You knew it wouldn't be long after the tragedy for this to be brought up

#51
#51
BigPapaVol said:
First question immaterial and senseless.

I'll assure you that I can name more than 1 person who has given up their weapon of choice. One is as skilled of a rifleman as exists on earth, anywhere.

Dumbasses touting this idiocy about guns being the problem don't want names. They're stupid enough to buy that ruling liberal elites don't want to take them away.
Click to expand...

Two honest questions and not trying to pick a fight. One, what was the legislation that took this particular gun owner's weapon(s) away? I don't claim to be up to date on the issue, so I would like to know what's going on. And two, what was his particular "weapon of choice," as you say?

I support our 2nd Amendment rights, but I'm just curious.
 
#52
#52
CSVol said:
Not trying for "gotcha". Merely pointing out the false rhetoric that Barry and the "liberal elites" are doing everything they can to eliminate gun ownership. That tired old mantra has been played so much that I've come to believe the only real threats to gun ownership are dreamed up in NRA board meetings to increase dues. As for how the bill was structured, seems like every other piece of legislation. Enough Dems voted for it and the President signed it. They could have let it drag throught the same courts that blocked it.

And so there's no confusion, were guns allowed in a National Park before this law?
Click to expand...

If you don't think the majority of what would be considered the "liberal elites" wouldn't love to see private gun ownership savagely curtailed you either need to check your meds or start taking some, whichever applies to your current state. Do not confuse the fact that attacking firearms isn't a particularly useful tactic in the current political environment with their desires to do so.

With the above duly logged I'll agree that some of all this is overblown, in either pov. That's just what we live with these days. My clarification on the mechanisms involving Parks and weapons and the law being passed was to point out that having Obama go ahead and sign it has no business being used as some grand gesture of "See, Barry is all down your guns!" moment. It wasn't and he isn't.

As for guns in parks: firearms had been prohibited in National Parks. You could have them BUT they had to be stowed in such a way as not to be "readily available", such as cased and locked in a trunk. Weapon laws have always been more lax in National Forests vs Parks, so don't get those confused. You cannot carry in a Park unless, for instance, you are also able to legally carry down any other public street. In most cases anymore that means a permit of some type for your state where you are in the park.

The point of this was so nobody would interpret your simplistic assertion that they could carry guns in a park now. It's true, but only if you meet the legal criteria. Surely you can see the merit of my not wanting anyone getting the wrong impression about that?
 
#54
#54
volprof said:
Two honest questions and not trying to pick a fight. One, what was the legislation that took this particular gun owner's weapon(s) away? I don't claim to be up to date on the issue, so I would like to know what's going on. And two, what was his particular "weapon of choice," as you say?

I support our 2nd Amendment rights, but I'm just curious.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim he had his guns taken away. I claimed that our current administration wants them taken away and jump at every opportunity of this nature to claim that weapons are the problem.
 
#56
#56
Yup, here we go...

In the wake of last night’s shooting rampage in Colorado at a screening of “The Dark Knight Rises” that killed at least 12 people and injured 59 others, author Salman Rushdie tweeted this morning, “The ‘right to bear arms’ is the real Bane of America.”

Bane is the supervillain who faces off against Batman in “The Dark Knight Rises,” the latest installment of the Batman series of movies.

Salman Rushdie Sparks Furor With Colorado Theater Shooting Tweets - Speakeasy - WSJ
 
#58
#58
myrobbins7 said:
Yup, here we go...

In the wake of last night’s shooting rampage in Colorado at a screening of “The Dark Knight Rises” that killed at least 12 people and injured 59 others, author Salman Rushdie tweeted this morning, “The ‘right to bear arms’ is the real Bane of America.”

Bane is the supervillain who faces off against Batman in “The Dark Knight Rises,” the latest installment of the Batman series of movies.

Salman Rushdie Sparks Furor With Colorado Theater Shooting Tweets - Speakeasy - WSJ
Click to expand...

While I support our 2nd Amendment rights and don't think that Salman Rushdie should speak for those rights - whether we should or should not have them, I will also say that I've never had my life gravely threatened by militant Islamists like he has. Such a factor could possibly influence my thinking as well. However, he still shouldn't speak for us; it's not his place, although he's still entitled to his opinion.
 
#60
#60
burntorangeVOLffle said:
Shooter bought all his weapons legally according to this report.

Colorado Suspect Was Brilliant Science Student - ABC News
Click to expand...

it's a bit surprising that law enforcement officials are being tight-lipped about most of the on-going investigation, but a federal law enforcement official is willing to disclose that the weapons were legally purchased.

I'm curious to know how this part of the investigation was done and how law enforcement so quickly discovered where these weapons were purchased. as I understand it, you don't have to register your weapons in Colorado. also, as of last night law enforcement hadn't breached his apartment.

on a different note, when I think back to the Major Hasan shooting at Fort Hood, I seem to remember the media and law encorcent being unwilling to state that Hasan was Muslim and that he shouted "Allah is great" in Arabic before shooting. here, however, within 24 hours we know that Jame Holmes is white, he purchased his weapons legally, and he's already been suspected of being a tea partier.

apologies for the long post, but just posing some thoughts I had.
 
