Culturegunssexroakamproll

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 12:28 PM

 

Taking away guns

There have been a ton of arguments about politicians wanting to take away guns from the citizens. I need help finding a current quote (within the last 8 years) from a national politician saying that they want to take away legally guns from registered gun owners.

This has to be a first hand quote, not a "The NRA said that" type quote. It would be nice if you could link it to a site that isn't biased pro/anti gun. I want to know where this idea is coming from, and who is responsible for this reckless suggestion.

116 replies, 6648 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 116 replies Author Time Post
Reply Taking away guns (Original post)
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 OP
Duke Lacrosse Jul 2016 #1
Muddling Through Jul 2016 #2
Duke Lacrosse Jul 2016 #5
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #7
Duke Lacrosse Jul 2016 #32
DP46 Jul 2016 #44
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #74
Sam Jul 2016 #81
AZ0 Aug 2016 #112
Sam Aug 2016 #113
Hades Jul 2016 #64
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #75
Hades Jul 2016 #78
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #79
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #6
Crazy D Jul 2016 #12
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #19
Crazy D Jul 2016 #22
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #30
Duke Lacrosse Jul 2016 #33
Muddling Through Jul 2016 #35
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #37
Muddling Through Jul 2016 #42
Model10RB Jul 2016 #67
.30M1 Jul 2016 #38
kcci Jul 2016 #23
Hades Jul 2016 #13
Muddling Through Jul 2016 #15
Duke Lacrosse Jul 2016 #31
saundersnorvell Jul 2016 #66
Mouth of Chaos Jul 2016 #3
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #8
Crazy D Jul 2016 #16
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #21
.30M1 Jul 2016 #40
Mouth of Chaos Jul 2016 #85
i verglas Jul 2016 #68
quad489 Jul 2016 #4
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #10
eddiepina Jul 2016 #9
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #11
kcci Jul 2016 #14
Crazy D Jul 2016 #17
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #26
i verglas Jul 2016 #69
kcci Jul 2016 #73
i verglas Jul 2016 #82
kcci Jul 2016 #83
kcci Jul 2016 #18
eddiepina Jul 2016 #20
Crazy D Jul 2016 #24
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #27
Crazy D Jul 2016 #28
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #34
.30M1 Jul 2016 #41
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #47
.30M1 Jul 2016 #53
Hades Jul 2016 #77
i verglas Jul 2016 #70
kcci Jul 2016 #71
i verglas Jul 2016 #72
kcci Jul 2016 #76
i verglas Jul 2016 #80
kcci Jul 2016 #84
Hades Jul 2016 #25
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #29
Sam Jul 2016 #36
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #43
Sam Jul 2016 #52
Hades Jul 2016 #39
.30M1 Jul 2016 #45
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #49
Model10RB Jul 2016 #51
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #58
Model10RB Jul 2016 #60
.30M1 Jul 2016 #54
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #59
.30M1 Jul 2016 #61
Model10RB Jul 2016 #46
WritelyWrong Jul 2016 #48
Model10RB Jul 2016 #50
W Va moonshiner Jul 2016 #55
W Va moonshiner Jul 2016 #56
Model10RB Jul 2016 #57
Tovera Jul 2016 #62
Model10RB Jul 2016 #63
W Va moonshiner Jul 2016 #65
Tovera Jul 2016 #86
Crazy D Jul 2016 #87
Tovera Jul 2016 #88
Crazy D Jul 2016 #90
Tovera Jul 2016 #95
Crazy D Jul 2016 #96
Hades Jul 2016 #89
DP46 Jul 2016 #91
Tovera Jul 2016 #94
i verglas Jul 2016 #92
Juan Rico Aug 2016 #99
ToBeIgnoredIsWinning Aug 2016 #114
sentient_simian Jul 2016 #93
W Va moonshiner Aug 2016 #100
Crazy D Aug 2016 #101
Ax Crazy Aug 2016 #97
Model10RB Aug 2016 #98
oldenuff35 Aug 2016 #102
Model10RB Aug 2016 #103
oldenuff35 Aug 2016 #104
Model10RB Aug 2016 #105
oldenuff35 Aug 2016 #106
Model10RB Aug 2016 #107
oldenuff35 Aug 2016 #108
Model10RB Aug 2016 #109
oldenuff35 Aug 2016 #110
Model10RB Aug 2016 #111
meanitt Aug 2016 #115
oflguy Aug 2016 #116

Response to WritelyWrong (Original post)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 12:38 PM

1. First of all, let me assure you that most guns and most gun owners are not registered, therefore...

...taking guns away from people would be extremely difficult. And that is why many pro-gun people are so firmly against registration.

Now to answer your question:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/257172-hillary-australia-style-gun-control-worth-looking-at

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duke Lacrosse (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 12:45 PM

2. California has poisoned the well regarding registration

with the games they played with the "assault weapon" registry. First they just wanted a registry; then they changed the law to make those weapons illegal to own and sent the "turn 'em in" letters to the registered owners.

