Show off your big guns! (firearms pic thread)

[Prolongus]

Originally Posted by TheDuck

One sticking point is that our legal system/jails are already so overcrowded that I can't imagine where we would put anymore "criminals" who would fall under your new laws for having unlicensed weapons.

We could free up some jail room by releasing all the deadly, dangerous people who got busted for marijuana possession. That should make a few hundred thousand cells available. Sorry I got off-topic...but I think licensing weapons, ALL weapons...is a start. Some form of punishment for non-compliance doesn't mean my rights are taken away.

[bojulay]

Maybe we need the same gun laws that Australia has.

Jesus, Marry, Joseph, and the Three Wise Men.
Who could even make this stuff up.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gzJD7eKBX4

If the gun grabbers get their way this is where we are headed.
Or even worse.

This is what they will do, regulate and registrate until very few
will even bother to try and own a gun.

Small increments of regulation until the water is over your head.
But they will still be able to claim that it's still legal to own a gun
and the second amendment hasn't been taken away.

Jesus, surely I'm not the only person on here that can see that.

And don't call me Shirley.

[threepeckeredbillygoat]

You ain't shirley, and you ain't wrong.

[Guest021213]

Back to OP request: My companion

GLOCK 23

Multi purpose .40

Compact dimensions for open and concealed
carry, minimum weight despite large magazine
capacity in .40 caliber. This and the reliability
of the GLOCK pistol known throughout the world,
which was demonstrated through tests and widespread
use by US law enforcement agencies, were decisive
arguments for the F.B.I. and countless police authorities
for introducing the GLOCK 23 as their official service pistol.

Glock 23.jpg

[playerplano]

I know for many people this is an emotional topic. Both sides of the argument will shout "because I'm right and you are a moron if you can't see it!"

Here is an interesting study from Harvard, if anyone takes the time to read it !

The question needs to be defined . Is it more guns equals more murder, violence or suicide? Are you more likely to be violently assaulted and murdered in a country with more guns per capita? The answer surprised even the people who compiled the study!

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_stud...terproductive/

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by TheDuck

Bojulay,
I respect your right to your opinion, but disagree with your interpretation.

I have grown up with guns, support gun ownership, and do not want to see private rights curtailed any more than is reasonable...HOWEVER...even I believe that it's REASONABLE to make some changes to our culture.

We already have restrictions in types of weapons we can own, and I don't think many people have a problem with that. Fully automatic weapons and explosives, for instance, are restricted by regulations similar to what L4L is proposing above. While I think AR-15 type weapons are "cool" and I like to shoot them, I also recognize that they have great potential for modification to "full-auto" and have very large capacity magazines available, making them potentially "more lethal" than other designs. If you or I were to go crazy and hatch a plan to shoot up a place, we would be even crazier to NOT choose these weapons and several high capacity magazines.

L4L, yours is the first plan I've seen that sounds like someone has actually put some thought into, and I actually agree with most of it. One sticking point is that our legal system/jails are already so overcrowded that I can't imagine where we would put anymore "criminals" who would fall under your new laws for having unlicensed weapons. On the other hand, it's a start, and a decent model to begin discussions.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Merry Christmas, Duck (and everyone).

I just threw some stuff out there to stimulate thought. I don't think the controls I suggested are that tough unless you're already a criminal or you shouldn't have guns in the first place. Canada's controls are tougher than those I suggested.

I think guns (even AR-15 when appropriate) are fine if properly controlled. Resisting controls is going to lead to bans of certain weapons. I don't get why many of you don't see that coming. It's only a matter of time before someone heads to the supreme court to argue that the 'regulated militia' referred to in the 2nd amendment means something like national guard, NOT all you unlicensed maniacs. If you embrace control (not disarming), you can head that off. Resisting control, when it is so clear that the country has a major problem, is about as intelligent as resisting seat belts.

At a minimum, I see insurance requirements coming. How are you maniacs going to feel about paying $200+ per year for each handgun you own? Or $2000 per year for each assault weapon you own? Just like the difference between insurance for a truck and insurance for a Porsche. If Glocks kill more people than any other weapon, you can expect the premiums to be higher. There is profit involved in the 300M guns out there, so you can count on something like that making its way through the system. Fighting the NRA over the interpretation of the 2nd amendment is hard. Pointing the insurance industry and the liability legal community at 300M uninsured guns is an easy no-brainer. The Insurance companies will do the heavy lifting for the politicians. Brace yourselves.

Cheers,

L4L

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by bojulay

Yes ladies and gentlemen we have another post by L4L
about how he would just love to give up the right to
defend himself, and would just love for you to do the same.

Bojulay, I'm not suggesting that at all. If you can't understand what I'm posting, you should ask for help. I'm happy to make it simpler for you.

