What kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed?

[BasicHumanUnit]

The first step to a cure is to get this Hate, Hate, Hate out of the picture. We are having a pretty good discussion without you coming in here and bringing in the political BS into things.

The first step to a cure is to get this Hate, Hate, Hate out of the picture.

You meant TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH

As a hard core Lefty, you got a LOT of nerve accusing others of "hate"

Thanks for proving my point. You leftist are the most dishonest heathens and it's your policies that cause ANY "gun problems.

Face it

PS...it's in the POLITICS FORUM jackass

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I carry because the laws of my country and state say I have the right to.

Sorry, but if you think you need to be armed at a little girl's soft ball game, you're nuts.

You're last two words....but it's ok now, donnie dennison allows the mentally ill to carry.

There are already laws on the books that are supposed to keep those who are deemed "mentally deficient" from obtaining a firearm. The BATF Form 4473 asks "have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to an institution?"

There is no law that "allows" a mentally-defective person to "carry" a firearm, much less to purchase one. In order to obtain a concealed carry permit, one has to go through a full criminal background check.

The BATF Form 4473 was instituted during the Gun Control Act of 1968, and was signed by Democrat, LBJ.

Are you saying that the Democrat's gun laws don't work?

That's one of the weaknesses with our criminal justice system, in my opinion, relying on the honor system when dealing with criminals. A recent case in point is the individual who shot up his workplace in IL who was still in possession of his weapons after having been flagged and had their firearms rights revoked. Why would they rely on these individuals to "voluntarily" turn in their firearms?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Imagine for a moment that guns were fire extinguishers.....

It's like leftist go everywhere throwing gasoline and sparks on combustible materials, then get all bent out of shape because in response, people start carrying around fire extinguishers.

The ONLY reason we have a "gun problem" in this country is because the very people who want so desperately to "control guns" or take them away, make them absolutely necessary through their very poor social policies across the board.

Go back to the 1800's. CHILDREN carried loaded guns to school with them.
Correlation: liberal policies did not yet exist as we unfortunately know them today.

You need to do a little history reading before you present something like that garbage. Right after the war, there was a saturation of firearms. Rifles and Shotguns weren't the real problem and still aren't today. The problem was the release of the Walker Colt, SW and a few other models revolvers and the mass exodus of the newly released veterans with these weapons into the West. There were more Gun Regulations in Western Towns in the 1880s than there is today to deal with the rampant violence of the "Cowboy". You keep saying that we need more guns. What happened was, they had a saturation of guns. And we aren't any more civilized nor smarter today than they were back then.

 

[JGalt]

I guess you should keep your children and grandchildren at home.

Years ago I was in line at our grocery store, and I forget how the subject came up with a few other customers. But we were discussing armed citizens. An elderly lady said something similar to what you did. I asked her how would she know who is carrying? She said she could tell just by the looks of them. I asked if I looked like one of those people? She replied "Of course not, you seem like too nice of a man to carry a gun!" I was wearing my shoulder holster and pulled my jacket back to show her I did indeed have a gun, and I just smiled.

I suggest you look up what that action gets you under most States CCW laws.

Some state's laws call the accidental revealing of your carry piece "brandishing." My state doesn't have that provision in our law. Brandishing would be considered waving your weapon around and acting as if you’re going to use it.

He didn't "Accidentally" show it. In this state, that would be considered brandishing.

That sucks. We're lucky to have one of the most liberal concealed carry laws in the country: No course or qualification if you're a veteran, just provide your DD-214. $50 for the initial application and background check, permit good for 5 years, $25 to renew it, carrying in a posted business is just a misdemeanor trespassing charge if you refuse to leave, no rules against "printing" or accidentally revealing your weapon, or even revealing it on purpose. I can even carry concealed in a bar, as long as I'm not drinking anything alcoholic.

The only thing I can't do is carry inside a courthouse, police station, on the grounds of a public school, or in a nut house. We also have open carry too but the federal gun-free school zone laws apply, so you can't carry open within 1,000 feet of a public school. You can carry concealed within 1,000 feet of a public school, but not on the property. Otherwise you have to unload the weapon and put it in the trunk. The laws also did away with having to store a long gun in a case, so now you can just put them in the trunk. Unloaded of course.

I lived in Texas for 25 years and they have no restrictions on long guns. In other words, you can carry a loaded rifle or shotgun anywhere in your vehicle. The police tend to frown on that and rather you kept it out of sight.

In Colorado we also have the Veteran clause as well. But I suggest EVERYONE go through at least the short course. But it's better if you go through the 3 day course.