Probably explains the general non-compliance in NY and CT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 01:22 PM

5. Just this year California reneged on a deal that grandfathered ownership of magazines...

...that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

It's quite ridiculous - It's been illegal to import them to or sell them in California since 1/1/2000, so the only legally owned ones here are in the hands of people who are mostly over 34 years old and therefore unlikely to ever commit any kind of violent crime.

They are easily available and inexpensive in almost every other state, including all of the states that border on California, at least two states deep in every direction. Making them illegal to possess, without compensating their rightful owners, will do nothing to control violent crime. The only predictable result will be increased distrust of government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duke Lacrosse (Reply #5)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 01:55 PM

7. That only for a certain type of magazine

 

and not the gun itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #7)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:50 PM

32. If they think they can do that with magazines, they will try it with firearms.

The point is the state's word is no good.

The state cannot be trusted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #7)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 03:08 PM

44. But boy I bet you thought the Texas abortion laws were "banning abortion"?

The one requiring local hospital admitting privileges for any doctor performing abortions that wasn't really "banning abortions".

It was just a few "common sense" regulations for the "safety" of all concerned.

That's the problem with you lefties, you can't stop being obvious hypocrites with a double standard.

At the same time being inordinately proud of your ignorance on the gun issues under discussion.

Thankfully, every time you try to regulate/ban black rifles you wind up selling record numbers and driving the NRA, SAF, GOA paid membership up.

And now you have an official party platform guaranteed to piss off 80 million+ US gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DP46 (Reply #44)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 09:14 PM

74. WTF

 

what does stupid Texas abortion laws have to do with taking away guns. Please stick to the topic at hand and leave constructive comments please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #74)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 11:18 PM

81. Just think about it really hard.

You might just be able to understand how "small" changes in the law can really piss off the people.

That or you will continue to be intentionally obtuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sam (Reply #81)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 02:12 AM

112. Better to be obtuse

than acute when talking abortion. Why are we talking abortion in this thread?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #112)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 02:30 AM

113. I was drawing an analogy between two typically strongly held positions.

And the typical reactions to any attempt to restrict those positions.

How exactly is playing dumb ever the better choice? When trying to have a discussion or debate any hint of deception and any credibility you had (with those not firmly entrenched on your side) is entirely destroyed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #7)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 05:55 PM

64. Those magazines are costly property.

Up and declaring expensive property illegal to own, which was purchased legally, is unconstitutional. The law is being ignored. The people are keeping their magazines and the police have no way to enforce it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hades (Reply #64)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 09:17 PM

75. Well, once upon a time

 

Marijuana and Opium were legal to own too. The guns still work fine with magazines that hold a smaller amount of rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #75)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 09:51 PM

78. Interesting you use weed as an example.

As the left wing are also guilty of ignoring laws they don't like, such as states making weed legal, when federal law, which outlaws it, trumps federal law.

However it is a nice precedent. If semi-autos were banned federally, red states could do exactly what the left is doing with ignoring federal laws on illegals and weed by making semi-autos legal in their state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hades (Reply #78)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 10:19 PM

79. Individual States rights on banning/not banning guns is fine with me.

 

But the Supreme Court doesn't agree.

It would be nice if it were up to the states, instead of the Feds. to regulate non-military firearms. The states have a much better feel for their residents desires/needs. What is good for Utah may not be as good for Delaware.

Like cloths, one size does not fit all.

Thank you for the thought out reply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duke Lacrosse (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 01:53 PM

6. Aussy style is not a gun take-a-way

 

it is a "buy back" - no one comes to a owners home to seize a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:05 PM

12. It was confiscation.....when you make something illegal

And make it a felony crime to own after a certain date with criminal penalties then it's confiscation. The Aussies were required by their own laws to compensate the owners of the guns confiscated but that's why they labeled it a "buyback".

California has already proven gun owners can't trust democrats on any proposed "confiscation/buyback."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crazy D (Reply #12)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:11 PM

19. Please point me to an article that explains

 

this Australian law that made it illegal to own a gun that was purchased before the law went into effect. Again, a neutral source would be nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Crazy D (Reply #22)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:47 PM

30. Thank you

 

It is an interesting law that is worth looking at,and it doesn't ban all guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #30)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:52 PM

33. The old "Not all guns are banned, therefore there is no gun ban" bullshit tack.

We've heard that nonsense many times before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #30)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:54 PM

35. "They want to take away legally guns from registered gun owners. "

You never said all guns. This law takes legally owned guns from their owners.

Are those goalposts getting heavy, yet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #35)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 03:00 PM

37. Goalposts are never heavy

 

in the search of truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #37)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 03:05 PM

42. Moving the goalposts

is not a search for the truth.

It's a lie based on redefining the goals of a question once the facts don't support the narrative.

Fact: The Australian mandatory gun buy-back was confiscation. Weapons that were previously legal to own were declared illegal and required to be surrendered. This action had no measurable impact on illegal gun use, which continued on the same downward trend as before.

