Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?
Reply
0
0
Well, it doesn't look like ammo prices are going to come down any time soon...
1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It's Time For A National Conversation - Forbes
1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It's Time For A National Conversation - Forbes
I absolutely think there should be a conversation about this.
I tried finding some verification other than "tin foil hat" type sites and did find this article from National Review that I thought helped put some of the purchases in perspective by breaking them down per armed employee.
That second article also points out some other issues that should be part of that national conversation. For example, should the Department of Education have armed enforcement agents rather than coordinating with the FBI or other traditional law enforcement groups? Why are there so many damn overlapping beauracracies?
What justification is there for having domestic law enforcement agencies having mine-resistant armored personnel carriers?
I tried finding some verification other than "tin foil hat" type sites and did find this article from National Review that I thought helped put some of the purchases in perspective by breaking them down per armed employee.
That second article also points out some other issues that should be part of that national conversation. For example, should the Department of Education have armed enforcement agents rather than coordinating with the FBI or other traditional law enforcement groups? Why are there so many damn overlapping beauracracies?
What justification is there for having domestic law enforcement agencies having mine-resistant armored personnel carriers?
I spent a solid 10 minutes in MS Paint working on that
And I now 100% agree with this ludacris thread title, I *should* be able to own an RPG now that DHS has APCs. I mean, seriously...
One of my favorite quotes on the subject, as stolen from the Wikipedia:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia 2A Page
Some believe that the framers of the Bill of Rights sought to balance not just political power, but also military power, between the people, the states and the nation, as Alexander Hamilton explained in 1788:
Originally Posted by Hamilton
"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
Reply
0
0
Blue state post:
Connecticut proposals on guns, other items after Newtown
California lawmakers consider regulating, taxing ammunition
New York Democrats propose $10,000 fine for gun owners who don’t have insurance
Red state post:
Georgia town passes law requiring residents to own guns
North Texas plans to expand "Free Gun Program"
Connecticut proposals on guns, other items after Newtown
California lawmakers consider regulating, taxing ammunition
New York Democrats propose $10,000 fine for gun owners who don’t have insurance
Red state post:
Georgia town passes law requiring residents to own guns
North Texas plans to expand "Free Gun Program"
Last edited by Braineack; Apr 2, 2013 at 12:02 PM.
Reply
0
0
Gun insurance, because that makes sense. "But you can legislate that it cover unjust homicide." So you're telling me it's going to be ridiculously expensive, and there will be ridiculous fines for not having insurance. Sounds like an economic barrier to entry, if you want to own a gun legally, that is. Which criminals don't care, so it doesn't matter.
I read through the Connecticut proposal last night. Didn't they already have a fairly strict weapons ban? The rep for the NSSF said he felt like he was bringing second amendment supporters to talk to the legislators for no reason. Yay feel good legislation.
They're planning on doing the shotgun program down here, as well. Single shot with slugs. The neighborhood they're planning on has houses *very* close together. Slugs are a bad idea. I wouldn't even want to be firing #4 buck in that area.
I read through the Connecticut proposal last night. Didn't they already have a fairly strict weapons ban? The rep for the NSSF said he felt like he was bringing second amendment supporters to talk to the legislators for no reason. Yay feel good legislation.
They're planning on doing the shotgun program down here, as well. Single shot with slugs. The neighborhood they're planning on has houses *very* close together. Slugs are a bad idea. I wouldn't even want to be firing #4 buck in that area.
Reply
0
0
Tucson plans to raise penalties on those who fire weapons while legally drunk
So, it's illegal to fire a weapon in city limits, it's illegal to carry a weapon while drunk... so let's also make it illegal to fire a weapon in city limits while drunk?
So, it's illegal to fire a weapon in city limits, it's illegal to carry a weapon while drunk... so let's also make it illegal to fire a weapon in city limits while drunk?
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
After a vote was cast in the joint committee accepting the amendment, the Democrats took a quick recess and mounted a push to erase Smigiel's amendment. The Chair called the committee meeting back to order and issued an unprecedented, out-of-procedure "do-over" vote and reversed the confirmation of Smigiel's amendment. Listen to Smigiel describe the process on WMAL's "Mornings on the Mall" to O'Connor:
amendment 503422/xcdsacda passed 24 to 21.
11:40, after recess, and then a long debate they "recount" the vote, it fails 23 to 23 [13:50]. i counted 25 yays then 24 yays respectively...
now legal citizens are to be punished for criminal's actions.
