Obama in the NRA Mag.

[Don Pertz]

Bill



Guns were all stolen last night. Except for muzzleloader, they must not have wanted that.

Catch me if you can...

 

[Bill Barber]

Great post adam, and to the point, your years of law school have served you well, been watching you for maybe 4 yrs.

your Eloquence in your chosen prof will serve you well (truley mean that in a good way)

When my main guy F.lee, b retires, will be in touch

 

[KentheREALone Z]

Adam & Bill;



I honestly have to disagree with your reasoning about a "hunting" single shot type firearm is okay, but a semi-auto really has no reason to be in a legal citizens hands. If I mis-read between the lines, please say so and correct me.



1st, you are putting your viewpoints on other people, in other areas of the country. Bill, I believe you live in CA, which is definately anti-firearms for it's citizens. I lived in NJ, which was on par with CA. I often felt like they were trying to one-up each other. I felt like a criminal with my legal firearms, especially while traveling to a legal shooting range. My worst offense was a speeding ticket. Yet if I missed complying with a myriad of ridiculous NJ laws while enjoying my firearms, I could suffer the wrath of the local D.A. Things like hollow point bullets (which were cheap ammo for plinking), traveling without ammo and firearm separated (one in glove box, one in trunk, both locked), having my firearms id card, and so on...



I know reside in NC, a state which permits their citizens to make choices when it come to firearms. I own semi-autos as well as others. I shoot in legal competitions with them. I shoot military and military type s/a's. .45 ACP's, M-1 Garands, M-1 Carbines, AR-15's. So am I a criminal? I think not. Should I be treated as a criminal? I think not. Should another state, or lawmakers in another state, have the right and privledge to dictate to me that I cannot own, shoot, admire, compete with my s/a's? I think not.



It can be very difficult to understand this, especially if one has never "lived" in another state, or region. Freedom to choose is what I understand my country to be about. If that means I need to reside in another state to have that freedom, so be it.



So I'll ask, please try to be objective and understand, that you may not understand, for whatever reason, why.



I don't judge what you like to do, please don't make assumptions and judge what I like to do. Bill, you obviously like hot rods. So what if CA tells you it's okay with a 4 clyinder, but a V-8 will land you in jail, cause we all know that V-8 hot rods mean speeding, reckless driving.



Thanks for reading.

 

[Bill Barber]

Ken yours is a good post, yes the Roush could get me in Trouble.

But out of all the steller military types you mentioned, only one (AR 15) is on my list of weapons that should be banned, what about the rest?

I had a class 3 FFL that I gave up 7 yrs ago, when people started converting AR 15s into m 16s (easy, takes 5 minutes) was not worth the grief anymore.

Do you have any Idea what it is like to have open books that the FBI can come in and inspect at any time without a search warrant and no prior notice?

certain guns have no usefull purpose in our society, thats all i said

 

[KentheREALone Z]

I agree with you Bill, no need for full-autos or a Class III. But the reality is, many, many don't understand the difference between semi and full. Just like the "black gun" or "assault weapon". Media hype, scare tactics and bad press from boyz from da hood.



If ANYONE really wants to understand what the majority is about, go to a CMP Match, open your eyes and ears. You will gain the utmost respect for those folks.... It happens every weekend all over the U.S.



Thanks for keeping this civil and an open discussion instead of a bantering match.



BTW, my wife love the 15, no recoil ...

 

[Bill Barber]

Agreed Ken, the 15s are fun, and ammo is cheap, real cheap, last gun show, 1000 rnds, 150 bux.

My point is controls need to be in place, certain weapons have no use other than killing machines, they should be banned.

when the 2nd was instituted, all we had were flintlocks, the times they have changed.

I think the constitution has to be changed JMO

 

[A K]

First, I may have painted to broad of a line with my brush. I'm more in line with Bill's thinking--i.e., there are certain weapons that seem to exceed all reasonable personal or recreational use necessities.



Second, I also grouped all semi-auto and auto weapons together. There is a difference between classes and within those classes. With respect to First, supra, though, I think that the more extreme weapons simply serve such little personal utility while creating the possibility for such great harm if passing to the wrong hands that some level of regulation or prohibition is necessary.



Third, I don't see the harm in a national registration system. I do see an almost impossibility in compliance, and constitutionally, in enactment. Anyone remember the federal crime for a handgun in a school zone, and how it failed the commerce clause (e.g., feds can regulate channels of commerce, but if not economic, the activity must have a substantial and particularized effect)? Congress would need to be quite precise in drafting. Even if it's passed, expect immediate court challenges. I doubt it'll ever happen.



Fourth, I've realized that under the stress of an impending bar exam is not the time for me to think neutrally. Time to go back to studying fed. Const. law.

 

[Bob Neimeyer]

oh-bama is scary!! share the wealth? redistrubution of of my hard earned money!!speaches in Berlin about socialism?!?!?!