You asked for national politicians that supported taking legal guns from their owners. You were given examples and then tried to change the topic to "taking ALL guns". That's moving the goalposts, that's dishonest. Your inquiry was never a search for truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #42)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 07:48 PM

67. They (the guns) were crushed by construction equipment.

That in itself was a travesty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #30)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 03:00 PM

38. It bans guns that are legally owned and in the context of our Second Amendment...

...would apply to those weapons "in common use" if you were honest enough to understand the context. Typical of those like you, you aren't really interested in having an educated discussion on this topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #19)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:16 PM

23. Are you intentionally this ignorant?

 

"Australia had buyback programs in 1996 and 2003. Both programs were compulsory, and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government. Bought back firearms were destroyed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:08 PM

13. If it is mandatory, it is confiscation.

They didn't say "if you would like, you could sell us your guns". They gave them a period of time to sell their guns, after that any they kept magically became illegal.

That is confiscation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:08 PM

15. So, the owner retains possession of their property?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:48 PM

31. It was compulsory, therefore it was a confiscation.

Please don't insult us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 07:44 PM

66. Buy back? It wasn't a "buy back"

since the only way it could be a "buy back" is if the government sold the gun in the first place...no, it wasn't a buy back, it was a confiscation...mandatory turn in of legally owned personal property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Original post)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 12:45 PM

3. Diane Feinstein


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mouth of Chaos (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 01:56 PM

8. Sorry, but not within the last 10 years.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #8)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:09 PM

16. How about June 9th of this year

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crazy D (Reply #16)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:16 PM

21. Nothing said about taking guns away

 

She (just one member of the platform committee) doesn't think people should own guns (very non 2nd amendment talk.) I also don't think that is is a member of congress either, just an appointed political party member.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #21)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 03:02 PM

40. Shifting of the goal posts already.

You aren't interested in the truth, I doubt you possess the honesty to do anything about that badge of ignorance you are so proud of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #8)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 07:42 AM

85. I found this...

I found this earlier, but I already know the negative response that it will receive just due to the messenger. Never mind what the Hillary delegate said. It is always attack the messenger especially when one doesn't like the message. Falling on deaf ears and screaming into the abyss...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mouth of Chaos (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 08:54 PM

68. and the heading on the youtube is the same outright filthy lie it has always been

 

"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn your guns in" is NOT a quotation, it is a lie.

If you don't know it, you have had every opportunity to learn it in the years since the interview in which she said what she actually did say, about what she was actually talking about.

I knew I'd find this nugget of untruth in this thread if I looked. Never disappointed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Original post)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 12:49 PM

4. Here's one place to start........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #4)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:03 PM

10. Site is slightly biased

 

but a cute video. Liked the sy-fi video clips of "smart" ammo. Try for the original source and make sure it involves not just the purchase but the removal from owners of guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Original post)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:02 PM

9. You won't find such a quote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eddiepina (Reply #9)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:05 PM

11. But that is what I have been led to believe here.

 

You mean it isn't true, that people have been deceiving me and themselves?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #11)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:08 PM

14. There is a video showing a Senator willing to confiscate guns in this very thread.

 

President Obama openly supports a bill specifically called the "Assault Weapons BAN"

What is your confusion exactly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #14)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:10 PM

17. he's a gun grabber. They ignore any facts persented to them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crazy D (Reply #17)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:25 PM

26. I am trying to find the facts

 

I am not ignoring them. Please give me a non-biased written article, that is all I am asking for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #14)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 08:57 PM

69. if you're referring to Feinstein

 

... well, some people like to misrepresent what she said. I'm sure you're not doing that.

But for the rest, you are the one who seems confused, or perhaps, you know ... not quite candid.

You know as well as anyone else that the "assault weapons ban" never provided for confiscation of anything, nor do proposals to renew that "ban".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #69)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 09:04 PM

73. I know exactly what Feinstein said. That's why I directly quoted her.

 

The Assault Weapons BAN does indeed....get this...BAN Assault Weapons.

The expressly put that into the name of the bill to eliminate any confusion from all but the most idiotic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #73)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 11:19 PM

82. of course you did

 

Not in any way devoid of context, and not in any way failing to mention what you now add.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #82)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 11:45 PM

83. That is completely irrelevant.

 

She wants to confiscate guns.
This is a stone cold fact.

It is telling that you are so ashamed of this fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eddiepina (Reply #9)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:10 PM

18. Only if you are painfully ignorant. Here. Let me solve your ignorance.

 

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."--Dianne Feinstein

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #18)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:14 PM

20. OP asked for one within the last eight years.

Trust me, I believe DF is a POS, but it doesn't fit the criteria given.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eddiepina (Reply #20)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:17 PM

24. And I posted 1 from last month

Case closed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crazy D (Reply #24)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:27 PM

27. The VIDEO did not meet the requested criteria.

 

Please put me on your ignore list if you find that my asking simple questions upsets your sensibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #27)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:30 PM

28. You keep on moving those goalposts

You'll find most of us pro gun posters here seldom put grabbers on ignore, it's too much fun mocking their blatant stupidity and ignorance

Alert away...........it's the gun grabber way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crazy D (Reply #28)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:53 PM

34. Thank you the information on Australia

 

I was able to see what they did, why they did it, an what the effects were after the laws were passed. I can see why National Level politicians would want to look at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #34)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 03:04 PM

41. What were those effects?

I bet you don't really know nor have ever honestly researched those effects either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to .30M1 (Reply #41)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 03:16 PM

47. Actually the Wiki article

 

went into some detail concerning the drop in gun related crime and deaths (with expect result and included suicide) as well as the firearms classification system and permitting for certain class of weapons.

