That's not enough, can't trust anyone to not leave things out.... there should be a test too, so we know they can be trusted with responsibility
Don't we do that for people that want to drive a car?
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
Quit comparing cars to guns... you guys always do that to distract from the real issue.. sheesh
The real issue? Okay guns are deadly. This demands that people be responsible and are held accountable for the way in which the weapons are handled or stored. So yes like many things in this life that demand adult behavior and accountability, there should be a course and a 2 hour battery exam along with a background check and registration before one can own a firearm. Why would you resist that? I know your freedom is more important than the collateral damage that is caused by this continued failure to demand people take responsibility for the weapons they own.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
The real issue? Okay guns are deadly. This demands that people be responsible and are held accountable for the way in which the weapons are handled or stored. So yes like many things in this life that demand adult behavior and accountability, there should be a course and a 2 hour battery exam along with a background check and registration before one can own a firearm. Why would you resist that? I know your freedom is more important than the collateral damage that is caused by this continued failure to demand people take responsibility for the weapons they own.
I resist nothing you suggest, this sounds dandy to me... and sounds like a fun course. I have fond memories of my Hunter Safety course to this day and would support proper training.
btw ... you don't have a 'right' to drive around on publically funded roads with a gun
Correct. That is more of a State governed privilege. In Colorado I enjoy this privilege.
From Colorado State Patrol Website:
What are Colorado's laws concerning firearms?
"Colorado allows a person to carry a firearm in a vehicle, loaded or unloaded, if its use is for lawful protection of such person or another's person or property. [C.R.S. 18-12-105(2)] Colorado law also allows a person to possess a handgun in a dwelling, place of business, or automobile. However, you cannot carry the weapon concealed on or about your person while transporting it into your home, business, hotel room, etc. Local jurisdictions may not enact laws that restrict a person's ability to travel with a weapon. [C.R.S. 18-12-105.6] The Act permits the nationwide carrying of concealed handguns by qualified current and retired law enforcement officers and amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213) to exempt qualified current and retired law enforcement officers from state and local laws prohibiting the carry of concealed firearms."
These rounds and these weapons are chosen by our military for their stopping power. Their ability to kill more efficiently and with fewer chances of leaving an enemy capable of fighting back.
Stop being a child on this issue. There are weapons that are more powerful than others.
Yet you make these ridiculous statements.
Ignorance is bliss. Do you really think a 223 is a better killing round than the 308 or 30/06. Which by the way was what the military used for many years. There was a reason they went with the 223 but you got it all wrong.
Just look at the flowers Lizzie just look at the flowers.
Correct. That is more of a State governed privilege. In Colorado I enjoy this privilege.
From Colorado State Patrol Website:
What are Colorado's laws concerning firearms?
"Colorado allows a person to carry a firearm in a vehicle, loaded or unloaded, if its use is for lawful protection of such person or another's person or property. [C.R.S. 18-12-105(2)] Colorado law also allows a person to possess a handgun in a dwelling, place of business, or automobile. However, you cannot carry the weapon concealed on or about your person while transporting it into your home, business, hotel room, etc. Local jurisdictions may not enact laws that restrict a person's ability to travel with a weapon. [C.R.S. 18-12-105.6] The Act permits the nationwide carrying of concealed handguns by qualified current and retired law enforcement officers and amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213) to exempt qualified current and retired law enforcement officers from state and local laws prohibiting the carry of concealed firearms."
Understood.... as I clearly stated: "That is more of a State governed privilege. In Colorado I enjoy this privilege"
you can read my statement that you quoted, right?
you have stated repeatedly in the past (and this is also an oft used NRA argument) that driving a car is not a right but owning a gun is ...
this sort of constructionist argument isn't all that accurate ... especially when you get into the use, carrying and transport of a firearm across boundaries involving public safety
even Scalia made note of this in Heller when assigning intent of the Second Amendment and home defense, etc
to say we keep 'confusing' cars and guns isn't at all accurate although it is an expedient deflection from the central issue ... public safety ... not everyone has the luxury of living as a hermit on lands paid for by the public :-D
... to further enjoy my vehicular gun-toting privilege I have a really nifty holster mounted to the center console.
kapewww.... pew, pew, pew!
wild wild west ****
...carrying and transport of a firearm across boundaries involving public safety
Responsible gun owners check State laws pertaining to the crossing of State lines with weaponry... emphasis on "responsible".
This is one of the legal areas where I applaud comic's suggestion of firearms classes.
whatever We The People decide unanimously and pass.... I can live with and be happy. I've never had a fear of Feds taking everyone's guns, that's not rational.
Most of these discussions are not rational, just dang fun having a pillow fight
The media has to keep the melodrama going by calling a 5.56 X 45 a very high power gun.
Here is where I have problem with your argument. You can argue kinetic energy all day long and I won't disagree with you. It is measurable. However "high-powered" is a subjective term, and you do yourself a disservice by arguing about it. You can say one firearm is more powerful than another in terms of units of measure, but you've drawn a boundary between high-powered and low-powered. That boundary is in your noggin'. There will be people who agree with you and those that don't, but you will never come to a consensus on where that boundary lies, because you are using a subjective term. By continually harping on it you are side stepping the point you mentioned (access) that you apparently feel is the heart of the issue. Why would I care about your argument on access when all you do is talk about subject terminology of technical minutiae.
"We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."
Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
I'd like to hear the minutiae as to how a .223 or 5.56 x 45 is Not a high power round
and then want it explained to me as to why the DOD and the taxpayer thought it wise to under equip me and the rest of the USMC as well as others in the military ...
can it be? people with yellow ribbons on their Yukons and Denalis don't actually support the troops
0
fishingcomicSenior MemberPosts: 23,392Senior Member
Yet you make these ridiculous statements.