#61
#61
hndog609 said:
If you don't think the majority of what would be considered the "liberal elites" wouldn't love to see private gun ownership savagely curtailed you either need to check your meds or start taking some, whichever applies to your current state. Do not confuse the fact that attacking firearms isn't a particularly useful tactic in the current political environment with their desires to do so.

With the above duly logged I'll agree that some of all this is overblown, in either pov. That's just what we live with these days. My clarification on the mechanisms involving Parks and weapons and the law being passed was to point out that having Obama go ahead and sign it has no business being used as some grand gesture of "See, Barry is all down your guns!" moment. It wasn't and he isn't.

As for guns in parks: firearms had been prohibited in National Parks. You could have them BUT they had to be stowed in such a way as not to be "readily available", such as cased and locked in a trunk. Weapon laws have always been more lax in National Forests vs Parks, so don't get those confused. You cannot carry in a Park unless, for instance, you are also able to legally carry down any other public street. In most cases anymore that means a permit of some type for your state where you are in the park.

The point of this was so nobody would interpret your simplistic assertion that they could carry guns in a park now. It's true, but only if you meet the legal criteria. Surely you can see the merit of my not wanting anyone getting the wrong impression about that?
Click to expand...

Funny you mention meds and "liberal elites" in the same sentence. Do you see them everywhere? Who are they? If you're talking about some Hollywood nutjobs then yeah they probably don't own guns and don't want us to either. But the real elites, you know the ones in government, haven't effected my gun ownership one iota.

As to simplistic notions, before this law weapons in the parks were essentially limited to carrying them through. The notion being some people, hunters for instance, might have to travel through park areas with guns getting from A to B. Now the laws are basically akin to conceal/carry laws. Surely you can see the merit in this distinction.
 
#62
#62
BigPapaVol said:
First question immaterial and senseless.

I'll assure you that I can name more than 1 person who has given up their weapon of choice. One is as skilled of a rifleman as exists on earth, anywhere.

Dumbasses touting this idiocy about guns being the problem don't want names. They're stupid enough to buy that ruling liberal elites don't want to take them away.
Click to expand...

What in the wide wide world of paranoia are you talking about?
 
#63
#63
CSVol said:
But the real elites, you know the ones in government, haven't effected my gun ownership one iota.

As to simplistic notions, before this law weapons in the parks were essentially limited to carrying them through. The notion being some people, hunters for instance, might have to travel through park areas with guns getting from A to B. Now the laws are basically akin to conceal/carry laws. Surely you can see the merit in this distinction.
Click to expand...

Actually the Assault Weapons ban did exactly that and these "liberal elites" along with your average hoplophobe would happily bring it back and more. (Particularly handguns) Even now there are still restrictions, particularly in CA, about what you can and cannot own. While we're at it ask yourself what state of affairs brought the Heller and McDonald cases to SCOTUS. The real gist of this though is that it takes a positively galactic delusion to think that, if they could, Pelosi/Reid/Holder/et al wouldn't happily claw their way deep into the rights of private citizens rights to own weapons. They would love to do just that.


To the second part that's a pretty good summary. Your original assertion of "guns in Parks" lacked such detail, which is what I addressed. Interesting you'd close with the sarcastic note since you essentially reiterated what I'd been saying.
 
#64
#64
It will always be legal to have hunting guns in this country, shotguns, rifles, etc. AR-15's not so sure.
 
#65
#65
Different subject, but the knives laws here are so stupid. It's illegal in the city I work to have a pocket knife longer then 3". Imagine trying to prepare a meal at home with only a 3 inch knife.
 
#69
#69
lawgator1 said:
Sure.

People.
Click to expand...

Actually, they are widely used among hunters for their versatility, ease of acquiring cheap ammunition, range, mobility, and stopping power. But hey, don't let your lack of knowledge on this and many other relevant subjects stop you....
 
#70
#70
Perfect for hunting wild hogs. The backlash I've seen on FB is that this guy was able to purchase 6000 rounds of ammo and I'm thinking who cares how much ammo you can buy

Also the guy started off shooting people with a Remington 870. He probably got most of his kills with that
 
Last edited:
#71
#71
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Perfect for hunting wild hogs. The backlash I've seen on FB is that this guy was able to purchase 6000 rounds of ammo and I'm thinking who cares how much ammo you can buy

Also the guy started off shooting people with a Remington 870. He probably got most of his kills with that
Click to expand...

Agreed..I mean if Homeland Security can buy 450 million rounds, I think you should buy whatever you want also.
 
#73
#73
Through_The_T said:
Actually, they are widely used among hunters for their versatility, ease of acquiring cheap ammunition, range, mobility, and stopping power. But hey, don't let your lack of knowledge on this and many other relevant subjects stop you....
Click to expand...

Hunters use assault rifles ? Huh.

Like what, 1 percent of them ?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top