I have yet found a need for a semi-automatic weapon when I have gone hunting. If I don't hit my target in the first shot, then is should be allowed to flee, that puts the sport into hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #47)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 04:05 PM

53. Wiki? That's all you've got?

You do realize even high school students don't cite Wikipedia on research papers right? I guess since you are so limited you'll never figure out that the drop has no causative relationship to the 1996 firearms laws they passed.


I have yet found a need for a semi-automatic weapon when I have gone hunting.


And you are who exactly? One lone Fudd's opinion doesn't really mean anything, especially one born of a very poor understanding of shooting sports. Let me clue you in, your opinion on "need" is worthless to millions of others and has zero bearing on anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #47)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 09:47 PM

77. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Some people enjoy using semi-autos for hunting and still hit the target on their first shot. Your implication that those who use a semi-auto for hunting miss their shots is simply a contrived idea in your own mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #18)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 08:58 PM

70. oh, okay, you were referring to Feinstein

 

So what was Feinstein referring to?

You know, full disclosure and all that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #70)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 09:01 PM

71. Guns.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #71)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 09:04 PM

72. well, that's bold

 

Care to be just a tad clearer?

You know: all guns, twelve guns, your guns ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #72)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 09:18 PM

76. Here is a partial list of makes and models.

 

AK, AK47, AK47S, AK-74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR-47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms 47, VEPR, WASR-10, and WUM ,IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 AKS, AR-10, AR-15, Armalite MIS 22LR Carbine, AnnaliteM15-T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR-70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R-15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR-15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K- 1, K-2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1a1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT-9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM: Hi-Point Carbine: HK-91, HK- 93, HK-94, HK- PSG-1 and HK USC; Kei-Tec Sub-2000, SU-16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE-57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551, Springfield Armory SAR-48: Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M-14/20CF, Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson TIB, Thompson T1BJ00D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1-C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini, Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine, Centurion 39 AK pistol, Draco AK-47 pistol, AK-47 pistol, IO Inc. Hellpup AK-47 pistol, Krinkov pistol, Mini Draco AK-47 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, Doublestar Corporation AR pistol, DPMS AR-15 pistol, Olympic Arms AR-15 pistol, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol; Calico Liberty pistols; DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol; Encom MP-9 and MP-45; Heckler & Koch model SP-89 pistol; lntratec AB-10, TEC- 22 Scorpion, TEC-9, and TEC-DC9; Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol, MAC-10, MAC-11; Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPATactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol; Military Armament Corp. Ingram M-11, VelocityArms VMAC; Sig Sauer P556 pistol; Sites Spectre, Thompson TA5100, Thompson TA5;, Micro-UZI, IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12s EXP-01,IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12k-30, IZHMASH Saiga 12K-040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12, Franchi LAW-12 and SPAS 12

Specific enough?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #76)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 11:17 PM

80. that's what I like

 

Candour.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #80)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 11:47 PM

84. Indeed.

 

There is a reason why I am providing specific quotes, bills and the specifics within and you are merely making personal comments devoid of fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Original post)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:18 PM

25. We also have this illegal action:

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/ag_maura_healey_bans_sale_of_c.html

The attorney general of that state decided they get to ignore the legislative process and redefine a passed law to ban all semi-automatic rifles.

Now I know you are gonna say "well that isn't all guns", no but it is the ones that matter, the ones to keep tyranny in check. If I banned all cereal except captain crunch and corn flakes, I could pull the same thing and say "but I didn't ban all cereal"; completely disengenous.

Then, as others have pointed out to you, with Diane Feinstein and Hillary endorcing an Australian-style MANDATORY buy-back. The fact that you dismissed both of those shows me you just made a bait thread and have no real interest here.

So I'll leave it with this:

I goddamn double dare the anti-gunners to try an Australian style buy back. We will ignore it and they don't have the manpower or the balls to try and take our semi-automatic rifles. We would be locked, cocked, and ready to rock. Our property was purchased legally, it is expensive and ours to sell or keep. Anyone coming to take it will be treated as any criminal would trying to break into our homes and rob us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hades (Reply #25)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:36 PM

29. State level action, not federal.

 

And I have ask for specific information on the Australian Law to see what was involved.

Baited, you can say yes. As a discussion forum, I wanted an open the topic and get people to think. This is a quest for knowledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #29)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 02:57 PM

36. What exactly do you want me to think about?

Your strawman?
Nobody thinks a door to door search will ever happen but what is happening is Obama doing everything in his power through executive order to make things more difficult for us. While the rest of you grabbers have moved to more incremental steps at the state level.