Most people should have some training, but I've been shooting, collecting, handloading and repairing firearms since the late 60's. Some competitive shooting under my belt and shoot thousands of rounds per year, in .380, 9mm, 7.65mm, .38 Special, .44 magnum, 30-06, 7.62X39, 7.62X51, 7.62X54, 6.5 Japanese, 7.7 Japanese, 7mm and 8mm Mauser, .22 rimfire, and .36,.44, 50, and 58 caliber black powder rifles and pistols.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I carry because the laws of my country and state say I have the right to.

Sorry, but if you think you need to be armed at a little girl's soft ball game, you're nuts.

You're last two words....but it's ok now, donnie dennison allows the mentally ill to carry.

There are already laws on the books that are supposed to keep those who are deemed "mentally deficient" from obtaining a firearm. The BATF Form 4473 asks "have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to an institution?"

There is no law that "allows" a mentally-defective person to "carry" a firearm, much less to purchase one. In order to obtain a concealed carry permit, one has to go through a full criminal background check.

The BATF Form 4473 was instituted during the Gun Control Act of 1968, and was signed by Democrat, LBJ.

Are you saying that the Democrat's gun laws don't work?

That's one of the weaknesses with our criminal justice system, in my opinion, relying on the honor system when dealing with criminals. A recent case in point is the individual who shot up his workplace in IL who was still in possession of his weapons after having been flagged and had their firearms rights revoked. Why would they rely on these individuals to "voluntarily" turn in their firearms?

In his case, it shouldn't have been voluntary. But the other side of the coin came into play. One side says that he shouldn't have his weapons (the liberals) while the other side says that it's his right to have them and you have no right to confiscate them. We tried to pass a law last year where when something like this may happen, the Law Enforcement can temporarily take the weapons with a court order. The Dem House passed it by a landslide by both sides but the Senate (Reps) wouldn't even let it out of comittee. This year, the Dems narrowly control both houses and the bill is being rewritten.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I suggest you look up what that action gets you under most States CCW laws.

Some state's laws call the accidental revealing of your carry piece "brandishing." My state doesn't have that provision in our law. Brandishing would be considered waving your weapon around and acting as if you’re going to use it.

He didn't "Accidentally" show it. In this state, that would be considered brandishing.

That sucks. We're lucky to have one of the most liberal concealed carry laws in the country: No course or qualification if you're a veteran, just provide your DD-214. $50 for the initial application and background check, permit good for 5 years, $25 to renew it, carrying in a posted business is just a misdemeanor trespassing charge if you refuse to leave, no rules against "printing" or accidentally revealing your weapon, or even revealing it on purpose. I can even carry concealed in a bar, as long as I'm not drinking anything alcoholic.

The only thing I can't do is carry inside a courthouse, police station, on the grounds of a public school, or in a nut house. We also have open carry too but the federal gun-free school zone laws apply, so you can't carry open within 1,000 feet of a public school. You can carry concealed within 1,000 feet of a public school, but not on the property. Otherwise you have to unload the weapon and put it in the trunk. The laws also did away with having to store a long gun in a case, so now you can just put them in the trunk. Unloaded of course.

I lived in Texas for 25 years and they have no restrictions on long guns. In other words, you can carry a loaded rifle or shotgun anywhere in your vehicle. The police tend to frown on that and rather you kept it out of sight.

In Colorado we also have the Veteran clause as well. But I suggest EVERYONE go through at least the short course. But it's better if you go through the 3 day course.

Most people should have some training, but I've been shooting, collecting, handloading and repairing firearms since the late 60's. Some competitive shooting under my belt and shoot thousands of rounds per year, in .380, 9mm, 7.65mm, .38 Special, .44 magnum, 30-06, 7.62X39, 7.62X51, 7.62X54, 6.5 Japanese, 7.7 Japanese, 7mm and 8mm Mauser, .22 rimfire, and .36,.44, 50, and 58 caliber black powder rifles and pistols.

There is shooting versus knowing when to pull your weapon. You already notice that both of us have slightly different ideas on that.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

You need to do a little history reading before you present something like that garbage. Right after the war, there was a saturation of firearms. Rifles and Shotguns weren't the real problem and still aren't today. The problem was the release of the Walker Colt, SW and a few other models revolvers and the mass exodus of the newly released veterans with these weapons into the West. There were more Gun Regulations in Western Towns in the 1880s than there is today to deal with the rampant violence of the "Cowboy". You keep saying that we need more guns. What happened was, they had a saturation of guns. And we aren't any more civilized nor smarter today than they were back then.

You're so full of shit.
More gun regulations than there are today....really?

