cheapest I’ve found a brick has been $30. Before Sandy Hook, I coulda bought the same one for $20. I’ve seen them at gun shows, and some smaller shops, selling them for $60~70.
Also, one man’s arsenal is another man’s collection.
I think PBO is just following PGWB lead.
Readit and weep.
If it wasn’t for the daylight savings time extension. I’d be a lot grumpier than I am, seeing as how we just had 9" of snow a couple days ago. I don’t remember the rift between Hillary and PBO but they must have ironed out their differences in it.
With a well armed man in charge we have nothing to fear.
The NRA’s man in charge keeps us safe.
Rod, that reminds me of the time when working, I was called out at 2am to break up a drunken party involving about 30 young adults. In the parking lot, many of them surrounded me and ask, " so cop, what are you going to do now, shoot us all with your little six shooter. I said, " no, I would never think about it. I can either call the dispatch to send the state police and officers from the surrounding communities who are now waiting for my call, or , instead, I think I’ll just call the city tow trucks and have all your cars confiscated for being parked illegally as I have just closed this area down. Your choice…we can sit and talk while you watch your cars get taken away…" they all immediately jumped into their cars. I called for back up and we started picking up, stopping and detaining the most " inpaired" one at a time for OUI. The “two way radio” is mightier then the gun. Unfortunately, people put too much emphasis on the last thing you need to think about for protection; the firearm. Everyone has many more options.
@dagosa it is a scary world out there sometimes. Did not realize you were a part of the force. My hats off to you, and people are crazy! We are a small bedroom community, there are neighborhoods the emt’s will not go without police presence due to bricks and rocks etc. any lights are bad lights I guess.
These situations are illustrations why the NRA is so off base about about promoting and arming civilians to the hilt, even legally in crowded places. Many people drink, many get emotional, many people act differently in a crowd and most are untrained. Arming teachers in a school full of kids does make a weapons permit insufficient to protect others. This is why in most cass, being unarmed and fleeing is usually safest and having trained agencies protect you in confined areas with fewer guns overall tends to work better. Of course, that would reduce gun sales…
In making stops, we were trained to approach every car like the driver was armed. In this day and age, it seems that too many are, all stoked up on the idea that the govt. is out to get you and is stopping you to harass you instead of protect someone else…all thanks to the NRA and gun maker indirectly sponsored “fear the govt. tripe.”
Dag, thank you for your kind words. I respect your views too, although I do tend to disagree with many of the political conclusions.
The point you ended your post on is one that I would have to add a “caveat” to agree with. I would say that no state or city or county law can have any affect on the guns coming into their jurisdiction for criminal purposes. State, city, and county laws can have a definite effect on guns coming into a jurisdiction for use by law abiding citizens. Therein is the “rub”…gun laws only regulate the law abiding.
I would extend that thought to federal laws. Federal gun control laws can only hamper the law abiding. The fear, whether talking federal, state, or local laws, is the possibility of disarmament of the law abiding (the victim pool). Visit the Declaration on Independence, specifically the list of greivances against the King of England, and the reason behind the second amendment will become apparent.
@same
" Therein lies the rub…gun laws only regulate the law abiding."
“federal laws can only hamper the law abiding”
Thank you for being susinct in your thoughts. I appreciate that. First, you are completely correct about the gun laws only regulating the law abiding. But, there in lies the “other” rub. Not only citizens without criminal records, but the manufacturing segment itself are wittingly conduits to criminal use of guns. Straw sales by legal gun buyers are THE big problem where those without criminal records buy guns and pass them on which ultimately find their way in the hands of those who should not have them and cannot past a background check. Those without records can buy them fom dealers who legally are now not required to notify the federal govt. when individual sales reach numbers that any reasonable person would say is un realistic.
We are discussing federal laws only for the following thoughts…
When I a legal buyer, buy from a gun dealer and am restricted to say, two guns per month, and must justify more, how does that hamper me or most average gun owners ? If others want more, to resell, they should acquire a FFL license. When I resell my gun privately and am required to transfer the weapon through a dealer, just like I would if it were mailed across state lines and require that the new owner pass a back ground check and the gun be reregistered to this new owner, how would that hamper me ?
You and I can still buy weapons from a dealer, including a machine gun which requires a special one time licensing fee and reregistering if we sell it. That won’t change.
You and I are used to registering guns with a dealer and doing a background check with a dealer already. I have been doing this with a plethora of guns for over 40 years I personally find security in buying guns this way I can’t from private sales. It would not hamper me in the least or cause me any distress if I had to conduct all my sales the same way, private, gun shows or what ever and have it pass a background check for a nominal fee by an FFL dealer. It does not hamper me in the least. IMVHO, it will only hamper those with intent or complete lack of care that guns fall into the wrong hands. Having that requirement has taken the machine gun for all practical purposes out of the hands of the criminal for prevalent use. Other then the high licensing fee of $200 which need not be included and should not, doing similar to a lesser level for all guns would not hamper me in the least.