Please show me a Democrat on the federal level that in the last 8 years has done more to expand my gun rights than restrict them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sam (Reply #36)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 03:08 PM

43. There probably isn't an elected Democrat at the Federal Level.

 

And you are right, no door to door search will ever happen, nor will the confiscation of legally owned guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #43)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 03:54 PM

52. Your third one has already

Happened a few times in different states.
And the only reason the rest haven't happed already is because of people like me stopping it from happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #29)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 03:00 PM

39. For the Australian confiscation:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html


And then from Wikipedia:

Australia had buyback programs in 1996 and 2003. Both programs were compulsory, and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government. Bought back firearms were destroyed.

The 1996 "National Firearms Buyback Program" took 660,959 firearms out of private hands comprising long guns, mostly semi-automatic rimfire rifles and shotguns as well as pump-action shotguns, and a smaller proportion of higher powered or military type semi-automatic rifles. Because the Australian Constitution requires the Commonwealth to pay "just compensation" for private property it takes over, the Government increased the Medicare levy from 1.5% to 1.7% of income for one year to finance the buyback program. The buyback was expected to cost A$500 million. The payments from the Commonwealth were conditional on the States and Territories introducing firearms laws and regulations consistent with the National Firearms Agreement. No licences for self-defense are allowed under these laws.

In 2003 new handgun laws made illegal target pistols of greater than .38 calibre and handguns with barrels less than 120mm (semi-automatic) or 100mm (revolvers) such as pocket pistols. With an exception for persons participating in International Shooting Sport Federation events, which count as Olympic and Commonwealth Games qualifiers, to access highly specialised target pistols which fail to meet the new barrel restrictions. The Coalition of Australian Governments agreed to this restricted use on the grounds that these highly specialised target pistols are large, visually distinctive and not readily concealable due to their overall size.




So to sum it up:

First they banned property people owned, then gave them a choice: sell it back (whatever that means, since the government never owned the guns in the first place) or keep it and go to jail if caught with the property you legally purchased, but the government just up and declared illegal.

On American soil, we won't play nice like the Australians did and just roll over on our bellies and hand over our property. Semi-automatic rifles are the current, updated version of the Musket. They keep us free. Now the anti-gunners can say "well the government has drones and nukes". Well then everyone, including them, loses when everyone on both sides and in between is blown up and there is nobody left to govern after the drones and nukes make America a wasteland. Otherwise you are talking a ground fight. I think Iraq shows how well that would work out.

I also find it amusing, when reading DU, to see the same people who bitch about not being able to trust police, because of police abuse, turn around and want only the cops to have guns. The mental gymnastics going on there is mind blowing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #29)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 03:10 PM

45. Why do you want something when you don't even think for yourself?

Seriously, you havn't provided anything original or even demonstrated a room temperature IQ on this topic. You obviously have no grasp of the history of this topic nor even a minimal understanding of the current legal landscape when it comes to firearms. Maybe you should go read and come back in a few years when you at least know something worth discussing here and can articulate an original argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to .30M1 (Reply #45)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 03:39 PM

49. Silly me,

 

All I asked from was some verifiable proof, after not finding any after my own long search, from those who should know. Imagine some silly old fart, who grew up on a farm around guns, that lived seven years in a drug infested ghetto (see attached article below), who hunts game in season, should know about the legal landscape of firearms. At least I haven't insulted the intelligence of anyone.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/13/philadelphia-s-kensington-avenue-heroin-prostitution-and-no-police.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #49)


Response to Model10RB (Reply #51)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 05:27 PM

58. Lived 7 years in no-man's land

 

3 blocks from Kensington Ave. 3 Drug killings, 1 drive by shooting and 2 arson fires within 100 ft of my house. Rent was reasonable, I was allowed to have my 4 dogs, and they didn't want to mess with me because they thought I was crazy for moving into the hood. Once we got to know everybody, things were o.k.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #58)


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #49)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 04:09 PM

54. Long research?

I doubt you spent more than 10 minutes on Google. I mean, you cited Wiki after all which is usually a first page result.


should know about the legal landscape of firearms.

Well, "should" is entirely different than "does". Guess you have a lot to learn and zero interest in actually learning. That's tough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to .30M1 (Reply #54)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 05:29 PM

59. Bring some facts to the topic and not opinions next time.

 

You assume way too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #59)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 05:31 PM

61. Facts have been brought in.

You just ignore them. You seem to have a serious problem with facts or believe your opinions are facts. Can't help you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Original post)


Response to Model10RB (Reply #46)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 03:27 PM

48. You are correct.

 

And as a liberal democratic registered (FOID) gun owner/hunter, I find the obsession over the confiscation of legal firearms way over blown. DF is also an idiot based on a lot of what she says, not just guns.

