Contact your Rep about gun control!

z31maniac wrote: Hate to say it, but I agree with Iggy on the some type of functional/competency test. *full disclosure, I do not have my CCL, but do know the requirements in my state* The *training* is an absolute joke. A few hours of classroom work on the laws surrounding CCL and then firing 50 rounds, split between 3 yards and 10 yards I believe. In my humble opinion, that is not nearly enough training. Granted I'm not saying this for owning a rifle/shotgun/handgun in your home, but for a CCL yes. *waits to see how many will lambaste this idea, whilst continually praising the German model of driver training*

I have no problem with this, but this is a state issue, not a federal one. In texas for the CHL license, its an 8 hour course plus test and shooting test, but i can also get a non-resident Utah permit that is reciprocated in Texas, but for that its only a 4 hour class and test, no shooting test required.

Re; Ignorant - there has never been a burden of proof of "need" or "usefulness" for any gun or gun part to be legal. my AR15 has a bayonet lug on it, but california has banned detatchable magazines, pistol grips, and bayonet lugs together, but separate they're OK... see a flaw there? here is the wording of how it is determined whether a gun is legal or not in california.

From: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

It also prohibits new civilian manufacture of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" declared certain weapons as assault weapons, and states a semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following: * A folding or telescoping stock * A pistol grip * A bayonet mount * A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one * A grenade launcher.

so if i forego the flash suppressor, collapsable stock, and bayonet mount, i can still have a grenade launcher, that makes sense, right?

aircooled wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: ^ tHAT I can agree with. Sadly that local law enforcement has been lacking for many years.

I'm sorry, so now we are arguing we need more government control over our lives? Just trying to point out a slight irony of the flow of this conversation. (I'll just sit here stirring this pot)

I don't think that is what he was saying. IMO, his point was that the local law enforcement didn't do their jobs, instead they kept dismissing the kid, rather that arresting, writing a report, getting him a psych eval, etc. this is not advocating for more government control in our lives, it is expecting those who are sworn to serve and protect, to do so.

Precisely!

Unfortunately, in the US, it's nearly impossible to get someone help for being "mentally ill" until they go out and do something crazy.

Strizzo wrote: I don't think that is what he was saying. IMO, his point was that the local law enforcement didn't do their jobs, instead they kept dismissing the kid, rather that arresting, writing a report, getting him a psych eval, etc. this is not advocating for more government control in our lives, it is expecting those who are sworn to serve and protect, to do so.

DING DING DING DING DING!!!! And we have a winner!!! Skip tell him what he has won!

This whole situation (and mind numbing thread) could have fully been avoided if the local law enforcement had followed up on this guy. There was obviously some sort of problem with this guy from the sound of his history. Heck on another forum they linked to his youtube account and lemme tell you there is some odd stuff in the videos he made.

Ignorant wrote:

Strizzo wrote: In reply to Ignorant: the reason you are met with a wall when you start discussing "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership is that it is a seriously slippery slope. also, who's version of "reasonable" should we use? mine? yours? nancy pelosi's? this guy committed a crime with a 33 round magazine, so people say "nobody NEEDS a 33 round magazine, lets outlaw them. then someone does the same with a 20 round magazine, what then? ban those? then someone else does it with a 10 rounder, what then? \

I got 3 cousins who are cops. Not one will support the need for a 33 round magazine. Also, in my years at the range... The only folks with stuff such as 33 round mags were the yahoos who usually got kicked off for being morons. The other funny thing is.. that most of the pro gun ban.. anti gun ban violence studies are noticably flawed... It's pretty much impossible to prove either side right or wrong. The ammo tax is coming guys.. Thats the next one. They'll just make it too expensive to own weapons.. I see that coming soon. I also see permits to own one becoming very expensive. That way your right to own one hasn't been changed.. Just gotta pay for it.

I agree with pretty much all of the above, though I will say your cousins' opinions are probably a bit skewed, knowing they'll be on the wrong end of any firearm they're not allowed to use on duty.

Otto Maddox wrote:

Sarah Palin?

Otto Maddox wrote:

I'm guessing shes an actress in some kind of "Hot Girls with Guns!" video. I bet after filming that she got in a cool car and was filmed repeatedly pumping the gas because it was Stuck

I'm guessing that's an air rifle and recoil is the least of her problems.

Cone_Junky wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote:

Sarah Palin?

The President has decreed such disrespectful rhetoric is out of place.

Get with the program, Winston.

Alright, not much new discussion since yesterday despite some rabid posting. Thanks for sharing your unwavering opinions with the community.

This train has arrived at lockdown central, but the points for and against are still there and the "contact your gubmint representative" links are still available.

I'm sure we'll do it again for the next tragedy/left wing invasion. See you then!