Cheers,

L4L

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by bojulay

Maybe we need the same gun laws that Australia has.

Jesus, Marry, Joseph, and the Three Wise Men.
Who could even make this stuff up.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gzJD7eKBX4

If the gun grabbers get their way this is where we are headed.
Or even worse.

This is what they will do, regulate and registrate until very few
will even bother to try and own a gun.

Small increments of regulation until the water is over your head.
But they will still be able to claim that it's still legal to own a gun
and the second amendment hasn't been taken away.

Jesus, surely I'm not the only person on here that can see that.

And don't call me Shirley.

Yes, adopting Australia's gun laws would be a step in the right direction. It's helped them a lot. Referencing a Tom Cruise trailer does not help your case. Just sayin.

I won't call you Shirley... you are clearly a Sheila. Ha ha ha.

Cheers,

L4L

[MaskingTape]

PM me if interested... looking to sell (or barter?)

[mansfield]

Originally Posted by Lust4XXXLife

. Latest US data says (again) if you are engaged in a violent attack, you are 4.5 times more likely to be shot if you are carrying. It's the escalation thing. It isn't my opinion, it's data. If you want to debate this point, explain it with data.

Please cite a source for this "data". I am going to guess that your data, like most anti gun stats, includes criminals who are armed and shot by the police or other criminals in the "shot while carrying" statistics, which makes the numbers pretty much useless when talking about armed private law abiding citizens.

Originally Posted by Lust4XXXLife

. It's only a matter of time before someone heads to the supreme court to argue that the 'regulated militia' referred to in the 2nd amendment means something like national guard, NOT all you unlicensed maniacs.

Do you just sit around and make this stuff up assuming no one knows better? What you describe here has already happened, and the Supreme Court ruled the exact opposite. It is not likely to ever be before the Court again in our lifetime, or probably the lifetime of our children. They also upheld the military style firearm ruling in Miller, since those rifles are now in "common use" (hard to argue the most commonly sold rifle in the US is not common use I would think). If there is another "assault weapon" ban the Supreme Court is likely to rule it invalid based now on Heller and Miller's "common use".

Miller says that firearms in "common use at the time" by the military are specifically protected by the Second Amendment. Miller was caught with a sawed off shotgun and the Court ruled that the only reason it was illegal was because it wasn't in "common use" by the military. This COULD potentially result in a ruling that full auto guns are being too restricted if any attempt is made to undo the National Firearms Act. The reason the anti's steer clear of messing with NFA is precisely because of this expected outcome.

DC vs Heller

Originally Posted by Supreme Court

The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: "'The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings...."
With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.

Also, in McDonald vs Chicaco they ruled that this applied to the states as well as DC, so there is no "out" there either. This is settled law now.

Originally Posted by Supreme Court

the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause.

The Second Amendment DOES apply to everyone, there IS a specific defined right to self defense, and outright bans of firearms in "common use" ARE ILLEGAL.

So if you are going to argue gun control you have to argue within those boundaries, period.

Registration, permits etc have not been before the Court but these basics are in place and no longer up for argument, at least for the next 70-80 years.

Your "insurance" argument likely fails as well since guns are a specific enumerated right, unlike driving or even healthcare. It's the same as arguing for a tax on Bibles. Won't hold up and the Roberts' Court calling Obamacare a "tax" disguised as insurance pretty much means there is no chance of applying the same to guns. The same thing was tried on voting, which is why the poll tax was void. So that one is dead before it begins.

Trying to do what was done in other countries simply won't work because of that pesky Constitution. We simply are a different nation from the others, like it or not.

[bojulay]

Just got a new Armalite SPR Mod 1 in 6.8 cal

Sweet! Sweet! Sweet!

Now to start accessorising.

Spank me with a rifle sling.

[skirtchaser79411]

I really need to take some pic and upload them i have a real bren ten from the 1980s one nice gun

[Guest010619]

Lust4xxxlife

4. No concealed carry permits. No guns in the public community. Latest US data says (again) if you are engaged in a violent attack, you are 4.5 times more likely to be shot if you are carrying. It's the escalation thing. It isn't my opinion, it's data. If you want to debate this point, explain it with data.

You gotta be fuckin kidding!
Ever hear of or remember the Luby's massacre? Over 20 people who had a great line of sight shot and no gun were killed by a nutcase who took his time. Your comment is unbelievably stupid, and as for Germany, gun control helped lead to the death of over 20 million people till socialism was pounded into the ground. A gun with a well adjusted laser will guarantee a single shot kill to the bad guy.

[LovingKayla]

Feb 8 at all state capitols for support of the 2nd amendment.

[TerraLyn]

My Christmas present to myself ??

GLOCK 27 40m
Yeay!!

I do sleep better also