Thank you for your reasonable response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Reply #48)


Response to Model10RB (Reply #50)


Response to Model10RB (Reply #50)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 04:30 PM

56. did she or did she not say this about handguns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to W Va moonshiner (Reply #56)


Response to WritelyWrong (Original post)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 05:37 PM

62. Regardless of the occasional bit of bluster, it simply will never happen.

Confiscation of civilian firearms on a nationwide basis will never happen, regardless of whether some politicians are willing to make the attempt. Too large a percentage of the c. 85 million gun owners would resist. There are only c. 800,000 law enforcement personnel with arrest powers (that is, the armed kind) nationwide. Even assuming they all complied with orders (not happening...), you'd run out of cops in very short order. The military is prohibited by law from carrying out that sort of police action (and is far less likely than the cops to carry out such orders, anyway).

All but the most wide-eyed anti-gun zealot in politics is aware of this reality...so any confiscation talk is just that: talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tovera (Reply #62)


Response to Tovera (Reply #62)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 05:59 PM

65. ask the Bonus Marchers of july 29 ,1932 in washington D.C

whether Military troops will attack American citizens,the police was right there with the troops,Beginning in May, 1932, groups of World War I veterans began difficult journeys across the country, traveling in empty railroad freight cars, in the backs of trucks, in cars, on foot and by any other means that became available. By mid-June it was estimated that as many as 20,000 veterans and some family members had arrived in Washington, and were camping out,Then on July 29,1932,U.S troops with Douglas Macaurther in charge,did storm several buildings that the veterans were occupying as well as their main camp, setting tents on fire and forcing an evacuation. When it was over, one veteran had been killed and about 50 veterans and Washington police had been injured in various confrontations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to W Va moonshiner (Reply #65)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:37 AM

86. I think things have changed radically.

The current US military had taken on a marked conservative bent. While I find this problematic in multiple areas, in terms of gun confiscation, it's basically a deal-breaker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tovera (Reply #86)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:59 AM

87. I would say you would still get enough willing to obey orders things will go to pot

I read a interesting article someplace. If a sitting US president gave a unlawful order like that 30% of the military would follow it, 30% would actively rebel and the rest would stay in barracks for the 1st few days.

It's those remaining that will decide what happens. If they feel the order is to unlawful they'll "go home" to their families and fight for whatever side the majority supports where they call home.

Most of the "trigger pullers" would be pro gun, IMO. The more anti gun types will be REMF's with some training but not the level of the combat troops or even experienced civilian shoots like you and I.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crazy D (Reply #87)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 11:02 AM

88. Good analysis.

Those ratios seem spot-on.

FWIW, there is very little outside of a direct physical threat to my person that could make me open fire on another human being. Attempts at confiscation of civilian weapons is one of those things. And not to go all "Internet Tough Gal," but I'm pretty damn good at long range work...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tovera (Reply #88)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 11:53 AM

90. I have the same outlook at you

I know unless there is a direct physical threat against someone or myself I would never use a weapon....but if you want to confiscate my guns it's going to be bullets 1st!!.

Best long range I've ever done was 500 yards with this



Winchester Model 70 that was my uncles. My aunt used to have a nice farm back until the 90's and we had a 500 yard range set up. I used to be able to hit center mass all day long back then.

Best I can do now is 100 yards, no ranges longer than that near me (unless I pay $500 bucks a year to be a member of a club near me). I figure if I ever need it I should still be able to hit decent with it.

I figure it ever comes to gun grabbing I'll use a AR....I can carry more ammo that way.

I know here in Cincinnati my LEO friends are telling me pack extra mags. We've a LEO involved shooting case going to court here soon and there is a chance of a not guilty verdict (The UC Officer Shooting last year).

There's things in the case that support a manslaughter charge, but their trying for a 1st degree murder charge and that won't stick (drugs in the car, known dealer with a history of weapons charges).

It could get sporty here.........Last time we had riots my sister worked in town and I had to pick her up, this is right before we got CCW in Ohio. I carried a Browning Hi Power in a open carry holster plus a M-1 Carbine when I picked her up....and the cop who saw me just nodded his head and told me get out of Dodge as fast as possible

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crazy D (Reply #90)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 08:30 PM

95. That's a beauty!

Last edited Mon Aug 1, 2016, 05:10 PM - Edit history (1)

.30-06? Whatever the chambering, that's a treasure...and damned effective.

I don't have a centerfire semi-auto rifle, actually. But I've shifted to doing a fair bit of Precision Rifle lately, so I think I'm learning a few things about what makes bolt-actions like mine effective in less-controlled tactical situations: the actual physical circumstances of the matches varies so much (compared to, say, NRA High Power Rifle), and seems limited only by how nasty-minded the match director is. =P

With my real ballistic advantage starting at, say, 700m on out, I'm not exactly well-equipped if I'm the actual target of a confiscation attempt (and I'd be a complete idiot to try and fight with nothing more than a 1911, even if they failed to achieve surprise). But in support of others, well...I don't see any point in being coy about it: I would resist.