Ignorance is bliss. Do you really think a 223 is a better killing round than the 308 or 30/06. Which by the way was what the military used for many years. There was a reason they went with the 223 but you got it all wrong.
Actually it is not I who thinks this. What you miss is I was in the military and read all the discussions on why the M-16 had more stopping power than the AK-47 which was also pretty good and the whole debate regarding the switch to the 9mm and how nobody wanted to do it because it lacked the knockdown power of the .45.
*The .223 tends to topple in the body when it strikes and destroys more flesh.
And you were not talking .308's you were comparing it to a .22 long rifle. Which is stupid.
From SSAM (Soldier Sailor Airman Marine)
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
What you miss is I was in the military and read all the discussions on why the M-16 had more stopping power than the AK-47
And you were not talking .308's you were comparing it to a .22 long rifle. Which is stupid.
Sitting at your desk?
I was comparing them to a .223 which is a .22 caliber, but a .22LR it is not.
Just look at the flowers Lizzie just look at the flowers.
COOKIE POLICY We use cookies to improve your browsing experience and help us improve our websites. For more information, please click here. By continuing to use our website, you agree to our use of such cookies.
PRIVACY POLICY Our Privacy Policy has changed. For more information, please click here. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the changes.
TERMS OF USE Our Terms of Use have changed. For more information, please click here. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the changes.
Replies
Don't we do that for people that want to drive a car?
I mean I know it's Utardville but what are the laws for storing a firearm in your vehicle in Utah?
if it's the case that he was careless and violated a statute then will all the gunrubbers demand the laws be enforced and he be prosecuted?
(I wouldn't hold me breath)
That I win.
The real issue? Okay guns are deadly. This demands that people be responsible and are held accountable for the way in which the weapons are handled or stored. So yes like many things in this life that demand adult behavior and accountability, there should be a course and a 2 hour battery exam along with a background check and registration before one can own a firearm. Why would you resist that? I know your freedom is more important than the collateral damage that is caused by this continued failure to demand people take responsibility for the weapons they own.
so there's a line in the sand with public safety?
btw ... you don't have a 'right' to drive around on publically funded roads with a gun
From Colorado State Patrol Website:
What are Colorado's laws concerning firearms?
"Colorado allows a person to carry a firearm in a vehicle, loaded or unloaded, if its use is for lawful protection of such person or another's person or property. [C.R.S. 18-12-105(2)] Colorado law also allows a person to possess a handgun in a dwelling, place of business, or automobile. However, you cannot carry the weapon concealed on or about your person while transporting it into your home, business, hotel room, etc. Local jurisdictions may not enact laws that restrict a person's ability to travel with a weapon. [C.R.S. 18-12-105.6] The Act permits the nationwide carrying of concealed handguns by qualified current and retired law enforcement officers and amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213) to exempt qualified current and retired law enforcement officers from state and local laws prohibiting the carry of concealed firearms."
Don't mess with me in my big ol Jeep
you hya?
Yet you make these ridiculous statements.
Ignorance is bliss. Do you really think a 223 is a better killing round than the 308 or 30/06. Which by the way was what the military used for many years. There was a reason they went with the 223 but you got it all wrong.
you can read my statement that you quoted, right?
Hopefully this helps. Cheers!
this sort of constructionist argument isn't all that accurate ... especially when you get into the use, carrying and transport of a firearm across boundaries involving public safety
even Scalia made note of this in Heller when assigning intent of the Second Amendment and home defense, etc
to say we keep 'confusing' cars and guns isn't at all accurate although it is an expedient deflection from the central issue ... public safety ... not everyone has the luxury of living as a hermit on lands paid for by the public :-D
kapewww.... pew, pew, pew!
wild wild west ****
Responsible gun owners check State laws pertaining to the crossing of State lines with weaponry... emphasis on "responsible".
This is one of the legal areas where I applaud comic's suggestion of firearms classes.
agreed
as a kid in Southern Ill I had to take a class and get a gunowners permit complete with photograph
the argument then was the gubbmint will be coming for all mah gubs
30+ years and counting in waiting for that grab
Most of these discussions are not rational, just dang fun having a pillow fight
You can start with the 91 freeway out here.
Yes.
Here is where I have problem with your argument. You can argue kinetic energy all day long and I won't disagree with you. It is measurable. However "high-powered" is a subjective term, and you do yourself a disservice by arguing about it. You can say one firearm is more powerful than another in terms of units of measure, but you've drawn a boundary between high-powered and low-powered. That boundary is in your noggin'. There will be people who agree with you and those that don't, but you will never come to a consensus on where that boundary lies, because you are using a subjective term. By continually harping on it you are side stepping the point you mentioned (access) that you apparently feel is the heart of the issue. Why would I care about your argument on access when all you do is talk about subject terminology of technical minutiae.
Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
and then want it explained to me as to why the DOD and the taxpayer thought it wise to under equip me and the rest of the USMC as well as others in the military ...
can it be? people with yellow ribbons on their Yukons and Denalis don't actually support the troops
Actually it is not I who thinks this. What you miss is I was in the military and read all the discussions on why the M-16 had more stopping power than the AK-47 which was also pretty good and the whole debate regarding the switch to the 9mm and how nobody wanted to do it because it lacked the knockdown power of the .45.
*The .223 tends to topple in the body when it strikes and destroys more flesh.
And you were not talking .308's you were comparing it to a .22 long rifle. Which is stupid.
From SSAM (Soldier Sailor Airman Marine)
Sitting at your desk?
I was comparing them to a .223 which is a .22 caliber, but a .22LR it is not.