My good friend, how would it hamper you ?
As far as revisiting the list of grievances of the King of England 200 plus years since, I live in the here and now and Feel we live in a world where our 200 year advanced technology to kill must be regulated more than it is now. I would hope 200 years from now, we would be just as vigilant.
The pro gun crowd are becoming comical. Their leadership seems to be rushing to support the paranoid crowd.
Currently, Dag, there are no federal laws that would hamper me. Or, in NH, state laws either. However I believe that it’s good that we have an organization challenging federal regulators when they attempt to pile oversight on an area (including gun control) in response to the outcries of single issue public protest groups. Unfortunately we have no such “check & balance” to the EPA, Homeland Security, or (a sire of theirs) the fabulous TSA. All three are now wildly out of control, as regulatory agencies unchallenged will become. The EPA’s reach has now gotten to where it prevents coastal residents from allowing their homes to be destroyed by coastal storms by putting natural stone wavebreaks between their houses and the raging surf. TSA is so out of control that children cannot bring Mickey Mouse snow globes home from Disneyworld with them. TSA agents made a 95 year old wheelchair-bound lady remove her Depends as a part of their shakedown, yet agents testing the system got on board with dummy bombs.
If you think unchallenged gun regulations would not get out of hand, I disagree. I cannot think of one unchallanged federal regulatory agency that has not.
My point in suggesting a visit to the Declaration of independance was to put the Second Amendment as well as the Tenth Amendment into context. Lack of resourse for an out of control government abusing our right is the foundation on which the country was founded. The 2nd Amendment was added specifically to ensure that no central government would be able to disarm us as the British troed to do with the colonists. The 10th Amendment was added specifically to ensure that laws not specifically designated by the Constitution to the federal givernment would be the sole jurisdiction of the states. Gun laws should properly be the pervue of the states. The feds should only be involved in the interstate sale of guns by virtue of the Interstate Commerce Clause. The feds proper role beyond that is, IMHO, to establish a central datbase for states to access in the enforcemnet of their own state laws,
Here here. Agree TSM. Well said. I havn’t fired a gun in 30 years, so not exactly your wacko NRA crowd, but liberties are easily lost.
Thanks Bing. I agree, liberties are easily lost of we’re not judicious about ensuring that they’re not. And once lost, rarely are they regained.
Food for thought:
Limiting magazine capacity and restricting ownership seems much like speed limits and driver testing. I-95 isn’t the place for a Maseratti/Lamborgini duel with 14 year olds driving. People with good sense know how to limit themselves for the protection of themselves and the public. Those without good sense require some external, enforced limitations with consequences for over stepping the bounds. The Zimmerman/Martin case makes it evident that law abiding, well meaning people can let the power of a firearm and self appointed authority get them in way over their heads in a hurry.
And as for the homicide rate. Isn’t it true that the federal government has eliminatied investigation of firearm deaths other than justifiable homicide in self defense?
I hear you @same. I have no response to the slippery slope argument or we are better off now with gun violence as doing nothing is our only prerogative because of the past history of our federal gov being out of control.
And, that the second amendment was written to protect ourselves against our own central govt. is a complete misreading of words like, “militia”, whether they be organized at the state level or not, referred to a central govt. . prerogative at a time as there was no standing army, and “regulate” when it was the central govt. responsibility to regulate and direct during the revolutionary war. The word “people” is the collective term for right to bear arms as it appears in the 2 nd amendment and “person” is no where to be found. Person(s) is reserved in the entire bill of rights and subsequent amendments for personal rights. People is for collective rights. Please re read the 2 nd amendment. The states organized the militia for use by the federal govt. much like the national guard is today only now under joint effort…
And, the is a misreading of the tenth amendment which states that powers not granted to the central govt. can then be addressed by the states. Obviously, if the central govt. decides to exercise their rights in the regulatory process, that supersedes that of the states…pretty straight forward.
Can you tell me of one instance where the federal govt . has ever confiscated legally owned guns ! The strictest federal gun laws proposed does not hamper any one who can pass a background check from owing a gun of his choice…including a machine gun. That’s about as un hampered as you can get. But, if people are afraid of the federal govt. , I have no answer. Some will always be afraid of something. That’s just the nature of fearful people.
I know I mentioned this awhile back, but this is a really stupid idea. I haven’t seen anyone on the pro-gun side who thought this was a good idea:
Side note; got my Nagant today, and opening up the surplus ammo cans is a pain in the rear, and quite heavy(65lbs was the shipping weight for the bulk order)
Don’t know anything about this but this just popped up on a simple confiscation search. Wake up folks if you think this isn’t the ultimate goal-oh but for our own good. We could be a danger to ourselves.
SALT LAKE CITY — Utah’s dubious distinction as one of the leading states for suicide could be linked to its high rate of gun ownership and political conservatism, according to a newly released study.
WOW after we outlaw guns, next anything goes.