Not that I remotely expect such a horrible contingency. As previously discussed, with the exception of what I strongly believe would be a relatively small minority of police officers, there's simply no one to carry it out against the inevitable violent resistance. The majority of politicians (and even a lot of gun control advocates) recognize the non-feasibility of a ban paired with proactive enforcement. Which works for me; I have zero desire to ever shoot at another human being.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tovera (Reply #95)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 08:39 PM

96. It's 30-06, it's a early "post 64" Model.

I need to shoot it more often (and get more ammo for it, I've only 200 rounds on hand). It doesn't "feel" right because it was my uncles rifle, not mine.

I'm like you, I'd hate to have to use a weapon but I have way too much money tied up in them (I'd say close to $50.000 bucks with some the pieces my uncle had being worth big bucks), that's what I have them insured for.

I also figure at 57 years old I'd not last long if it ever comes to a SHTF situation (bad foot) but I ain't just rolling over for anyone wanting to turn me into a instant criminal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tovera (Reply #62)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 11:13 AM

89. Only a few departments would get giddy over the idea.

The NYPD, LAPD and the CPD would be the police departments that would salivate at the idea of kicking down doors, as they are the departments with the most violent records on mistreating people.

But they could never enforce things all over the nation. The second they stepped out of their comfort zone into a redneck state, they would be slaughtered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hades (Reply #89)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 12:52 PM

91. Maybe not so much, even in Chicago

The street cops here are all pro citizen concealed carry and pro gun. They have even done cross promotions with the Illinois State Rifle Assn.

The street cops know the difference between the scum gang bangers and the honest citizens that have their backs, even when the mayors throw them under the bus.

But the top brass in every department is a "political" position and they have to follow the prevailing winds of the far left Dem mayors that hired them.

Here's the "underground" street cop blog for Chicago. It;s run by a handful of regular street cops, not their union or an official city department thing. In fact the top cop has tried to shut it down several times and failed. Most cities have something like this if you want to know how the regular cops in the city feel about things.

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DP46 (Reply #91)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 08:09 PM

94. That blog's pretty intense.

Doesn't exactly pull its punches, does it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Original post)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 01:24 PM

92. what Sen. Dianne Feinstein said, PER the NRA-ILA

 

https://www.nraila.org/articles/19990728/gun-control-gun-prohibition

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban <on "assault weapons">, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
CBS 60 Minutes,
Feb. 5, 1995

This would be because the interview in question was ABOUT the ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN, and nothing else.

Just in case anyone wanted to be misled by anyone attempting to mislead them into thinking that Feinstein was proposing an "outright ban" on FIREARMS.

~ iverglas, debunking gun militant falsehoods since 2001 ... and that particular one since at least 2004.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #92)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:19 AM

99. I agree that her quote is frequently misused. "All" she wants to do is confiscate the most popular

rifles in America....so when someone says "No politicians are saying that they want your guns", the quote can still be used as evidence that some anti-gun politicians are indeed advocating outright confiscation of many firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #92)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 06:43 AM

114. So you agree she wants to ban the most popular sporting rifle in America as defense?

Let me get this liberal mindset straight.

In response to someone claiming liberals want to ban guns you defend that by pointing out they only want to ban the most popular and commonly owned sporting rifles in the world....as if that clarification makes such a suggestion less of a 2A problem?

My AR15 is "in common use" in every single state in this nation and there are millions of them owned by law abiding citizens and legally purchased them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Original post)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 01:35 PM

93. No one is after my guns, I am not a criminal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sentient_simian (Reply #93)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 11:57 PM

100. simian ,not yet.....BUT!

it only takes the stroke of a pen to change ,your legal guns into illegal guns,just like cali,and mass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sentient_simian (Reply #93)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 10:50 AM

101. Neither were 400.000 people in Connecticut until 2013

Nor 200.000 in Massachusetts until a couple weeks ago when 1 person decided she can write laws without the state legislatures having any say in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Original post)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 07:51 AM

97. I don't have a quote to present.

There may be one, but I wouldn't know where to find it.

I don't feel a quote is necessary to prove that the effort is being made, because there is actual legislation being passed. New York, Connecticut and, even within the past month, California are doing exactly what you are talking about on the state level.

It is happening right in front of us. I don't know how much more concrete the evidence could be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Original post)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 08:02 AM

98. If you live in a county in which the sheriff is elected....

....you are in a much better situation.

It's the Police Departments (not Sheriff's Departments) that like to swagger around as if they had little to no oversight.

They can be pricks.

(IMHO/YMMV/based on my own experience only)

Cops outside of their immediate jurisdiction can pretty much be told to go F--K themselves....

Cops from other states can seriously be told to go to a F--K themselves. Once they leave their own state, their uniform turns into a Halloween costume.

(Reminds me of the story where the New Jersey troopers were down south for Katrina, stopped in somewhere for a break, and started hassling a group of people for open carry. It would have taken weeks to try out all the anatomical positions that were suggested to the troopers.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Original post)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 11:12 PM

102. FULL STOP!!!!! I DO NOT HAVE TO BE REGISTERED TO OWN A GUN !!!!!!!!

As long as I qualify I do not need permission from you or anyone else to exercise my 2A rights.