The Maryland General Assembly posts video record of all of their committee meetings to the general public on their website. However, the video from the committee hearing in question is conspicuously absent from the official State website.
Last edited by Braineack; Apr 3, 2013 at 10:38 AM.
Reply
0
0
There have been 70,291,049 background checks for gun purchases since President Obama took office, according to data released by the FBI.
In 2009, the FBI conducted 14,033,824 background checks. If we subtract the month of January (Obama did not assume office until the end of the month) we get 12,819,939.
The FBI conducted 14,409,616 background checks in 2010, 16,454,951 in 2011, and 19,592,303 in 2012.
Add to that the first three months of 2013 (2,495,440, 2,309,393 and 2,209,407, respectively) and the total number of background checks under President Obama comes to 70,291,049.
Over the same time period, the number of background checks completed under President George W. Bush was 36,090,415, or about half the number conducted under Obama.
In 2009, the FBI conducted 14,033,824 background checks. If we subtract the month of January (Obama did not assume office until the end of the month) we get 12,819,939.
The FBI conducted 14,409,616 background checks in 2010, 16,454,951 in 2011, and 19,592,303 in 2012.
Add to that the first three months of 2013 (2,495,440, 2,309,393 and 2,209,407, respectively) and the total number of background checks under President Obama comes to 70,291,049.
Over the same time period, the number of background checks completed under President George W. Bush was 36,090,415, or about half the number conducted under Obama.
Reply
0
0
Denver Cops Criticize Obama In Advance Of Denver Speech « CBS Denver
Some current and former Denver police officers have taken to Facebook to criticize President Barack Obama’s planned use of Denver police officers as a backdrop for a Wednesday speech on gun control.
“This is wrong and it shouldn’t be happening,” said Mike Rossi, a retired Denver police detective who left the department in 2005.
“This is wrong and it shouldn’t be happening,” said Mike Rossi, a retired Denver police detective who left the department in 2005.
Reply
0
0
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 76
Total Cats: 0
From: Baltimore, MD
i have been mugged twice at gun point and shot once while running away from muggers (in the leg luckily), many of my friends have been mugged and beaten up on the very democratic streets of baltimore...
i vote MORE guns for the law abiding people, and dont get me started about why we should be able to defend ourselves from our gov.
i vote MORE guns for the law abiding people, and dont get me started about why we should be able to defend ourselves from our gov.
Reply
0
0
the last time I was held up at gun point, the dude was driving a car and came along side of me. I just walked away.
Why anyone chooses to live in Murderland is beyond me.
Why anyone chooses to live in Murderland is beyond me.
Reply
0
0
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 76
Total Cats: 0
From: Baltimore, MD
You got lucky...
I always have ran during those situations...
The first mugging went fine... i ran after one guy hit me in the face with his gun.
The second time I ran, but one guy decided it was worth killing me over and shot 6 or 7 times as I ran away, hitting me once
** Only reason I live in MD is because I was born here and my family is here. I will move one day...
I always have ran during those situations...
The first mugging went fine... i ran after one guy hit me in the face with his gun.
The second time I ran, but one guy decided it was worth killing me over and shot 6 or 7 times as I ran away, hitting me once
** Only reason I live in MD is because I was born here and my family is here. I will move one day...
Reply
0
0
I just read the text of the Amendment to SB 281 503422.
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013rs/am...1_50342202.pdf
To sum it up:
If you use a firearm to commit a crime, no probation, no parole, no good behavior.
If the victim of the criminal is a minor in certain crimes (sex crimes) same thing.
If the crime is simple possession of a firearm, you are still entitled to probation, parole, and good behavior.
And the Dems shut it down? Did they think that last part was "too soft" on gun crime? Or do they support releasing murderers and rapists on probation and parole, only for them to re-offend (usually spectacularly, like the guy in New York who was shooting first responders) so they can use it as an excuse to take our weapons?
And obviously longer prison sentences wouldn't deter gang crime even .001%.
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013rs/am...1_50342202.pdf
To sum it up:
If you use a firearm to commit a crime, no probation, no parole, no good behavior.
If the victim of the criminal is a minor in certain crimes (sex crimes) same thing.
If the crime is simple possession of a firearm, you are still entitled to probation, parole, and good behavior.
And the Dems shut it down? Did they think that last part was "too soft" on gun crime? Or do they support releasing murderers and rapists on probation and parole, only for them to re-offend (usually spectacularly, like the guy in New York who was shooting first responders) so they can use it as an excuse to take our weapons?
And obviously longer prison sentences wouldn't deter gang crime even .001%.
Reply
0
0