You watch WAY too much TV son. The most violence in the Western US in the 1800's was due to violence between native americans and American troops and with Mexico.
Lookup the Mexican American war. Pay attention to the dates. Conveniently forgot the Alamo? Al?
Here's a link you bozo.
https://www.history.com/topics/mexican-american-war/mexican-american-war

Look at the sources of your propaganda. Most of the sources claiming how violent it was come from Leftist sources...NPR and so on. You people will even go as far as re-writing history. Was there violence? Of course. But check your sources carefully. Much of the BS that the left puts out is designed to change history and make the good guys look like the enemy. Big surprise there.

The less America is great, the more proud you and Michele are if it.

You're a typical Liberal who knows it all and Bullshits your way around.
Doesn't work on people who know better.

******* wackjob liberal nut.

You wanna start some shit with me? better know what the **** you're talking about.

 

[JGalt]

I carry because the laws of my country and state say I have the right to.

Sorry, but if you think you need to be armed at a little girl's soft ball game, you're nuts.

You're last two words....but it's ok now, donnie dennison allows the mentally ill to carry.

There are already laws on the books that are supposed to keep those who are deemed "mentally deficient" from obtaining a firearm. The BATF Form 4473 asks "have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to an institution?"

There is no law that "allows" a mentally-defective person to "carry" a firearm, much less to purchase one. In order to obtain a concealed carry permit, one has to go through a full criminal background check.

The BATF Form 4473 was instituted during the Gun Control Act of 1968, and was signed by Democrat, LBJ.

Are you saying that the Democrat's gun laws don't work?

That's one of the weaknesses with our criminal justice system, in my opinion, relying on the honor system when dealing with criminals. A recent case in point is the individual who shot up his workplace in IL who was still in possession of his weapons after having been flagged and had their firearms rights revoked. Why would they rely on these individuals to "voluntarily" turn in their firearms?

In his case, it shouldn't have been voluntary. But the other side of the coin came into play. One side says that he shouldn't have his weapons (the liberals) while the other side says that it's his right to have them and you have no right to confiscate them. We tried to pass a law last year where when something like this may happen, the Law Enforcement can temporarily take the weapons with a court order. The Dem House passed it by a landslide by both sides but the Senate (Reps) wouldn't even let it out of comittee. This year, the Dems narrowly control both houses and the bill is being rewritten.

The House Democrat's law is crap. They are trying to criminalize all private transactions done without a background check. That means no more "private sellers" at gun shows and I would become a felon for purchasing a firearm at a garage sale or a flea market. I'm not even going to say how many firearms I've bought at garage sales over the years. You wouldn't believe me.

They might get their stupid bill passed in the House, but it will never make it through the Senate, and the President wouldn't sign it.

 

[JGalt]

Some state's laws call the accidental revealing of your carry piece "brandishing." My state doesn't have that provision in our law. Brandishing would be considered waving your weapon around and acting as if you’re going to use it.

He didn't "Accidentally" show it. In this state, that would be considered brandishing.

That sucks. We're lucky to have one of the most liberal concealed carry laws in the country: No course or qualification if you're a veteran, just provide your DD-214. $50 for the initial application and background check, permit good for 5 years, $25 to renew it, carrying in a posted business is just a misdemeanor trespassing charge if you refuse to leave, no rules against "printing" or accidentally revealing your weapon, or even revealing it on purpose. I can even carry concealed in a bar, as long as I'm not drinking anything alcoholic.

The only thing I can't do is carry inside a courthouse, police station, on the grounds of a public school, or in a nut house. We also have open carry too but the federal gun-free school zone laws apply, so you can't carry open within 1,000 feet of a public school. You can carry concealed within 1,000 feet of a public school, but not on the property. Otherwise you have to unload the weapon and put it in the trunk. The laws also did away with having to store a long gun in a case, so now you can just put them in the trunk. Unloaded of course.

I lived in Texas for 25 years and they have no restrictions on long guns. In other words, you can carry a loaded rifle or shotgun anywhere in your vehicle. The police tend to frown on that and rather you kept it out of sight.

In Colorado we also have the Veteran clause as well. But I suggest EVERYONE go through at least the short course. But it's better if you go through the 3 day course.

Most people should have some training, but I've been shooting, collecting, handloading and repairing firearms since the late 60's. Some competitive shooting under my belt and shoot thousands of rounds per year, in .380, 9mm, 7.65mm, .38 Special, .44 magnum, 30-06, 7.62X39, 7.62X51, 7.62X54, 6.5 Japanese, 7.7 Japanese, 7mm and 8mm Mauser, .22 rimfire, and .36,.44, 50, and 58 caliber black powder rifles and pistols.