Take your hitler crap and put it where it will never be sunburned.

I'll ask permission to own guns when you have to ask permission to talk!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #102)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 06:11 PM

103. Liberals...

Tend to think the laws in the locations they visit on the weekends....

Are the same as the laws in their liberal hellholes.

I live several hours drive from a major metro area with shitty gun laws.

I have to hold in my laughter when tourists react to my openly carried handgun.

As I leave the trail to get back in my car, I sign out of the trail register.

It's become a hobby of mine to try to match the names and hometowns in the trail register with the most liberal looking hikers I saw on the trail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Model10RB (Reply #103)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 06:17 PM

104. I will simply tell them if they do not like our culture, the way we do things here, leave quickly.

I've been "SWAT'd" by a liberal who didn't have a clue. It did not go as she expected, it didn't go well for her either.

When you file a report and sign your name to it saying that someone has a handgun and swear you saw the gun clearly and it turns out to be a holster only....

False statement to law enforcement. I walked as they were questioning her. Yes, I did laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #104)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 06:25 PM

105. In my area....

It happens so often the 911 dispatcher tells them to call back when they see a real crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Model10RB (Reply #105)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 07:19 PM

106. This was local and I know the cop

I was in full gear minus my sidearm in safeway getting deli lunch food and this lady circled me three times looking at me with her phone in her hand and up to her ear.

After I figured out what was going on I went outside on the sidewalk and I stood in one place until LE arrived.

The cop talked to me and told me what had been said on the 911 call and I asked him to get her to put it in writing and sign it. He told her that he needed a detailed exact account of what she saw and that she had to sign it or they would not/could not charge me. She lied on paper and signed it.

False report, citation issued, and an interview with the DA..... It cost her a couple hundred dollars in fines plus court costs.

My actions were the result planning ahead of time what to do if SWAT'd.

Keep your cool and insist to LEO that they put their lies on paper and sign it. Then use the power of their zealot attitudes, Law Enforcement and courts to reverse the flow and make them pay for their lies.

This lady actually told the cop that I was baiting her and threatening her by just standing there. She had no idea that I was staying in view so I could not have stashed a gun anywhere. Dumb lady....

It is OK to laugh but you have to wait until the right time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #106)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 07:30 PM

107. "I was in full gear"

What's full gear for you?

Was anything you were wearing sending out signals that you may want to avoid going forward?

Luckily, I have never had that type of problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Model10RB (Reply #107)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 08:21 PM

108. duty belt, suspender/harness , mag pouch, cuffs, flashlight, mace, the required gear

I did not have my vest on or shirt on I still had an hours drive to get to work and it was hot. I displayed no ID because I had zero jurisdiction or authority there. My weapons were in the safe underneath the backseat of my superduty. One of my bite dogs was providing additional security in the backseat.

The lady really thought she was going to cause me more problems about my dog being locked in a hot truck too. The truck was parked, locked, running with the AC on. Every professional handler knows how to do this. All it takes is an extra key and a screen to keep the dog away from the gear shift.

We live way north of all the cities in cali. This gal thought she could impose her BS PC San Francisco liberal attitude on me and the cop. It did not work and she had a very bad snowflake day.

I never even said a single word to this lady. I walked out of Safeway before her and walked to the front center of the store an just stood there. I did not approach her, I just innocently watched her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #108)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 08:37 PM

109. So it was uniform items that got her in a bunch.

I'm thinking she made you as some kind of LE/security and had a problem with that.

Not the other way around. Not an illegally armed civilian. Liberals are mostly crazy but not stupid.

There's a nut job lady in my area who screams at anyone wearing a military uniform.

POSSE COMITATUS !!! POSSE COMITATUS !!!



Holy shit, California. That place is nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Model10RB (Reply #109)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 09:13 PM

110. cali has several very different cultures.

We are far from the cities. We are two hours north of Sacramento and this is rice farms, fruit, nut, and olive orchards country. There are more cows in this county than people. The main problem for the locals is interstate 5 brings us a steady flow of liberal city idiots.

The vast majority of counties here are conservative. Condensed in the cities are the majority of voters and they are liberal lunatics. The rest of the state has little or no representation at state level or at election time so we are pretty screwed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #110)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 09:20 PM

111. I'm am about as far from there geographically as one can get (almost) in the US.....

But I feel your pain.

Every time I see a car from the city in a hiking trail parking area.

I feel your pain.

(It's the license plate frames with the town and phone number of the car dealer the car was purchased at that gives it away)

Unless of course it's a car from a lovely state nearby that will go un-mentioned.

Ugghhhh.

We call them yellow plates.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Original post)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 05:10 PM

115. And....

 

not one coherent answer to your question in this thread.

Says a lot about scare tactics, doesn't it....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WritelyWrong (Original post)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 05:14 PM

116. They are not so stupid as to come out and say it

If you really think hundreds of federal politicians would not do it in a heartbeat if they could get away with it, you are either naïve or dishonest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Culturegunssexroakamproll