If we're so shallow to vote on a "personality", then we deserve what we get. Don't get me wrong..McCain isn't my first choice either...but "change " just for change? the only thing this guy has or will change is his mind! You don't think it get any worse? How about a liberal pres. with a liberal congress?!!?taxes, taxes and more taxes...more government in our lives, hey, let's have the the government run our medical system, because they're so efficient...well, I could go on but why? all great empires must end at some point...we'll be a third world country before you know it! One more thing, energy...ALL the other countries with the right natural resources are utilizing them EXCEPT US!! there's no magic answer, the environmental nut jobs have this government by the balls, I'm all for saving some trees and species BUT AT WHAT COST? our existence?Do it all damn it, drill for shale, gas, coal, oil, harness the wind and sun and go nuclear while looking for other alternatives, but just DO SOMETHING..... SOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tom Schindler]

How about a liberal pres. with a liberal congress?!!?

Consertive is so much better? How is that possible?





Tom

 

[Roy Smith]

Ok,I was wrong about "taking obama out",but we can shoot him with our VOTES and make our ideas known!!

 

[Tom Schindler]

we must be able to over-throw a corrupt government (which might long over do in some opinions) and also be able to hunt for food if we need to.

While that idea sounds very wonderful, it is not possible to even happen.



You will NEVER get enough people together to stand up for what it right. No groups of people will ever be able to stand up to an army of any sort. By the time a group of people stand up and say we have had enough, a few sprays of pepper spray or a few gun shot wounds, and everyone will run back home like little children.



You are all living in a fairy tale world thinking running around with a gun saying we need to take down the government is laughable. It would take the whole nation to do this.



You will never get more that 1 % of the people to actually pursue it. The military's power gets stronger and stronger every day. Military personal are sworn to protect this country from all threats, both foreign and DOMESTIC. A group of people trying to march into DC to remove the president will never succeed. You are now a DOMESTIC threat. The military is sworn to protect the president. The military will win.



It is an admiral idea, it just will never happen. There are too many people out there that look out only for themselves and will take advantage of anything therefore undermining any sacrifices anyone else makes.





Tom

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

A gun or two or three for hunting, recreational or whatever target shooting is fine. Some folks have a hobby.



But a semi-automatic? An automatic? Are you going to hunt bears, and the bears are carrying grenades? Fear an ambush by an angry group of turkeys?

In certain northern European countries (namely Switzerland), all men and most women over the age of 18 are required to have not just rifles, but fully-automatic military-issue rifles in their homes at all times. What's the crime rate? Damn near zero.



I am a proud firearm owner. I have never hunted. Of my 13 firearms, 11 are military surplus. Of my 13 firearms, 1 is a revolver (Russian Nagant). Of my 13 firearms, 4 are handguns of one type or another. Of my 13 firearms, 1 is a shotgun. Of my 13 firearms, 6 are semi-auto (including my "dreaded" AK-47). Of my 13 firearms, 2 are currently listed as High-Capacity (13 shot handgun, AK-47). Of my 13 firearms, 4 would become "restricted" if HR1022 became law.



Am I a criminal? Of my 13 firearms, not a single person has been wounded or killed while they have been in my possesion.



The only "reasonable" restrictions should be to keep them out of the hands of children unless supervised (but Columbine and Jonesboro - oddly where I live, have proven that to be difficult), convicted felons and the mentally incompetant should be restricted. I am looking to buy a full-auto (which is legal to own and use, given the right "tax" paid), a suppressor, and looking to build a short-barrelled rifle.



Why is it that people think a comparison to driving is appropriate for guns? Firearms and the rights to them are guarenteed by our constitution and were declaired an individual right by the SCOTUS. Driving is a priveledge. There is a difference.

You will NEVER get enough people together to stand up for what it right. No groups of people will ever be able to stand up to an army of any sort. By the time a group of people stand up and say we have had enough, a few sprays of pepper spray or a few gun shot wounds, and everyone will run back home like little children.

It only takes a few thousand to get the ball rolling. Some patriots will die, no doubt. However, the military in most cases will not fight. Law enforcement will not be able to do much in many areas because officers will be in the fight.

Military personal are sworn to protect this country from all threats, both foreign and DOMESTIC

True. However, a revolution is not a domestic threat per the military and the military is barred from using force against it's own citizens. Most military men I know would rather turn their gun on themselves than a group of their own fellow citizens in their own homeland. You want to turn a localized revolt into a revolution? Turn the military on the citizenry.



And to all those who think that certain firearms should be banned because "what are they going to do against a modern military"? Need I remind you of what happened to Russia in Afghanistan? Aren't you also the same people that think Iraq is going poorly? if that's the case, what are the peasants in Iraq armed with? The same items of war that I keep in my house.



Come and get them.