There is shooting versus knowing when to pull your weapon. You already notice that both of us have slightly different ideas on that.

I've already said that a firearm isn't meant for a first-response, only last resort. You also give up your right to be an asshole when you start carrying.

They won't teach you that in any class. I doubt if any of those class-taught gun-monkeys could even rattle off the four basic rules of firearms safety off the tops of their heads, without looking them up.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

You need to do a little history reading before you present something like that garbage. Right after the war, there was a saturation of firearms. Rifles and Shotguns weren't the real problem and still aren't today. The problem was the release of the Walker Colt, SW and a few other models revolvers and the mass exodus of the newly released veterans with these weapons into the West. There were more Gun Regulations in Western Towns in the 1880s than there is today to deal with the rampant violence of the "Cowboy". You keep saying that we need more guns. What happened was, they had a saturation of guns. And we aren't any more civilized nor smarter today than they were back then.

Again total BS.
You believe there was more "saturation" of guns in the 1800's than there is today? laughable.
Hint: What was the US population in 1850?

And yes, it was more civilized. People knew how to say "thank you" and "Yes sir" etc.
That's GONE today. have you not heard ANY of the disrespect the left has shown for the President and his administration? This was totally unacceptable in conservative America.

But you hard core Communists are doing your best to paint modern LIBERAL America as a Much better / safer place.

Well it's lies and propaganda. Which being a Colorado liberal I'm 100% certain you buy into.

 

[Rigby5]

Imagine for a moment that guns were fire extinguishers.....

It's like leftist go everywhere throwing gasoline and sparks on combustible materials, then get all bent out of shape because in response, people start carrying around fire extinguishers.

The ONLY reason we have a "gun problem" in this country is because the very people who want so desperately to "control guns" or take them away, make them absolutely necessary through their very poor social policies across the board.

Go back to the 1800's. CHILDREN carried loaded guns to school with them.
Correlation: liberal policies did not yet exist as we unfortunately know them today.

You need to do a little history reading before you present something like that garbage. Right after the war, there was a saturation of firearms. Rifles and Shotguns weren't the real problem and still aren't today. The problem was the release of the Walker Colt, SW and a few other models revolvers and the mass exodus of the newly released veterans with these weapons into the West. There were more Gun Regulations in Western Towns in the 1880s than there is today to deal with the rampant violence of the "Cowboy". You keep saying that we need more guns. What happened was, they had a saturation of guns. And we aren't any more civilized nor smarter today than they were back then.

Sorry, but that is not true.
First of all, everyone had guns back then, with at least a shotgun over the mantel, because there was more need.
There were a lot more dangerous animals and no police back then.
Second is that there were essentially NO weapons laws at all, except for pertaining to Blacks or slaves.
The western town, "no gun" rules ONLY applied to cowboys on cattle drives, in a few towns along the routes, and did not apply to citizens of the town, ever.
And even then, the cowboy came into down armed, and left armed.
It was only while they were drinking and gambling in the saloons that they had to turn in their arms temporarily.
So calling this "gun control" is not at all accurate.
Sheriffs has no jurisdiction over town citizens or anyone who was not headed for the saloon.

 

[Leo123]

I'm selling Anti Elephant Insurance for this area. Guarenteed to protect you from Elephant Stampedes. Every person that has purchased on is protected and not one single person that has purchase one of my policies has been trampled by an Elephant Stampede.

Yes elephants are definitely weapons of mass destruction!!! We should have "Elephant Free Zones" to protect 'the children" from stampedes in the streets of Berkeley.

 

[Rigby5]

I am old enough so that my father goes back to the turn of the century, and he was quite clear that even at 12 years old, he started carry a .410 to school every day so that he might shoot something for dinner that night. And so did most of the other male students.
So anyone who thinks there is any history of gun control, (except against Blacks), is really, really off base.
Firearms in the US has an extreme history of life and death survival.
Remember there were no police to speak of until around 1900, and there were lots of potential deadly threats, starvation being one of them.

 

[Leo123]

You need to do a little history reading before you present something like that garbage. Right after the war, there was a saturation of firearms. Rifles and Shotguns weren't the real problem and still aren't today. The problem was the release of the Walker Colt, SW and a few other models revolvers and the mass exodus of the newly released veterans with these weapons into the West. There were more Gun Regulations in Western Towns in the 1880s than there is today to deal with the rampant violence of the "Cowboy". You keep saying that we need more guns. What happened was, they had a saturation of guns. And we aren't any more civilized nor smarter today than they were back then.

