin Case

> Well, the gun shop called today and my RRA Elite Operator II is in. Time to load up the canoe and go fetch it tomorrow. WooHoo!


_Serious question_,,,,,  what are you going to do with such a weapon ?

----------


## Trabitha

> _Serious question_,,,,,  what are you going to do with such a weapon ?


Shoot it? LOL!!  I don't know...that's what I would do with it. LOL!!
OR...he could be preparing for the zombies to attack.   :Wink:

----------


## Rick

Well, here's what it looked like before the @#$# canoe tipped over. 

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## Justin Case

ok, what "Were" you gonna do wiyh a weapon like that ?  :Smile:

----------


## Rick

Sorry. I thought Trabitha answered it for you.

----------


## Justin Case

Zombies ?  ,,,,,

----------


## Rick

Shoot it. And whatever I want. Heck, I used it to chase a brownie selling girl scout cookies off the porch just before I posted that pic. Felt pretty good, too.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> ok, what "Were" you gonna do wiyh a weapon like that ?


 Hug it, and kiss it, and call it pet names....what difference does it make. It's his, and he can throw it in the back yard and pee on it, if he wants too. This *is* still America! LOL

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Shoot it. And whatever I want. Heck, I used it to chase a brownie selling girl scout cookies off the porch just before I posted that pic. Felt pretty good, too.


 Ooop's...sorry Rick, I was answering for ya. LOL :Blushing:

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Zombies ?  ,,,,,


 Rabid squirrels. LOL

----------


## Justin Case

> Shoot it. And whatever I want. Heck,* I used it to chase a brownie selling girl scout cookies off the porch* just before I posted that pic. Felt pretty good, too.


REALLY ???


Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## BENESSE

> Shoot it. And whatever I want.


In your dreams...you know, because of the canoe accident and all?

----------


## Justin Case

> Hug it, and kiss it, and call it pet names....what difference does it make. It's his, and he can throw it in the back yard and pee on it, if he wants too. This *is* still America! LOL


I was just curious !!  sheesh :Innocent:

----------


## BENESSE

> Hug it, and kiss it, and call it pet names....what difference does it make. It's his, and he can throw it in the back yard and pee on it, if he wants too. This *is* still America! LOL


Isn't that what your inflatable doll's for?

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> I was just curious !!  sheesh


 LOL.........Ken ain't here, so I pick on you. LOL

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Isn't that what your inflatable doll's for?


 I would never pee on my inflata.....uhhh.....I mean I don't have an inflatable doll!!! :Blushing:

----------


## Rick

Well, I finally got my AR15 to the range today. Holy cow! That thing is a tack driver! (Sorry, SD) but it is. I was using open sites at 100 yards and could reach out and touch anything I wanted to. Some moron had left a bunch of milk jugs on the range (I hate folks that don't pick up after themselves) and I was dancing those things all over the place. I have human silhouette targets and could make head shots or center mass at will. AND, AND, it has no recoil. I wasn't expecting much but it's not much more than a .22. This thing is Saweeeet. 

I had to site in the scope on the MN again today. How can you go to the range and not take an MN along? I can do okay with the MN and the scope but that dang AR is something else. 

I had picked up a light/laser combo for my .45 and the @#$# thing won't stay on. The recoil slides it forward no matter how tight it is. I sent a note to the manufacturer and asked them what was up with it. Anyone have that trouble before? I had it on a XD 45 with 4 inch barrel. The rail is a might short under the barrel but it's long enough to catch both screws so they exert equal pressure. Wasn't happy about that but a minor problem. 

Then on the way home the inevitable happened. That @#$# canoe tipped AGAIN. I gotta get a new canoe. I lose more guns that way.

----------


## OhioGrizzLapp

I use my inflatable doll as water wings as I forgot how to swim since the Navy.... ;-) 

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

Rick, some rails need to have chatter marks placed on them to hold gadgets, they come too well finished or just a hair out of tolerance and stuff like a .45 just jars them a lil too much. Everyone and their grandmother are making rails and accessories and some are way out of tolerance. 

LOL I have a ton of EBR piece parts over on the "Hey, you put it together" table....I got out of the EBR bizz like 2 years ago and what I have now are left over full uppers, lower kits, holos, grip pods and more freakin rails than any one man should have in one place....etc....

----------


## Rick

I really think that's the problem. There are no "cleats" on the rail. It's smooth on the XD and there is nothing to bite into.

----------