Hollywood History ^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Gentlemen (excluding Daryl Hunt), it just rubs me the wrong way when leftists start pulling their propaganda like good little Marxists and laying it out as if they know everything.....and that Conservatives have just always been a ruthless bunch of rogues.

The constant subtle put downs they pile on Conservatives knows no bounds. And they believe all that they say because it's what they've been taught.

Despite what Colorado Hard Core leftists will tell you, Conservative America was FAR more civilized than the leftist "Utopia" of today.....with one exception.....that Rigby5 alrady pointed out....it is quite true that blacks were not treated well in the 1800's. That part is true. But that in no way affected gun violence back then....well it did...but in a different context.
However, modern America (mostly thanks to Republicans) has become a great place of opportunity for blacks.

Don't take ANYONE's word for it. Do your own research...but try to use sources that aren't tainted with agenda.

 

[Rigby5]

From the 3 million a year serious crime statistics, they have calculated that everyone will become a victim of a serious violent crime about 2.5 times in their lives.
So anyone who does not have weapons access, is being foolish or masochistic.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

That's one of the weaknesses with our criminal justice system, in my opinion, relying on the honor system when dealing with criminals. A recent case in point is the individual who shot up his workplace in IL who was still in possession of his weapons after having been flagged and had their firearms rights revoked. Why would they rely on these individuals to "voluntarily" turn in their firearms?

It's true the system has flaws and failures.
What's most important is to remember the "Spirit" of the 2nd Amendment and it's primary purpose.

We shouldn't let the actions of a few dictates the rights of the many.

As far as this case, perhaps there was a failure in this case where a visit to the home was warranted. This happens too often. The Parkland shooter had also been "flagged"

In a "free" society, there will always be a way for bad people to do bad things. Again, we need to keep the spirit of our laws in mind and how it affects the many.

 

[Rigby5]

That's one of the weaknesses with our criminal justice system, in my opinion, relying on the honor system when dealing with criminals. A recent case in point is the individual who shot up his workplace in IL who was still in possession of his weapons after having been flagged and had their firearms rights revoked. Why would they rely on these individuals to "voluntarily" turn in their firearms?

It's true the system has flaws and failures.
What's most important is to remember the "Spirit" of the 2nd Amendment and it's primary purpose.

We shouldn't let the actions of a few dictates the rights of the many.

As far as this case, perhaps there was a failure in this case where a visit to the home was warranted. This happens too often. The Parkland shooter had also been "flagged"

In a "free" society, there will always be a way for bad people to do bad things. Again, we need to keep the spirit of our laws in mind and how it affects the many.

I don't think "flagging" is reasonable or legal.
You can't take guns from someone without creating a 2 tiered society, or those with full rights and those with less than that.
If someone is dangerous and can be proven to be dangerous in court, than a judge should issue a warrant for his arrest, not for his legal guns. All that is going to do is ensure he will obtain illegal guns and do what they were concerned with.
Confiscating legal guns does not at all reduce the ability to get illegal ones any more than the War on Drugs eliminated illegal drugs.
The only hope of society is to lock up bad people, not all the possible means by which they could do bad, because that obviously is impossible.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I don't think "flagging" is reasonable or legal.
You can't take guns from someone without creating a 2 tiered society, or those with full rights and those with less than that.
If someone is dangerous and can be proven to be dangerous in court, than a judge should issue a warrant for his arrest, not for his legal guns. All that is going to do is ensure he will obtain illegal guns and do what they were concerned with.
Confiscating legal guns does not at all reduce the ability to get illegal ones any more than the War on Drugs eliminated illegal drugs.
The only hope of society is to lock up bad people, not all the possible means by which they could do bad, because that obviously is impossible.

I don't mean flagging literally. I mean once it has been determined or discovered that a firearm owner has become a prohibited person. For example in the case that I cited, the workplace shooter WAS a prohibited person who apparently was not honest on one of the forms that he was required to fill out. However once the discrepency was discovered via a federal background check to my understanding, instead of confiscating his weapon or issuing a warrant for failure to comply with a surrender order, they instead relied on him to voluntarily surrender his weapons.

In my state, if person who owns firearms has a protection order taken out against them (also known as a no contact/restraining order in some jurisdiction), they're required to turn in their weapons but in many cases no one follows up to see if they actually do.

Here's a flowchart of the domestic violence circumstances under which a person can be required to surrender their firearms but apparently except in very few cases, no one is enforcing the requirement

https://wscadv.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/order-to-surrender-flowchart.pdf​